()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

Ok, repeating what I said in the CB...

A "port scanner" is like a "ping scanner". Most admins I know see these as primarily hackerz toolz for the script kiddies to find the next box to crack.

While I appreciate the effort of /dev/null, I don't want the Monastery to be seen as a place that harbors or supports warezkiddies and scriptkiddies.

And that was my initial reaction to this post.

Beyond that, I don't mind "reinvention of the wheel" if it is clear that the post is for comment only, and that the poster has clearly surveyed the area in which he or she is reinventing. I didn't see that happening here, although I could certainly be wrong. It looked like a tool written by someone who wasn't aware of existing cool tools already occupying the space. If the description had included "this duplicates one of the functions of nmap, but I just wanted to see if I could write it", I'd have no complaints (along that axis, but the warez comment still stands regardless).

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

Port scanners are an area that I am not very familiar with. The code looks clean if rather simplistic. I'm not particularly worried about the threats it might pose to my computer.

It could be argued that providing links to a better "lock-pick" brings as much if not more risk to end users if that is one's primary concern. It could also be argued that your attack on the node in question brought needless attention to something that otherwise would have quietly vanished into a trivial oblivion.

The only issue that concerns me when it comes to the consideration of Perl code is any legal threats that it might pose for the Monastery. I do understand and appreciate your concerns as to the reputation of the Monastery and wonder how such issues can be addressed given the current state of the law in this country.

My personal opinion is that this sort of thing falls under the area of the gods. It is their house, and they have to most to loose.

()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

No disrespect meant here Randall, however, I think that you are in the wrong here. I see that you have good intentions, but you need to look at this from a different light. He didn't come here flaming that he's the king hax0r and that this code is what he used to crack his neighbors box. He put some effort into this, and wanted to show what he learned, and get some "constructive" criticism.

I'm not saying that I don't see your point, however I think that the way you approached it doesn't encourage learning. This of course, is only my opinion.

-- Can't never could do anything, so give me and inch, I'll make it a mile.

Merlin: One thing => At first you state that most sysadmins think that port scanners are a crackers tools, yet your latter post uses the word 'cool' to describe a 'crackers tool'. It seems slightly hypocritical to say that you don't want to see "...The Monastary to be ... as a place that harbors or supports warezkiddies and scriptkiddies", yet you are willing to support insecure.org's nmap. Aren't you supporting those 'kiddies' by trying to spread awareness of nmap (which is a very powerful tool). So is there any difference betwixt /dev/null's writing of a portscanner or you advocating a powerful one?

I have no objection to the function of this code, but surely on this site the focus should be on the use of Perl.

If the script provided additional functionality (e.g. using Spreadsheet::WriteExcel to present a report on all hosts on a network), or was presented for use in situations where nmap was not available (e.g. using Perl on a Psion netBook to check security on a wireless network), then it should be posted here.

As it is, I do not see that value is being added.

Update:
Although on the other hand I may have refuted my own argument - without this node, I would not necessarily have thought about the two examples I gave.

It's late...

JJ