Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IRC in the Dog House?

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the falling-out-of-favor dept.

The Internet 94

Emperor Tiberius asks: "It seems more and more dedicated server companies are turning tail to the idea of hosting IRC machines. Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged. Why is IRC (the once applauded chat medium) being thrown to the dogs? Some might say the horrendous botnets written for the protocol are a part of the problem. However, if we were to shut down the IRC protocol. Isn't it theoretically possible the botnet authors would just migrate to a different protocols like Oscar/AIM, ICQ, ICB, Jabber, just to name a few? If so, how would we manage the problem? Would we shutdown all ICB servers, and cut-off the ICQ network? Are we trying to kill off the problem in the wrong way, or is there a compromise to keep IRC alive, and keep botnets away?"

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Give me 0ps, d00d! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149690)

#first_post on Slashnet

I remember.... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149715)

I remember IRC back when the main system, efnet, only had about 700 users on it. Even then, it was a constant storm of splits, lag, and maneovers and assassinations by swarms of killer 'bots.

Last time I checked in, the bots had gotten more powerful, and things had taken a nasty turn where nicknames were commandeered and others who dared to use them got punished.

You want Skynet? Terminator: Rise of the Machines? Just witness how bot evolution calcified IRC.

Re:I remember.... (2, Interesting)

magores (208594) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150317)

IRC was my first intro to being online...

1) Cute ChanOP that I met. (I actually met her, and she WAS cute.)
2) Being nuked by some other guy that decided he loved her.
3) War scripts (defense only, of course)

Damn, those days were fun.

Re:I remember.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150869)

1) Cute ChanOP that I met. (I actually met her, and she WAS cute.)

Uh huh. Next you're going to tell us you weigh less than 250 pounds and don't have an incredibly painful-to-look-at complexion. Whatever.

Re:I remember.... (1)

magores (208594) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150916)

Remember, this was quite a few years ago...

It was more like 150 lbs with an incredibly painful-to-look at complexion

Nowdays....

Re:I remember.... (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151702)

It was more like 150 lbs with an incredibly painful-to-look at complexion

I've come across a couple of channel/server owners who were very cute. One in particular was also a phototgrapher who could have easily been a model. It's all the more surprising when you don't expect it.

On the net, nobody knows you're a dog... but they don't know if you're drop-dead gorgeous either.

Real reason (4, Insightful)

bobthemonkey13 (215219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149717)

It's not because of the botnets directly, but rather beacuse IRC servers tend to attract massive amounts of abuse (DDoS attacks, etc) that can be a huge pain for hosting companies.

Re:Real reason (4, Insightful)

damu (575189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149777)

It is not that the IRC server are being singeled out, if the IRC servers are gone, then tomorrow is going to be the freenet nodes, or the DC networks, etc, etc. The problem is not removing the targets, but getting rid of the shooters. dam

Re:Real reason (2, Informative)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150233)

Indeed. If/when a responsible IRC network like Freenode goes away, I imagine it will be because of better means of communication or a lack of interest. When you run your IRC server in a way that people can exploit it for their evil doings (ok, over simplification!) it's no surprise people will avoid it.

Re:Real reason (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151017)

It is not that the IRC server are being singeled out, if the IRC servers are gone, then tomorrow is going to be the freenet nodes, or the DC networks, etc, etc.

Probably not. An IRC server gets targeted because it happens to have a user connected to it that has done something to piss off a 12 year old h4x0r with a few thousand DDoS zombies under his control.

Re:Real reason (4, Informative)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150031)

Indeed, I'm co-owner of PDXcolo.net [pdxcolo.net] , using User-Mode Linux to do virtual hosting where you actually get root on the box. One of our customers has purchased the largest such system we offer, and proceeded to use it to run a chatnet.org site. Within days we were hit by 50+Mbps DDoS attacks, which actually took out our upstream provider's router at one point. He's still a customer, and we still have problems every once in a while, but we've been told by our upstream ISP that if something like this happens again, *we* are responsible for it. That's going to mean we get either disconnected (BAD) or fined (we can handle that), but it definitely means we won't be allowing that customer to run an IRC server anymore.

That said, other comments to the effect that if it isn't IRC it will be something else are entirely true. I've heard of DNS providers being DDoS'd out of existence because some pathetic 9 year old script kiddie decided to DDoS the *domain* of a site he doesn't like.

Personally, I wish backbone providers had a little more, um, backbone, when it comes to tracking bandwidth spikes through the net to actually catch the attackers. But no, they get paid for the bandwidth whether it's legitimate or not, so they couldn't care less.

Re:Real reason (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150987)

Dynamic DNS providers seem to be another target for DDoS attacks simply because they piss off the same sort of "users": Most DDNS providers have a policy which prohibits use of their service for illegal purposes, like warez servers. I'm not sure how script kiddies expect to change this by taking out the DDNS provider, but kicking warez-domains off DDNS is apparently a direct way to load-test your infrastructure.

Re:Real reason (2, Funny)

DaEMoN128 (694605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151337)

Well, you could just post a link on /. and ask for a legal DDOS. That will most definately test your infrastructure.

Re:Real reason (1)

revmoo (652952) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150092)

It's not even because of IRC, I wish people would make the distinction, IRC is simply the tool that is used by botnet authors to COORDINATE the attacks. What's to stop botnet authors from using a different communication method to synchronize their bots?

Why not attack the root of the problem, dumbass people leaving unsecured, easy to root machines lying around, connected to the Internet?

Re:Real reason (1)

!the!bad!fish! (704825) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151452)

Why not attack the root of the problem, dumbass people leaving unsecured, easy to root machines lying around, connected to the Internet?
I have to agree. You need to pass a test before you can drive a car on the public highway. We need a secure internet with only licensed users with trustworthy hardware.

Any ideas?

Re:Real reason (1)

PeteQC (680043) | more than 10 years ago | (#7157720)

Nah! There is the real reason:

Somebody discover that "Tania, 21 yo, bisexual and horny" was in fact a man...

They were so sad, they shut off all the servers...

My journal entry for October 6th (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149769)

Me and Sherelle are going to the Silverado to meet up with some of the guys from the football team (yes, Greg will be there and I have the coolest boot cut jeans to wear with my phat boots!). I think Em will be coming too, she usually does. Actually, it's kinda awkward already this year with Emma and parties and get-togethers and stuff. Me and Em will always be BFF, but some people I know find her kind of annoying. I don't, but other people invite me to parties and not her. I usually try to find ways to bring her, but she can be kind of a 3rd wheel, it's true. It's just that she likes to go where I go. Sherelle and her are pally, so it's usually not a problem. It only gets weird when Sherelle's boyfriend Bobby is around cuz he's one of the ones who doesn't like hanging with her. Maybe he would like Emma better if she had a guy and there were 6 of us? No matter what happens, the truth is that those 2 are my girlies 4 life. There really isn't much I can't say 2 either of them or do 4 them without saying n e thing...so I just have to figure out the rest and not get hung up on who's w/who. EMMA 9/11 Sometimes I feel so insecure and I feel like people are talking about me behind my back. I can tell when people are only joking around but sometimes it really bothers me. Out of all my friends sometimes I know I am the one people pick on the most. They don't mean what they say but sometimes I just get tired of it. I feel jealous because all my friends seem so happy. Everyone's already got a boyfriend or girlfriend, or they're hooking up with someone. I mean my friends deserve it, but I do too. TERESA Sept 16 late Dear Diary, Every time I see people on TV kissing or I hear about the cute little things boyfriends have done for my friends, I get soooo jealous! No one has ever really gone out of their way for me, but I would love for it to happen! Then again I haven't really ever had a long relationship. Maybe someday. It's partly my fault because I do have trouble settling down with one guy and even if I end up with a good guy he usually screws me over. Oh well, I get so impatient with guys. All the good ones are taken! Like Kevin, who is totally one of my closest friends. People always have said that we would make an awesome couple and we've agreed more than once to try to work things out, but it has never worked, and that upsets me a lot because in my eyes he is the closest thing to perfect. KEVIN 9/16 mad late I can't sleep and maybe I'm just being paranoid but I feel like everything inside me is getting ready to explode like all at one time and I dunno what I'm supposed to do except sit here and wait for it to explode. All I can think about is Adina, but also it's like a picture of the end of the world inside my head. I don't know why I am feeling all apocalyptic and sh**, but I just am. Sometimes I think that writing in my diary is just such a stupid thing to do and it gets boring or just annoying cuz I think I should be talking about my views in here and not just the day-to-day sh**. But then again the days are going by and so much is happening it's all a part of those same views. I feel like I have my own idea about how life should be and how I should act. Sometimes I think it's all because of what happened to my sister Lena. I get all weird and angry because she died so young. I was just a little kid and she was 16, but I miss her and I get angry at how unfair everything is. Like how I feel about religion. I have this whole shpeel about it cuz I believe in God and heaven and all that, but I just don't understand sooo many things about how life is and why life is. I've witnessed and experienced a lot of traumatic times in my own life (like Lena) and I don't understand sometimes how there is a God. How can he just be sitting back most of the time watching us suffer as human beings--die, fight, and basically do everything that destroys the world? It's like why are there so many people with misfortunes and disabilities if he is all powerful? Why not make all people happy? To me this whole life just seems like a sick game sometimes and we are all in a dangerous place. How could God have let my sister die? Of course Dad doesn't ever talk about feeling this way. He wrote me a card once with these words on it and told me to think about them always: Although the world is very full of suffering, it is also very full of the overcoming of it. I want to believe that. I try to believe that. I think of it all the time especially when I remember Lena. My dad really is one of the greatest human beings anyone would ever want to meet. He has the biggest heart I have ever seen in my lifetime and if someone is in need he'll kill himself to help them out as much as possible. And I know that's what life is about. I just wish it didn't have to hurt. Ta ta, Kevin JAKE September 19 Tonight I had the surprise of my life. My friends all threw me a surprise birthday party and I loved it. I had no clue what was going on and I was actually a little scared when everyone jumped out at me and screamed. But it was the greatest night of my life. Most of my friends were there and my girlfriend Claudia was there. She and I had an ice cream fight--it was so funny. The only thing missing was my dad. I wish that he could have been there too to see my excitement. He was home watching the TV. I wished on the cake that Dad would be cured one day so that the family could go everywhere and do everything with him like we used to. I miss him and I know my brothers do too. I miss the days when we could play soccer and walk around together and he could fix the flat tires on my bike. Thank God for my friends, especially Kevin. I don't know what I'd do without them. EMMA 10/3, 9:15 a.m. Last night I was a little upset with my friends. Marybeth came to the football game with my cousin and me because she didn't want to go late and she said Sherelle was going late. Well, we got to the game and everything was going good. Then when it came time to leave, Marybeth decided to go home with Sherelle and not me because they had plans to do something after the game. They told me I could go with them, but I felt bad leaving my cousin, so of course I couldn't go. Sherelle told me to call her when I got home and I did. But of course she never called me back. Whatever. It just really pisses me off because I feel like they always leave me out. Sherelle and Marybeth are always doing things together and I just feel stupid when I hang out with them. I dunno. Me and Sherelle got into a huge fight a couple of days ago because she thought I was mad at her. Me, Sherelle, her boyfriend Bobby, Marybeth, and this kid Rick Wright all went bowling and I told them I didn't want to hang out with the four of them because I felt stupid. They all like tell secrets and don't include me. That makes me really upset. So at the bowling alley I didn't really say much and Sherelle thought I was mad at her. Then later she wrote me this huge e-mail saying all this crap about how I should tell her if I'm mad. Whatever. I guess I don't really care. I can't stand it when she pulls sh** like that. I mean I guess things are ok and she is my best friend but sometimes we do fight and I hate it. KATIE October 13 @ 11:30 p.m. Everyone is starting to talk about Kevin's birthday party and I'm sad I won't be there. I have to go away on a weekend church retreat. But I know that I am making the right choice. The retreat is what I need to do. I've been feeling so sentimental lately (like getting emotional at the rally and all). It's just that when know I'm going to miss a major event like Kevin's birthday, I can't help but think about each of my friends. Ever since grammar school we were this very tightly knit group, but I guess we don't really hang out together that much anymore. For me this group was Marybeth, Emma, Kevin, Jake, Baxter (Teresa after freshman year), and sometimes Billy and we would do everything together as freshmen and sometimes sophomores, but now we're split up. Kevin's party would have been cool because everyone will be together. My chem tutor came today and he was as confused as me about the work I was doing, which was so weird. Isn't he supposed to know what he's doing? Well, it ended up making me feel better knowing that he DIDN'T know everything. I hate the fact that I am trying so hard and I am not getting the results I want so badly. I suppose I will survive. There are moments like today when I realize that I can't do it all, but I just can't slow down either. Good thing I have no tennis practice or match today because I am feeling a little burned out by that too. BILLY 10-17 I don't know how serious Blair D. and me are gonna get, or if this is a more permanent kind of arrangement or what. I mean, sex is a big deal and there are so many rules to it. But I'm not saying I don't want it, because I do. Right now Blair D. is more than just a hookup, it's true. There is definitely more there than just a kiss. There's a really special connection between us. That's why I think hookups are bullsh** because nothing can come of it but trouble. The girl suddenly thinks you're together and then her friends all call you and hara** you about it. It's crazy. But sex is really serious and when Blair and I decide to do it, it will be serious. She says she thinks she'll be ready in 6 months. I hope it will be sooner, but I'll give her the time--that's the right thing to do. BAXTER October 17 I am really depressed that Megan hasn't called back. I really like her and she's not giving me any straight signals. She flirts with me in school but then she never calls me back. Last night I even lost sleep because I was worrying about her not calling me. I know I'm the last person in the world who should think he has a hope with someone like her, but I do. I don't know sh** about relationships, but I don't want pity. I just keep trying. I think maybe it's just really a bad thing that I wear my heart on my sleeve, you know? I've fallen "in love" a lot of times, like everyone else I know, but it doesn't mean I've ever been loved in return. And for whatever reason the girls that I like apparently have a problem with the fact that I haven't really been with anyone. They want some guy who's experienced, I guess. Maybe Kevin's party will take my mind off this. I'm getting a headache. KEVIN 10/18 Ok, I am totally nervous as sh**. I can't take it any longer at all. I just have to relax and not think about it or I'm gonna get all fidgety all over again. My party was last night. I was having a whole sh**load of fun until the middle of the night. Then this guy Jon showed up when he was NOT invited. He used to go out with Jake's ex-woman Claudia. Well, he showed up sh**faced and so we asked him nicely to leave (me and Jake and our friends Micky and Mick). But Jon was being a total dick and told us to fu** off. We got really pissed and then he was all up in Mick Lazlo's face trying to start sh** with him. Then he wouldn't leave and I told my 'rents and the dancer, this guy Scott who's got arms like my thighs, I swear. He's moving to California soon and he doesn't really give a sh** about Jon so he told him he better leave or else he'd make him leave. But I couldn't believe it--this jerk still was trying to start sh**. Well, he went outside and a big fight broke out. All in all he made my dad have to call the cops 2X. I don't know what the fu** is going on but quite frankly I hope he dies a violent death. Well, I don't mean that, but I do. And I'm not even a violent person. I did try to have fun after that but it kind of ruined some stuff and it was my party, which REALLY sucked. p.s. Tomorrow on October 19 I turn 16 for real!!!!--ONE MORE DAY AND I GET MY LICENSE. YESSSSSS!

Warez (3, Insightful)

Safrax (697056) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149774)

IRC also tends to be a very easy way to access all kinds of illegal stuff. As well as bait for DDoS and other annoying attacks.

Re:Warez (3, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150367)

IRC also tends to be a very easy way to access all kinds of illegal stuff. As well as bait for DDoS and other annoying attacks.

And hardware stores allow people to make bombs, and weapons. Get off the illegal excuse. Anything can be abused.

And DDoS applications now use websites to load commands, and IRC network scan for large bot type networks. Its pretty easy for the police to track people on IRC, if your worried about illegal stuff, dont worry, the feds sit on irc and pretend to be 14 yo girls. Last count, there are over 75 cyber cops sitting on networks just looking for pedophiles. Imagine how many are looking for movies and other warez?

But on the good side, IRC can be encrypted, a place to chat with other people with same interests, get questions answered, user groups, etc. IRC isnt going away, just look at how many networks there are, gamesnet.net, slashnet, opensource servers, support servers for companies, DJ groups, etc. There are thousands of small servers out there, other than the big ones, Efnet, Undernet, etc.

IRC is a tool, when a better tool comes along, you trade up. Until then, go get irssi and have fun.

Re:Warez (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150811)

Last count, there are over 75 cyber cops sitting on networks just looking for pedophiles. Imagine how many are looking for movies and other warez?

I assume you meant that there are even more people trying to enforce copyrights on IRC. If you did not mean this, then please pardon me while I use that assumption to make a point.

Isn't it a fucked up society we live in, where keeping an eye out for children's safety from child molestors is secondary to protecting the profits of the latest pop music regurgitation? I mean really, on one hand, we have a noble and humanitarian effort to protect kids from a very real danger. On the other hand, we've got media people in what is primarily an entertainment industry (music, movies, pictures, games, plus some business software) protecting an artifically-created system of-- supposed to be temporary, now permanent --monopoly over ideas so that they can "pay" their performers in shameful fractions of the total take, if anything at all.

Bravo for our priorities.

Re:Warez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7151745)

Isn't it a fucked up society we live in, where keeping an eye out for children's safety from child molestors is secondary to protecting the profits of the latest pop music regurgitation?

True. However, I think you got societal and private business interest mixed up here. And then there's the magnitude difference. The amount of active pedophiles around the net, while probably thousands, is not even nearly comparable to the widespread warez phenomenon. Of course the seriousness of their crimes isn't comparable either. But here's the deal: police, feds and another govt agencies really are after child molestors, and they use a lot of resources for it. On the other hand, the same govt agencies have much less interest on regular people copying movies and programs, unless there are some real crimes going on within them.

However private business is entirely different matter. There are some citizen groups devoted fighting against perverts, but their resources are low. When at the same time international companies have big money to protect, so they will use their vast resources in the pursuit against piracy. This leads to the current situation, where copying a single song can lead to huge sanctions.

Re:Warez (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 10 years ago | (#7154205)

>Isn't it a fucked up society we live in, where keeping an eye out for children's safety from child molestors is secondary to protecting the profits of the latest pop music regurgitation?

There's a *lot* more people violating copyright than molesting children.

If your shop were broken into 365 times a year, wouldn't you consider your case more important than even, say, catching a drunk driver?

While I think the methods of enforcement of copyright are crude and harsh, that doesn't mean real police (not RIAA goons) shouldn't investigate cases. Copyright does exist for good reasons.

Re:Warez (1)

sir99 (517110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7164420)

While I think the methods of enforcement of copyright are crude and harsh, that doesn't mean real police (not RIAA goons) shouldn't investigate cases. Copyright does exist for good reasons.
That reason being, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," don't forget. Is "pop music regurgitation" a useful art?

Re:Warez (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7167311)

Yes it is useful.

People like it and it entertains/makes them happy.

It takes some time/effort to make. A persona must be created someone needs to write the crap and someone needs to package it.

People who put money into creating something should be able to try and recoup that money.

Hopefully people will keep buying the shit music and it will continu to support the other acts that don't make as much money.

Re:Warez (1)

sir99 (517110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7168424)

Well, I feel that "useful" means that the work somehow advances the sophistication of the field it's in, or introduces new ideas, which I don't think pop blah really does. OTOH, neither does much of the music I do like, and I would still prefer those artists had some protection. So I would be happy with the laws that used to be in place for copyrights, although I think automatic copyright protection without having to register is still a good thing.

Re:Warez (1)

garote (682822) | more than 10 years ago | (#7177103)

Well, given that "the real police" are already having trouble tracking down traders of kiddie pr0n online, why would I want to dilute their efforts ten -thousand-fold by having them inviestigate and arrest, say, a ten-year-old girl who copies a CD in her parent's new-fangled boombox?

Well, it just may be... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149789)

The various distrobuted denial of service attacts that were aimed at some of the more high profile networks... few providers want to deal with that sort of thing.

Combine that with the public image of IRC being used for illegal file distrobution and "hackers", IRC's in low reguard.

Rackshack doesn't care... (5, Informative)

Chester K (145560) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149797)

Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged.

The submitter misread Rackshack's AUP (as I did when I was signing up for service through them, on this specific topic incidentally -- so I emailed them for clarification). Many of the items in their AUP apply to their virtual servers only -- where many customers share one physical machine. IRC servers aren't permitted on those machines because of the load they put on the machine.

If you've got your own Rackshack server, you can run IRC on it all you want.

Re:Rackshack doesn't care... (2, Informative)

cybotix (605849) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149963)

Rackshack doesn't allow linking your ircd to any public networks (although I doubt any network will accept a Rackshack server anyway :p). They won't mind if you run a private ircd on their servers, but I guess if it ever gets dos'ed/packetted you'll have to pay for the transfer used...

Re:Rackshack doesn't care... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150249)

Quoth the Rackshack AUP:

IRC networks: It is absolutely forbidden to host an IRC server that is part of or connected to another IRC network or server. Servers found to be connecting to or part of these networks will be immediately removed from our network without notice. The server will not be reconnected to the network until such time that you agree to completely remove any and all traces of the irc server, and agree to let us have access to your server to confirm that the content has been completely removed. Any server guilty of a second violation will result in immediate account termination.

...be it virtual or dedicated.

Re:Rackshack doesn't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7151189)

You mean what the parent post said, with the extra little clause that the FIRST reply (that was made over an hour before you replied) pointed out?

RTFT (Read the $^*#%& thread).

Re:Rackshack doesn't care... (1)

YomikoReadman (678084) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152490)

Quoth your Quoth...

It is absolutely forbidden to host an IRC server that is part of or connected to another IRC network or server

The way I read that, it says that as long as your IRC server isn't connected to another server/network, and is a network of itself, you are fine. Then again, maybe its just me.

*Linux is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149811)

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *Linux is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *Linux community when recently IDC confirmed that *Linux accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *Linux has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *Linux is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *Linux because *Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for *Linux. As many of us are already aware, *Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Red Hat is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Linux developer Linus Torvalds only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: *Linux is dying.

WHO LET THE BOTS OUT? (-1, Offtopic)

Nathan Ramella (629875) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149814)

woof, woof, woof woof! -n

In Soviet Russia... (-1)

I'm not a script, da (638454) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149916)

...bots ban you!

I'm with you 99%. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7152966)

Business as usual, then.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7179974)

Well, on IRC, the bots DO ban you.

Re:WHO LET THE BOTS OUT? (-1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150070)

"WHO LET THE BOTS OUT?

woof, woof, woof woof! -n"


Troll? Yeah, that was a joke likely to insight a riot.

it's not about the protocol (5, Insightful)

jeaton (44965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149835)

I don't think that hosting companies necessarily care about the IRC protocol itself, but more with the problems that come along with hosting a service known for attracting the worst kind of attention while sucking up tremendous amounts of bandwidth.

The
technical requirements [undernet.org] for running an Undernet.org server explain it pretty clearly. 5 Mbps of legit traffic, plus becoming a target for massive DDOS attacks? Why would a hosting company want that kind of service in their netblock?

Yea, sure, other IRC networks aren't nearly as high-profile, but this is the reputation that IRC has gotten, along with being a haven for copyright violation.

If you want to run an IRC server, then get your own dedicated net connection from a backbone provider and you can host whatever (legal) service you want.

Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (3, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149836)

The amount of warez traded on IRC is immense and exceeds ftp warez traffic by a significant margin. The kiddies can do their Google search for warez, but the real underground is in IRC.

Hosting an IRC server in this day and age is like running an illegal music swapping site in the open. At some point the powers that be (the RIAA or the BSA, for example) will act, so why tempt them in the first place?

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (3, Informative)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149879)

Except that there is no content stored on the servers, and all the swapping is done via DCC (Direct Client Connection) and not through the server.

Hosting an IRC server is not like running an illegal music swapping site in the open. Now, running and serving content in one of said IRC servers channels... that's a different story.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (1)

bobthemonkey13 (215219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149952)

Hosting an IRC server is not like running an illegal music swapping site in the open.

No, it's exactly like running a service like the old Napster that uses central servers for searching, but transfers files peer-to-peer. It's not like that saved Napster. In fact, look at Direct Connect -- it's a deliberate combination of IRC and peer-to-peer filesharing.

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149979)

Nothing in the irc protocol facilitates or encourages the sharing and finding of copyrighted material. Hosting an IRC BOT (HUUUUUUGE difference) can draw you ire. KC Geek runs their own irc server, and has done so without incident. If you build a text based protocol on top of irc, as mIRC and other scriptings do, you are not providing a centralized search database, nor are you providing any content.

Think about what you're saying; if your logic was sound, then the existance of AIMster would mean that AIM was exactly like Naptser.

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (3, Insightful)

szemeredy (672540) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150028)

DCC is NOT supported by IRC servers. It was never defined in RFC, and there is not a single feature in any major IRCd that was designed specifically to help users file-share.

DCC was introduced on the Client-side as a method of sending pictures. It has remained client-side. Too bad it evolved into what it is considered today...

Think of it this way: Let's say that ICQ doesn't support file-sharing. Eventually someone figures out a way to file-share over the ICQ network by using just messages and codes it into a popular alternative client. Said protocol spreads and ten years later is generaly considered a basic feature of an ICQ client. That's basically what DCC is to IRC.

For those that don't believe, check out this article [irchelp.org] .

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (1)

crschmidt (659859) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150953)

Part of the reason Napster lost out was because the software did not provide "signficant non-infringment uses", as would be required by historical cases (VCRs). I think most legitimate IRC servers could argue this point and win.

Like Napster :-) (n/t) (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 10 years ago | (#7160757)

>Except that there is no content stored on the servers, and all the swapping is done via DCC (Direct Client Connection) and not through the server.

Re:Like Napster :-) (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7162239)

Unlike napster however, file sharing is NOT part of the IRC RFC Protocol, the server itself does NOT facilitate searching for or downloading files and IRCs primary function is NOT file sharing, it's chatting.

Haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149837)


flask of ripe urine
pressed to linux's lips
linux drinks up

*Linux ghetto (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149847)

*Linux you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, *Linux pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.

Re:*Linux ghetto (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149986)

Hey, I'm really jonesing here!

I really need to score some .deb's or .rpm's cheap.

Can you hook me up?

It has nothing to do with botnets (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7149905)

I'm an oper on a major irc network, so I'm aware of a lot of what goes into running a server. The problem is that when a kiddie gets upset (at other users, a channel or some perceived slight by an oper/the network), they DDoS the server. This uses bandwidth, and bandwidth is money. IRC servers use a good chunk of bandwidth just for regular user behavior, and this blows that away. The bandwidth providers aren't getting much out of this other than a little brand recognition (if that much), so their charity isn't limitless. Hosting providers restrict IRC for this reason, too. They don't want to up the risk of being attacked. Running an IRC server is, unfortunately, a high risk activity these days.

Re:It has nothing to do with botnets (2, Interesting)

neglige (641101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151367)

The problem is that when a kiddie gets upset (at other users, a channel or some perceived slight by an oper/the network), they DDoS the server.

Yes, a few years ago every * was chasing users running warscripts (or any script at all, because it's really hard to tell whether a script is a warscript or not) or bots, because they were causing too much net traffic. I guess today there are too many users that would have to be banned. Not that banning an IP is particularly useful...

I wonder how webchat clients contributed to the problem. I can only assume that quite a few kiddies started with an easy-to-use interface and then migrated to more powerful clients.

I'd hate it to see IRC go down, since I really like it :(

Not necessarily... (4, Insightful)

szemeredy (672540) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149930)

Just to debunk a few things here before people get started...

1) Some trojans already use non-IRC protocol. Some trojans already use more than one protocol.

2) Almost all of the larger networks run some type of anti-drone and anti-proxy system to prevent the problem from getting out of control. Said programs are widely available in a variety of forms for most IRC daemons.

Newer worms target smaller networks because of this, since smaller networks generally don't run said software (besides the usual nickname/channel services). Many worms also use private IRC networks, since the botnets can't be tracked and/or shut down as easily on them.

3) Most IRC servers are not hosted by people who lease servers at small hosting companies. A majority of servers linked to larger networks are either hosted by ISPs or by large entities with large amounts of bandwidth to burn.

Smaller hosting providers purposely shun IRC servers because they know that they can be a bandwidth burden (not to mention a DDoS target). Larger hosts, which monitor their bandwidth 24/7, usually don't object to hosting servers - all they have to do is blackhole the server's IP when a DDoS attack comes their way and the disruption is minimalized.

EFnet [efnet.info] may have lost some high-profile servers lately, but the majority of IRC networks are doing well server-wise. QuakeNet [quakenet.org] (the world's largest IRC network) is in the process of starting a campaign to link more North American servers... and not because the network needs more servers (they could easily handle 300000 users in their current state), but because they want to draw in more North American users.

Re:Not necessarily... (1)

oPless (63249) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151198)

Smaller hosting providers purposely shun IRC servers because they know that they can be a bandwidth burden (not to mention a DDoS target).

Damn right too. As a small hosting provider, I used to have no end of problems with that. Mod Parent up!

What I know about Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150096)

1. You can not play games on Linux.
2. Linux cannot be used by my grandma.
3. Linux lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for Linux.
5. Linux is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. Linux cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. Linux is incompatiable with any other unix.
10. Linux is dying.

I just tried using the latest version of Red Hat and it took me over 20 minutes just to copy an 18MB file! Why?!?

Re:What I know about Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150111)

becuase your stupid ?

Re:What I know about Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Bluetrust25 (647829) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150180)

becuase your stupid ?

Christ man! You misspelled "because" and "you're."

Some still offer IRC a home! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150108)

"It seems more and more dedicated server companies are turning tail to the idea of hosting IRC machines."


At $350 a month, httpd.net [httpd.net] is home for a huge number of IRC servers. With an incredibly advanced and secured network that has been running continuously for over SEVEN YEARS, it has the experience that proves that IRC hosting can be done effectively.

It's not cheap, but quality never is.

In those seven years, it has rarely had any substantial downtime due to attacks, mostly thanks to a serious investment by the administrators to ensure uplink filtering.

Its definitely worth a look when you get serious about a permanent home for an IRC server.

Re:Some still offer IRC a home! (1)

boutell (5367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152496)

www.httpd.net seems to be slashdotted at this moment. So much for serious investments!

Why people don't like IRC (4, Insightful)

Isomer (48061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150283)

First of all, people tend to IRC from where they are, they don't often need to ssh into a machine and IRC from there (although, I must admit, it's not an unreasonable thing to do because of firewalls etc). The people that want to IRC from a shell box are often the ones that want to "hide", and that opens you up to people attacking your machine (via DDoS, exploits, etc), or they want to run a bot which holds a nick. Then the bot gets DDoS'd to get the nick back (and then held by a bot so someone else can have the nick).
If you're lucky the bot won't be used to host illegal warez using up any bandwidth that is left over from the DDoS, and now you have the RIAA/MPAA knocking on your door too.

People that want to hide from people are often doing it because they are involved in illegal activities such as CC# trading, and/or DDoS networks. So you are getting paid in illegal money (that people will want back), by someone you can't trace.

The people that want to use IRC shell accounts tend to "trade" them on IRC so that they can get even more obscure ones to hide even better (or to have backups in case their main one gets attacked). So now the account is used by 20 people, none of which are accountable for their actions, who are drawing attacks against your services.

In general, letting people IRC from your shell is just asking for trouble. There are plenty of shell providers that capture this niche market with hundreds of "vhosts" so you can choose which "leet" hostname you will appear to come from. They are better set up to weather DDoS, and they are careful about accepting CC#'s.

One of the reasons that IRC has such a bad rep is that it's very "instantanious" to see the affects that your attacks have on people. You can see someone's real IP, and DDoS them and watch them get disconnected. You could pick some random IP off the internet and DDoS that, but it's not nearly as satisfying as watching someone "Ping timeout" off IRC. Other networks like Jabber, ICQ, MSN etc don't give you the IP address of the remote person without their permission, and you have less of a situation where you can see other people. There are less common resources (such as globally nick names) to fight over. The networks aren't as vunerable to attack (DDoS'ing an IRC hub will make the entire network split in two, not just preventing people of that server from talking, but denying half the network from talking to the other half. DDoS'ing a Jabber server prevents users on just that server from talking).

I personally think that the IRC protocol should die a natural death (and, in fact, should have died it about 10 years ago when it was obvious it wasn't going to work) and should be replaced with something like Jabber.

Re:Why people don't like IRC (5, Insightful)

szemeredy (672540) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150982)

I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion of IRC...

Regarding shells: there are many legitimate reasons to use a shell for IRC, from vanity hosts to bypassing firewall restrictions. While the use of vanity hosts (vhosts) is debatable [spamcalc.net] , there's nothing wrong with wanting to show off something like the domain name of a website you maintain or a project you're involved with...

You can't just assume thaty everyone uses a shell to hide or do something illegal. Besides, most people who really want to hide properly use a variety of non-legitimate proxies or route through trojan-infected individuals - it's too easy to get caught by using a dedicated IRC proxy on a shell maintained for such a purpose.

Regarding accountability: If said server gets banned from a network because of something like 20 users using the same account, then it's their own fault for failing to prevent such things from happening.

Regarding bots: There's nothing wrong with running a bot to keep others off a nickname. I do it on many networks and I usually don't have a problem with DDoS. Then again, I usually avoid networks like EFnet where there's no real way to protect hostname information from someone who really wants to pound my bot into the ground.

Regarding illegal activity: Those who are committing illegal activity don't just use IRC. they use all forms of chat, including this "Jabber" you speak of.

Regarding DDoS: There have been several improvements on a majority of IRCds that protect people from the attacks you describe, the biggest example of which is hostmasking (usermode +x or +z, depending on the daemon). Additional steps are also in the process of being taken to improve said safety on IRC.

Besides that, "Kiddies" can sniff out IP adddresses just as easily via other chat mediums as they can with uncloaked users on IRC if they have the right tools. I've been DDoSed by morons on ICQ and AIM many a time...

Regarding MPAA/RIAA: Most shell providers prohibit said illegal activity, passing the blame onto the end user since they violated the shell server's ToS. Those that don't are asking for it. Remember - the RIAA/MPAA doesn't give a crap about what's sitting on someone's server - they're out to fry whoever put it there. And do you think whoever operated the shell is going to help them? Damn right they are...

Yes, IRC has it's faults, but keep in mind that only a portion of networks (See: EFnet, IRCnet) are lagging behind in terms of evolution. The others are working hard to bring IRC up to par with other chat mediums. All of the things you've mentioned haven't gone unnoticed within the community...

instantanious if you are insecure (2, Interesting)

bluGill (862) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152353)

The effects of an attack are instantanious, but only if you are insecure to them. Back when WinNuke was the latest things my brother challanged someone to knock him off. Strange that a Mac protected by a linux firewall (which was very out of date, and insecure) isn't vulnerable to winNuke. (and that was just a 28.8 modem, should have been easy to do if an attacker had any abilities) Now a days whenever someone brags about what a leet attacker they are, we point them to the guy working at an ISP. Very hard to DoS someone with a OC-48 to his desktop...

In other words protect your systems and you will foil a lot of attacks. Most attackers are too lazy to figgure out how to attack something. That is why they are called "script kiddies" they really are kids who only know who to start a script, and if that fails they are lost.

Re:instantanious if you are insecure (1)

Isomer (48061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7166874)

Most "kiddies" now days use DDoS drones. A "small" DDoS network will have a few hundred machines, a large one can have over 30,000. We see DDoS's exceeding 1gb/s against hosts. I don't know of anyone who has 10GE to their desktop with a suitable uplink that it won't get saturated.

Micropayments (0)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150435)

Folks who want to foster quality chatting on their IRC servers might think about coming up with a way to charge some tiny amount for each message sent. Running even a single bot for any length of time would become an expense, but actually chatting would still be cheap. And the very idea that each message has a cost associated with it might improve the quality of discourse.

Re:Micropayments (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150943)

The whole point of IRC is that it is free. Oh wait, you said micropayments. They're small so its not a problem? Wrong. Not everyone has access to a credit card or paypal or some other form of micropayment. And the thought of paying for each message won't improve the quality of discussion. Cell phones, 2-way pagers and now SMS text messages have always been used to conduct trite, illegal, or sexual calls even when it cost something like a buck fifty per minute.

Re:Micropayments (4, Funny)

shivianzealot (621339) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151432)

And the thought of paying for each message won't improve the quality of discussion. Cell phones, 2-way pagers and now SMS text messages have always been used to conduct trite, illegal, or sexual calls even when it cost something like a buck fifty per minute.

I agree with you, but reading that first sentance I quoted gave me a different idea...

fred (schmoe@dsl.isp.com) entered #smallcozychannel

fred: hello channel

cellphonenoob: hi fr3d

fred: I've noticed a lot of trouble connecting to the server lately.

fred: The website's news hasn't been updated in two days, anyone spoken to a higher up recently?

cellphonenoob: Y do U talk like tat?

fred: Huh?

cellphonenoob: dznt ur fone cmpny chrge like a $ a msg?

fred: No. I use a computer for IRC. Why can't you spell nomrally?

cellphonenoob: omg im typng wit my thums!

fred: Ok... I can see this channel isn't raising mensa entry requirments

Re:Micropayments (1)

qwiksilvr (42267) | more than 10 years ago | (#7160348)

Why can't you spell nomrally?
Priceless. :)

Re:Micropayments (2, Interesting)

Fubar420 (701126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151309)

Not that I'm a huge user of IRC, but essentially the argument here is equivalant [to the users of IRC] as a tax on Email proper.

Certainly it would be effective at reducing spam, but at what cost?

It is the choice of a server operator (not IRC op, but _root_) to start the ircd of their choice.

If they want to charge, perhaps that should be their right, but the idea of IRC has always been the free (and independant) exchange of ideas over a public network.

Most sysadmins for IRC servers do it not for the immense profit and glory of controlling /motd, but instead for the proliferation of the technology.

Imposing micropayments on people would (assuming it goes to the s/ops) offset their bandwidth costs, but so would simply disabling ircd.

People would just as quickly shift to aim/chats and use Aim+, bittorrent, direct connect, or one of 1000 other protocols as yet unwritten to exchange ideas.

IRC is the de-facto for exactly the opposite reason you propose: people are free to use it, run it, propogate it, or ignore it.

If an ISP chooses to not accept a server (of whatever variant type) it is because they believe (however wrongfully we may decry) it is unprofitable to do so.

IF on the other hand an OP believes it to be /so/ important to the fabric of their being or fiber of society that they run ircd linked to an irc network, they will buy the bloody T1/OC3/OC12.

Sure it aint cheap, but its a matter of values placed by the people who run the network.

When I was 12, I ran a bbs from home.

I did it because it was free (+/- 20$ for the phone line) for me, and because I could meet new people.

I didnt do it to profit, or glean great deals from my callers. No, indeed, there was little to be had.

It was simply because it amused me.

IRC networks join and leave for the same reasons: because it amuses them to do so, or no longer does so.

Thats why we become dependant on the networks, instead of upon a single irc.com. Were we bound to a single source of our connectivity, perhaps a monitary value could be placed on it.

But if it were, would we still use it?

AIM, for example: if they charged per IM, would we continue to use it? ICQ? Email?

No, were it not free, but [fairly] unmetered bandwidth still readily available, we would simply sit down, write a new RFC, and use it.

If you want to foster quality chatting, run your own server. Or have a private channel. Or all else failing, write your own protocol and client.

Re:Micropayments (1)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152479)

You're right that the idea is pretty much the same as adopting some sort of micropayment or tax system on e-mail in order to combat spam. And yes, as with e-mail, there are obvious technical problems to be solved in order to implement micropayments.

However, I think you've really missed the point, which is that IRC server operators ought to consider micropayments as a means of reducing or eliminating the use of bots [undernet.org] , while at the same time not detering actual people from chatting.

People often run bots, or whole swarms of bots, 24/7. Bots are not inherently bad and can often be used to advantage by the forces of Light and Goodness. But they can also generate an awful lot of traffic and make for dull chatting, particularly when one person runs many bots.

If you charge someone something on the order of 0.1 cents per message that they send via IRC, they likely won't mind the couple or three bucks that they spend in a month on IRC. People running multiple bots constantly, however, would presumably pay much more. The operator might be willing to waive fees less than a certain amount since those accounts are more likely real people. The operator probably won't implement micropayments to generate income; the idea is to charge a fee in order to discourage an unwanted behavior, and so the operator will have acheived his goal if in fact the micropayment system doesn't generate a lot of fees.

Like you, I too was active in the BBS scene in my youth, and I recall that many BBS operators started charging for access to downloads in one way or another. Some charged an actual fee, while others implemented download limits or required a certain upload:download ratio. Most operators that I know did this not to make money or even to get more files, but to discourage people from tying up the phone lines downloading all night and to encourage people to join their chat boards and become part of their little piece of the BBS community.

Writing an RFC (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7155635)

Just as a matter of interest, how does one submit an rfc? I haven't seen an faq on the subject on ietf.org

Elegy for Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150566)


  • Elegy For *Linux

    I am a *Linux user
    and I try hard to be brave
    That is a tall order
    *Linux's foot is in the grave.

    I tap at my toy keyboard
    and whistle a happy tune
    but keeping happy's so hard,
    *Linux died so soon.

    Each day I wake and softly sob
    Nightfall finds me crying
    Not only am I a zit faced slob
    but *Linux is dying.

IRC Needs Improvements (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150586)

IRC really is the best thing going for real-time, group-based discussion. Unfortunately, it's also missing a large number of pretty useful features.

The current state of /list is one. If I were designing an IRC-like protocol, /list would be done on a separate TCP connection to avoid tying up the first and avoid having to implement multiplexing over a single connection (a la HTTP pipelining).

The lack of security design is another. Using nicks as identifiers just isn't a fantastic idea -- in this day and age, a public key can reasonably be part of an identifier. Encryption should be simply part of the protocol, at least client-to-client, and ideally to the server as well. There isn't *that* much traffic from each client (though it'd certainly put more load on the server, and might require a more fanned-out-network.

Fserves are an affront to humanity. Granted, this isn't really a native IRC issue, but client support for easy linking to sftp servers would be a good idea.

A fair bit of IRC is a holdover from the days when everything was terminal-based. There's no reason you can't make good text-based clients that provide the same presentation (say, showing chanop prefixed with an "@", but the data being transferred to the client shouldn't be constrained by these formatting issues.

It would be nice to have some kind of anonyminity features, even if most people don't use them and doing so degrades performance. Say, the ability to form "rings" of clients that proxy each others' server-bound data.

Some sort of native support in IRC for mapping IRC networks would be nice.

Re:IRC Needs Improvements-but you missed security (2, Insightful)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151295)

The lack of security design is another. Using nicks as identifiers just isn't a fantastic idea -- in this day and age, a public key can reasonably be part of an identifier. Encryption should be simply part of the protocol, at least client-to-client, and ideally to the server as well. There isn't *that* much traffic from each client (though it'd certainly put more load on the server, and might require a more fanned-out-network.

Ok... Security 101 class - what does a public key give you on IRC that a nick doesn't ???

Absolutely nothing without a trust relationship beyond knowing that the same key is used to log in (and probably attaching nick usage to a private key somehow usefully). Oh and at 1.5kbit (or ~190 bytes without parity checking) private keys are a little large to throw around on a per message bassis.

Quiz II - What are you protecting from when you encrypt between you and the server (lets assume you also ment authenticate as well - since encryption without authentication is worthless)

Well I would say nothing, because your message will be decrypted - and re-encrypted to anyone that was listening to you where they can post it anywhere they want (to a log file maybe ?) - also the irc server has the message in the clear, so you have to trust it as well... not a pretty site.

I won't argue too hard with the rest though

Re:IRC Needs Improvements-but you missed security (2, Interesting)

cperciva (102828) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151403)

what does a public key give you on IRC that a nick doesn't ???

Absolutely nothing without a trust relationship beyond knowing that the same key is used to log in


That alone would be useful: If someone needs to prove that they hold a private key in order to sign on with a gievn name, you dramatically reduce the risk of DDoS wars caused by people fighting over a name.

Re:IRC Needs Improvements-but you missed security (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7160544)

Ok... Security 101 class - what does a public key give you on IRC that a nick doesn't ???

You also sign a timestamped message from the server when you sign in. By checking signatures and comparing the advertised private key, other clients can form trusted mappings between "(bob37, [pubkey])" pair on Wednesday and a "(bob37, [pubkey])" pair today. This means that I know that Bob really is bob.

Private keys wouldn't need to be broadcast on a per message basis. Once a trusted mapping has been formed, the clients know that "bob37" is trusted to be "Mike Smith, CEO of SmithCorp" for the length of this session.

What are you protecting from when you encrypt between you and the server (lets assume you also ment authenticate as well - since encryption without authentication is worthless)

Those on the same network and those at your ISP monitoring everything you say and where you're talking to. When paired with an anonymity system, you and what you say cannot be easily mapped to you, regardless of whether a privacy attacker comes from your ISP or the IRC network. For an untrusted IRC server to be dealt with, addtional direct connections (not passing through the IRC server) would need to be established -- hence the "privacy ring" I mentioned earlier.

Re:IRC Needs Improvements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7151688)

"It would be nice to have some kind of anonyminity features"

IIP [invisiblenet.net]

Re:IRC Needs Improvements (1)

kyhwana (18093) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151695)

SILC has the answers. ;)
SilcNET [silcnet.org]
It's a totally new protocol built from the ground up on being secure, unlike IRC.

Re:IRC Needs Improvements (1)

hacker (14635) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151859)

"Encryption should be simply part of the protocol, at least client-to-client, and ideally to the server as well. There isn't *that* much traffic from each client (though it'd certainly put more load on the server, and might require a more fanned-out-network."

Funny thing, I've been running an ircd with client-to-client and server-to-server SSL enabled connections for about 3-4 years. We're small and developer-focused, but it works, and if your client supports SSL on port 994, your connections are secured. This is all native to the ircd binary itself, and not to stunnel or some wrapper. Observe:

# ldd ircd
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40022000)
libcrypt.so.1 => /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x40025000)
libssl.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/i686/cmov/libssl.so.0.9.7 (0x40051000)
libcrypto.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/i686/cmov/libcrypto.so.0.9.7 (0x40081000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40172000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

It works with mIRC, xchat, ircii, and other GUI and text-mode clients, and we've heard no complaints at all.

Linux, don't fear the reaper (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7150632)

All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Mac OS don't fear the reaper
Nor do the windows, SUN or the rain..we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Linux's bought the farm....

Distro is done
Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...Romeo and Juliet
40,000 server crashes every day...Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 workstations reformatted everyday...Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Linux's bought the farm...

Love of two is one
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't log on
Then the file was opened the wind appeared
The mobo blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then Linus Torvalds
appeared...saying don't be afraid
Come on baby...and she had no fear
And she ran to them...then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodbye...she had become like they are
She had taken their hand...she had become like they are
Come on Linux...don't fear the reaper.
After all, you're dead."

IRC (3, Insightful)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 10 years ago | (#7150818)

IRC has become the pit for reasons of DOS and generally 13 year olds being dumbasses. I personally blame people releasing scripts that allow 13 year olds to become dumbasses. I hang out on a smaller IRC server and lately due to increased popularity, the owner has considered kill -9 the IRCD server because of stupid idiots. IRC is from the same age as SMTP. Both were protocols designed for a nicer internet. Both are being abused to no end and require a rewrite.

Re:IRC (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151997)

Every time I am reminded of the fact that old protocols must die, I think on why the net has changed so much.

I think it is because of the commercialization of the internet, I remember what the visionaries were saying back in the early 1990s about how much we all would benefit from this. Then the floodgates of AOL users arrived. What did we get that we didn't have in 1994?

Broadband? Ok. That is good. But at this price? I'd trade an ISDN BRI setup for the cable modem, gladly, if it would clean things up again.

I can't think of anything else we wouldn't have already in some form or another without all these lame assholes providing food for spammers and overall just wrecking things.

Re:IRC (1)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152671)

On Tuesday, October 7, HBI said:
> What did we get that we didn't have in 1994?

Me too!


~Philly

Re:IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7155959)

From Google's Usenet Archive [google.com] , the first of those was a bit earlier [google.com] .

Re:IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7154334)

... He says on a commercial site using a comercial connection.

Re:IRC (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7157420)

... He says on a commercial site using a comercial connection.

This site is making nothing off of me. Some commerce.

The fact a commercial connection happens to be easier to work with than my work one proves nothing either. In the past I would use a remote dialup - i'm sure by today there would be something better, probably ISDN services.

Re:IRC (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 10 years ago | (#7155115)

Yeah, this "new" internet in 2003 sucks. Especially stuff like OpenCourseware at MIT, babelfish.altavista.com, and the fact that I can import real manga cheaper than buying English translations by going to amazon.co.jp (who accept my American credit card just fine, though). I hate being able to download entire operating systems for free and the ability to play extremely detailed video games against anyone in the world. I still miss the days of doing email in pine and web surfing in Lynx (could never quite get used to Mosaic, especially once they started adding the ability to put "backgrounds" on web pages). I especially hate being able to get some extremely good transfer rates to my house for under $50 a month. Broadband. I can't imagine why I ever wanted it.

IOW: the past was different, not better. And I can remember even in 1994 (maybe it was 1995-- a long time ago anyway) how much trouble we had on IRC with things like chan-splits, takeovers, and bot wars. Oddly, my most recent IRC experiences have been nothing like this, since they required a username and password from a separate paid service for access to the IRC server.

Re:IRC (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#7157317)

None of the things you mention except the manga purchasing require commercialization of the net. Babelfish was a free service 8 or 9 years ago. I was happy with porn mags or ordered videotapes myself, so I don't need to get it online.

Like somehow everyone would still be using character mode apps in this day and age. You know better, and so do I.

Silly.

Re:IRC (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 10 years ago | (#7162907)

None of those things require commercialization. Fine. My point is that the funding for the improvements and the general level of usefulness have directly resulted from what you call the "commercialization" of the net. This wisftfulness for the net of yore is like trying to pretend life was somehow better back in the 50s or the 20s or the Middle Ages or whatever. There were no good old days. They were just the old days, and they weren't better or worse, they just were... different. I remember the net in 1994. It was pretty lame. I like the new commercial net much better.

Que? (1)

EvilNutSack (700432) | more than 10 years ago | (#7151179)

Botnets? Botnets? We don't need no stinking botnets!

irc or other realtime channel for linux discussion (1)

boutell (5367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152447)

Speaking of which, is there still a viable place to chat in realtime about Linux? I've tried to get into efnet a few times recently and found nothing but split-off servers with two people in #linux.

Re:irc or other realtime channel for linux discuss (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152940)

[10-06-03 20:25:20] well, you get tech support for any linux you like on #angband, provided it's debian
[TOPIC] Luc: #angband: the self-help no-relationship support group. playing angband optional. (FFTA, on the other hand...)
#angband is the mostly-official channel for the game Angband [thangorodrim.net] and runs on WorldIRC. WorldIRC sucks. ;D
Actually, besides the fact that WorldIRC is prone to having flaky connections, it's a pretty good network. They have some nice services- nickname services and channel services which largely prevent bot idiocy. X, the channel service bot [worldirc.org] , lets you log in and get operator status, but also supports tiered access, userlist administration, optional "strict ops" policy (only those logged in with the right permissions level can be opped... by anyone) de-op protection, and all sorts of fun stuff like that. You can't take over a WorldIRC channel with bot idiocy, I'll give them that.

If you do end up using WorldIRC, just connect to one of their servers- the randomizing server (irc.worldirc.org) has a tendency to route you over to another IRC network (Infomatrix or something like that).

Re:irc or other realtime channel for linux discuss (1)

fordboy0 (547958) | more than 10 years ago | (#7153399)

I use irc.chatjunkies.org:6667 - channel #linuxhelp or #linux :)
It seems to be down today... That's not good!

Re:irc or other realtime channel for linux discuss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7155898)

There's more to IRC than EFnet ;)

Try looking here http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?num=0&query=linux [netsplit.de] .

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?