Author Topic: User Can Mask/Unmask their own host  (Read 3445 times)

Offline meeko

  • First timer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« on: November 30, 2001, 03:15:00 pm »
Hello there,

I like the IRCD that you there.  I do feel it needs a way for the user to decide IF they want to have a masked host (ie, hidden host) or if they just want to have a regular host just as the Oper can have the host with a flag, I feel that the x has to be controlled by the user.

Let me know if this has any meaning to you :smile:

Thanks
Amrik

Offline ShadowMaster

  • Chief Codemonkey
  • Administrator
  • ********
  • Posts: 3136
    • View Profile
    • http://www.shadow-realm.org/
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2001, 03:30:00 pm »
The entire network needs to either use the scheme or not use the scheme for the users sake. One of the most major reasons for this is that if users held the ability to turn +x on and off at their own pleasing they could use it to evade bans. There are also a few other issues to be taken into consideration but this is where it stands today. Until someone can outline a scheme working better for both opers, networks and most importantly users... the system will remain unchanged. Either its turned on for everyone, or its not availible.
Search before posting - No support by PM or IM

Offline meeko

  • First timer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2001, 07:14:00 pm »
I will think on it but I do not see a huge problem.  We could just use a 'output' of how it 'would' be if the user had the +x on or no +x by the same way we get the actual host.  

The thing is, I want to create me own little network where users can be somewhat anonymous :smile:.  So.. given that, i want them to be able to decide if they want to make their host look fake or not fake.  

If at all needed, you have 2 ban files within the ircd, one for encrypted hosts, the other for regular hosts or something of that nature.  I don't thik it would be hard to ban as long as there is a key use to encrypt and decrypt the same host.  Infact, i see no problem at all that can't be solved with a bit of programming :smile:

Meeko

Offline ShadowMaster

  • Chief Codemonkey
  • Administrator
  • ********
  • Posts: 3136
    • View Profile
    • http://www.shadow-realm.org/
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2001, 08:20:00 am »
Scenario 1.

User bent on causing havock joins a channel, floods etc, gets banned by hidden host, then simply goes -x and he aint banned anymore. This is a MAJOR annoyance to channel staff, and many many complaints where recived over this. It confuses channel staff and it doubles the work trying to keep a person out.

Opers are not the problem, they will always akill etc by realhost.

Hiddenhosts does not make a person anonymous in any other way than you will not obtain the true IP of the user thus cannot preform portscans or DoS attacks against the users in an easy fashion. The user couldnt care less how his host is represented on IRC.
Search before posting - No support by PM or IM

Offline Quinn

  • Codemonkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2002, 05:38:00 pm »
Hang on, whether a user is +x or -x should make no difference to ban lists or exempt lists.  If they get banned as +x, if they then go as -x then it should still keep the ban at least that's my thinking of it.  Why it doesn't do that I don't know.  Personally I don't see WHY a user would even NEED +x to be set off.  If they REALLY want their own hostname, they can /WHOIS themselves.
Quinn 8)

Offline ShadowMaster

  • Chief Codemonkey
  • Administrator
  • ********
  • Posts: 3136
    • View Profile
    • http://www.shadow-realm.org/
User Can Mask/Unmask their own host
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2002, 04:41:00 am »
Users should have no need to control +x at all, heck.. it shouldnt even be a usermode when you think of it.

The problem exsists only if a user is -x, then decides to go +x (under the old 2.8.1 behavior) and does not exsist at all under the new behaviour which does not allow the user to control the mode :smile:

Its all in how you design it.. yes the system can be designed to allow both, and yes the bans will match regardless provided that the hiddenhost have been set for the client and is in the user struct. The problem is that the current, nor the old system didnt really allow for this, mostly because there is no valid reason why you should confuse end users more than neccecary, aswell as potentially further, although a far shot, make it easier for kiddies to device schemes to attempt to collect and/or crack the hiddenhost system. Something which will in all cases be possible and no there is no solution to this until the way of banning users on IRC according to the IRC RFC is done by anything else than IP's.
Search before posting - No support by PM or IM