New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Oh yeah and that is because I've done something wrong? No - it's simply because you disagree with my statement here against @filemedia
You forget at least two universities (caltech/Indiana). Both must be contacted. Heavier scan can cause complete ip subnet blocks, so this issues must be addressed very fast. But he can scan with his instances, drop the instance and get a new ip address. Other customers get this address and have problems. So this ip addresses can be shared very fast.
But this is not the case, we do not support any of this activities.
@Nyr - changed your mind about the refund yet? I think it was inevitable you got suspended.
If you want to do that kind of thing, for whatever reason.... you'll need to find a more suited host, or hosts.
Nyr is "on trial" because he was the reason the IP got blacklisted. Gray area actions can be held as legal or illegal and it is up to the provider to determine it. Obviously one of his targets believed it was malicious and now the IP is on a blacklist because of him. The provider now has to face damages and make efforts to remove the IP off the blacklist because of Nyr's childishness.
According to a previous comment, the IP has ended up on a blacklist. The fact that he was port scanning a university is questionable enough. The university deemed his scanning as malicious and now his provider has to take responsibility.
@Nyr, if you're really not a child then stop acting like one. Next time verify with your provider and the target of your port scanning whether they give you permission to do so. And if you really aren't a child and you're doing this because of "summer boredom" then get a job.
It was on a blacklist for email spam which he obviously wasn't doing.... so please tell me more.
Read the thread, http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=62.113.205.219&.pubmit=Lookup, added based on port scans and NOT on spamming. But removed yet.
No, by lurking around for a while reading posts and making my mind up. You are definately not alone, though
How is that relevant when scanning ports is not illegal or against @filemedia 's ToS. You are reading your own assumptions into this situation and not dealing with the facts.
Please tell me where he got permission from CalTech to scan their ports. Or better yet how about you host him instead?
Not really, but I don't really care. I just think this was handled wrong by both of us.
That would be the work of a judge, I suppose.
It was a FALSE POSITIVE since it hit a honeypot. I removed the blacklist myself so no work for the provider there.
Why should I if I don't need to. I prefer not to spend my life working all the day long and for now it's working fine this way.
I Demand a Trial by Combat!
As a filemedia customer, I am quite happy to hear
You and @luis12345620 should really get to know each other.
I find it a bit bizarre btw, that the provider get heat for this. OP, even if respected on this forum and only did it because "he was bored", was doing clown stuff he shouldn't have.
Edit: Imagine if one of the official forum clowns did this?
You hitted the spot, pal. That's a bad joke, considering Spain's financial problems
You don't have any right to speak about my life choices. But now that you ask, I do work on my own from time to time and it's enough to sustain myself. Maybe you expect to have a full and glorious life until you're 80 years old but unfortunately that's not my situation so I couldn't care less about what you think about it.
A job as a young person in Spain haha! That's a great joke!!
This is not a trial, not for NYR or Filemedia. This is just a discussion forum. But, we all have our opinion and, even if I did criticize filemedia in an older thread for another issue (I am a customer, also), it this case I think they have a right there...
@Nyr Logical ports are a physical property. A web site is a physical property. A song is a physical property. Anything that we own is a physical property, even if it is intangible. It is simply the law in any country in any part of this planet. So, if you tried to scan the ports of my computer trying to see anything from there, I would informed the local authorities and my ISP.
Not trying to offend you, but you are wrong here. I don't know you and you maybe have the best intentions, maybe you don't. No criminal would ever say to the public, "hey guys, I'm going to rob a bank".
This is not legal. Whatever anybody has or using with their computer is private, theirs, not yours.
P.S. I saw your cooking and not impressed, but I loved your dog!
You must be doing that all day long then, since I suppose you are getting plenty of scans daily on any of your servers
Not mine, my flatmate's. A shame that I had to leave that place since no one did ever clean.
Of course I don;t do it because I am not searching it. I know that this is be done several times a day, that does not mean that I approve it. If I was a crazy tech all day long on my computer and did have plenty of time, maybe I would do it in some cases. But I did report 2-3 times a repeated port scanning to some of my boxes out there to my vps providers, when I noticed what was happening in logs.
I don't think you've mentioned the scale of the port scan. Was it the entire Ipv4 space, multiple ports?
Many ranges, a single port.
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/693105/#Comment_693105
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/telecom/index_en.htm#new_rules
Damn, is this real? Which stonehead decided this was a good idea? It will make selling services to EU end users damn complicated.
this.
AFAIR to charge VAT in another EU country you'll then need a VAT-ID from that country, not the one from your own country... but probably we have to wait and see what our governments will write into the laws to implement the new directives (and when).
This whole thread is hilarious on so many levels, but also very very very sad. I was stumped when I researched the legality of port scanning and found out that it is indeed implicitly illegal to do so in my country (I'm from germany) and probably a couple of others as well.
This is beyond f**ked up. This is like making it illegal to own and use cutlery because it may lead to someone getting stabbed.
Don't like someone making a connection to your port? Maybe you shouldn't have opened it in the first place.
Someone used a known exploit to bypass the (limited) security of your VNC server? That sucks.. hard! But I could've told you that it was going to happen sooner or later, that you should have had some sort of authentication/additional line of defense in front of it (service listening on ::1 + ssh tunnel, listening on internal IP + require VPN to access, etc...).
But thats an inconvenience, right? You can't open a service to the world and then blame the other party when you personally fail at putting simple security precautions in place.
Would a bank put its vault in the foyer?
But that's just my opinion on laws like that. I think @Nyr 's curiosity ended up as a stupid mistake anyone could have made. It's a shame the provider won't refund since it looks like there's no lasting damage. I'm certainly going to think twice about ordering any kind of hosting product in my own country again.
AFAIK that by itself is a crime under § 202a and § 202b of the German criminal code.
The real world equivalent is that even when someone forgets to lock their front door, you are still not allowed to walk into the house and start taking pictures.
The real world equivalent is that you knock on their doors and meight look through their windows... No, this is not a bad thing meight be rude, but not bad.
Beat a dead horse dead
No, he actually entered and make screenshots.
I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone would need to port scan an external server without permission from the owner of that server. This is a pretty open and shut case. Port scanning external hosts is obviously abusive behavior and is well-known as such.
The host already stated at the beginning of the thread the service would be unsuspended if the port scanning stopped. It seems like this whole thread is unnecessary. Terms of service do not have to cover illegal activity and while having a law against port scanning may be questionable, it does not seem completely unreasonable. Just because a server is accessible does not mean you have to right to do what you want to it. If a web site is put up, then obviously it is meant for public use and you can access that like you would a store front, however, just putting up a service on a server does not mean you can try to access that port without consequences, especially well-known private services like VNC and SSH. It would be like looking around the back office at a store. It obviously isn't permitted to the public.