[comp.admin.policy] Groups 1, 2, and 3

chip@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Charles H. Buchholtz) (06/26/91)

In article smoot@woodstock.berkeley.edu (Stephen [Steve] R Smoot) writes:
>This seems to be partially the same issue as whether randomly trying
>"guest" accounts is abuse.  The problem is that some people offer services
>to the rest of the community, and there must be a way to get to them.  Thus
>guest and anonymous ftp were created (Necessity being the mother of
>invention and all that.).
>
>There seem to be three kind of sites:
>	1) ones with *publically* available stuff they want *anyone* to use.
>	2) ones which want to export to *certain known users*.
>	3) ones with no interest in others contacting them/using their
>          resources.

It's not that testing every machine for anon-FTP or guest accounts is
in itself abuse; it's that many people cannot imagine any motivation
for doing so *except* abuse, so they consider it very suspicious, even
incriminating, behavior.

First of all, it boggles my mind that people would actually ftp to an
arbitrary list of sites to see if they had anonymous FTP.  I can't see
a person saying, "Hmmm, I wonder what games are available public
domain.  Guess I'll start ftping to every host and maybe I'll happen
to hit a machine at random that happens to have anonymous FTP and
happens to have games."  It seems so much easier to find out where to
look rather than searching blindly.

I'm not saying that this is evil behavior; it just never occurred to
me that anyone would ever do this.

It did occur to me, however, that people trying to break into machines
might say, "OK, I know of common security holes in badly set up
anonymous FTP and guest accounts.  Highly visible sites probably have
these plugged, but maybe there are some sites around that don't get
accessed by "strangers" and don't worry about security.  So I'll try
every single site to see if I can find one that I can hack."

After reading this group for a while, I realize that some people
actually do find anon-FTP sites by brute force trial and error.  I
still don't understand it, though.

Here's a true story: I used to work for a medium size academic
department (call it "bar.edu").  Most of the machines were run by
whichever research group used them, and I supplied support when they
needed it.

One day, someone from the military contacted us saying that
"guest@foo.bar.edu" had been systematically trying to break into one
of their computers.  I contacted the sysadmin for foo.bar.edu who
said, "We only have two accounts on that machine: root and guest.
Guest has no password.  The machine is only used to collect data from
experimental devices; since no individual work is done on it, we don't
need individual accounts.  I realized that anyone could log into the
machine, but why would they?  Besides, how could they find out about
it?  I can't believe someone would go around trying every machine on
the net looking for an open guest account."


I am posting as an individual, not as a representative of U. of P.

Charles H. Buchholtz       Systems Programmer     chip@seas.upenn.edu
	      School of Engineering and Applied Science
		      University of Pennsylvania