> About /Gen comment. We do not have any op of flood problem, the problem is
> the DDoS one and since you admit that a user cannot directly act upon
this,
> at least when we contacted responsible ISP, those computers wheren't use
> anymore to flood us. Yes this could seem pointless since attackers
>> opers that have that much time to offer... And he would need to act during
>> the attack, fact that is quite problematic since the pples who are attacked
>> aren't online at the moment of the attack.
>
> how about having in cservice, for each account, the last few logins with
> real nick!user@h
> I still have difficulties about the concept of considering the idea of
> showing IPs to ops on a channel a security breach, but i heard some
> interesting ideas in the few last days...
1. First of all, due to the privacy concerns coder-com really isnt the place
for this, it's up to the undernet
> opers that have that much time to offer... And he would need to act during
> the attack, fact that is quite problematic since the pples who are attacked
> aren't online at the moment of the attack.
how about having in cservice, for each account, the last few logins with
real nick!user@host, IP,
I still have difficulties about the concept of considering the idea of
showing IPs to ops on a channel a security breach, but i heard some
interesting ideas in the few last days...
Some were talking about complaining to Undernet autorities so they would be
able to retrace who's who and contact IS
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Empus
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: [Coder-Com] /whois nick nick issue?
Or if is on the same server as you? Or am I wrong?
P.S - 'reply' sent this to
ED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [Coder-Com] /whois nick nick issue?
>--
>
> > At 15:51 16/04/2002, you wrote:
> >>Okay... number two... noticed that some servers are not respo
> Okay... number two... noticed that some servers are not responding
> with the idle times when doing a /whois nick nick request. Again I'm
> on amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org so I don't know if that has anything
> to do with it. Is it just me again?
>
Known bug, we're playing merry games
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Valcor wrote:
> to do with it. Is it just me again?
/me giggles slightly *ahem*.
It was a short lived bug which has been fixed...as soon as the
person who made it noticed in fact.
> - Valcor
--
Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.shad0w
At 15:51 16/04/2002, you wrote:
>Okay... number two... noticed that some servers are not responding
>with the idle times when doing a /whois nick nick request. Again I'm
>on amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org so I don't know if that has anything
>to do with it. Is it just me again?
This is part
[mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Coder-Com] /whois nick nick issue?
--
> At 15:51 16/04/2002, you wrote:
>>Okay... number two... noticed that some servers are not responding
>>
Okay... number two... noticed that some servers are not responding
with the idle times when doing a /whois nick nick request. Again I'm
on amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org so I don't know if that has anything
to do with it. Is it just me again?
- Valcor
this is fixed in pl16/17 or so (sigh)
mick
- Original Message -
From: "Ionix -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: [Coder-Com] /WHOIS bug ?
> Dear fellow coders,
> I recently found a way to see i
Dear fellow coders,
I recently found a way to see if a said server is connected to the undernet.
I think this is a security bug since efforts are made to hide the server
structure. Here's what I did:
/whois hong-kong.* blah123
ANSWER: No such server
/whois toronto.* blah123
ANSWER: blah123 No such
14 matches
Mail list logo
