It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:29 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




 Page 2 of 5 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:06 am
Posts: 182
Location: Behind You!
i gave you the answer above, read it again, and again if needed..
if someone else has something else to say they will..
TOR ban will not be removed.. and yes a shell hosting for a bouncer IS the solution, undernet is not a right, its earned. (as stated in almost every /MOTD), and if you don't want to use your normal IP its your problem,
undernet does not offer "auto cloaks" its done via an auth to X and usermode +x.
with a bouncer your real ip is hidden <-- for less then 5$ a month you could have your own.

i gave you multiple alternatives, use them or ignore them, but like i said, TOR is banned, and its not gonna be removed as fast as it was added.. this shall be the end of the discussion. since its useless to fight about it.


:roll:



_________________
Image
Go to hell with your questions, my time is done here.
It was fun, but this network is sooooo corrupted by morons, its not worth it.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:28 pm 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
xplo wrote:
i gave you the answer above, read it again, and again if needed..
if someone else has something else to say they will..
TOR ban will not be removed.. and yes a shell hosting for a bouncer IS the solution, undernet is not a right, its earned. (as stated in almost every /MOTD), and if you don't want to use your normal IP its your problem,
undernet does not offer "auto cloaks" its done via an auth to X and usermode +x.
with a bouncer your real ip is hidden <-- for less then 5$ a month you could have your own.

i gave you multiple alternatives, use them or ignore them, but like i said, TOR is banned, and its not gonna be removed as fast as it was added.. this shall be the end of the discussion. since its useless to fight about it.


:roll:


Made RED by me.

I assume you mean YOU are finished with the discussion, since the discussion/topic has not been closed. Anyone is free to discuss it here.

~Eenie




_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:06 am
Posts: 182
Location: Behind You!
is it me or some moderators are really in a freaking jumpy mood...
c'mmon, go get a tea or something, stop assuming!



_________________
Image
Go to hell with your questions, my time is done here.
It was fun, but this network is sooooo corrupted by morons, its not worth it.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:16 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 14
xplo wrote:
undernet is not a right, its earned

I never said it's a right I have; I'm very well aware (and thankful) for its service.

Summing it all up, I have to point out the fact that you don't understand my point (or don't want to). While it is true that Undernet access is earned, it's not like Undernet is the only network. You are suggesting to pay $60 per year for a shell when, at the same time, one can get exactly the same service easier and for free. Or, in my case, even more since Tor works with others. You are ignoring the fact that 99% of the annoyed users will just go away instead of bothering to talk about the problem. You are ignoring the fact that an auto-cloak would give results like the current ban, plus benefits.

Perhaps you should read about Tor a little before condemning it as a "evader tool". I wouldn't say that Tor users are basically just trolls: http://www.torproject.org/torusers.html.en
www.torproject.org wrote:
Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security known as traffic analysis. (...) It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind, for the primary purpose of protecting government communications. Today, it is used every day for a wide variety of purposes by the military, journalists, law enforcement officers, activists, and many others.


You're doing nothing but stomping with your foot. You don't use Tor, so you don't care about it being banned. One could go as far as saying that this supports censorship. Something that greatly conflicts with the basic idea behind IRC.
Martin Niemoeller wrote:
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Having said that: pardon me for speaking up.

xplo wrote:
this shall be the end of the discussion

Well, at least we agree on something.


@Eenie: perhaps you could point officals at this thread. I would be thankful if an official would join this discussion.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:06 am
Posts: 182
Location: Behind You!
Torman wrote:
You're doing nothing but stomping with your foot. You don't use Tor, so you don't care about it being banned. One could go as far as saying that this supports censorship. Something that greatly conflicts with the basic idea behind IRC.


you are right, i don't care that TOR is banned because its one less chance for the abusers/evaders..

ill repeat it once more, and for the last time. Use your own ip or a IRC Bouncer! TOR are made to hide your real identity. and we don't want that here, show yourself or begone. that simple. proxy usage/Tor are not welcomed, due to abusive behavior from most of the users related to them, maybe you are 1 of the 5% of people who have a ledgitimate use of them, but nothing will be done, bans will not be lifted.

NB: i will not reply to further posts from this forum.



_________________
Image
Go to hell with your questions, my time is done here.
It was fun, but this network is sooooo corrupted by morons, its not worth it.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:50 pm 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
Torman wrote:

Image snipped

@Eenie: perhaps you could point officals at this thread. I would be thankful if an official would join this discussion.


I share your wish. That more people with Undernet influence and first-hand knowledge would join and participate in this forum.

*sigh*

~Eenie



_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:08 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 14
xplo wrote:
TOR are made to hide your real identity

One could ban everybody and whitelist IP's after a personal application. See you in 1984.

xplo wrote:
bans will not be lifted

From what I've seen, you're luckily not in the position to decide on such things.

Eenie wrote:
I share your wish.

Thanks. I hope it won't take too long to get all this sorted out.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:21 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 14
@Eenie
Did you contact the sysops about the Tor issue and/or did they decide to ignore user questions?

For you as forum admin it should be possible to msg them to take a look at this thread.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:01 pm 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
Torman wrote:
@Eenie
Did you contact the sysops about the Tor issue and/or did they decide to ignore user questions?

<Eenie> Torman, I have no special means to contact the "sysops" on Undernet. I am but a regular user like you there.

For you as forum admin it should be possible to msg them to take a look at this thread.

<Eenie> In a perfect world, yes. LOL


Whether the server admins and/or opers choose to read here is up to them. And as you can see, most choose not to bother.

*sigh*

~Eenie



_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:24 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:30 am
Posts: 11
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Torman, I'd like to thank you personally for writing such an issue here on the Undernet Forum. Now before anyone jumps on me, I'm not an official, I'm not here to cause flame, I'm not here to "show myself", I'm just here to support a user to get his issue fixxed.

@Torman: What you could probably see here, is that Undernet Admins/Opers don't really read the forums, Undernet is not really how it was long time ago, generations have passed, and I believe that some don't care as much as others. Your effort is really great, I must admit, I'm not a regular reader of the forum, but I haven't seen any issues like such brought up. You're probably not getting any answers, because the readers who are here, don't know TOR, never heard of it, or if they did, they heard wrong things, like xplo for example.

BUT, I'm keeping my hopes up, and I'm making my self believe, that YES, an Undernet Admin will see this and will TRY to do something.

+1 Torman.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:55 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
xplo wrote:
undernet is not a right, its earned.


I just have to point out 2 issues here, 1, it's not earned either, it's a privilege, afforded by the Undernet admins whom host the servers. so the only part of that statement from xplo that is correct is the simple fact that access to Undernet is not a right.

2. the real issue here is that use of TOR has been abused by so many people and especially these people that write viruses, and do a lot of the email spamming, Undernet has had no choice but to start blocking TOR access points. not to mention with Undernets username and +x features the hiding that TOR does should not be needed.

So your best bet at getting TOR endpoints unbanned is to get TOR cleaned up, ie so that it can do what it was intended to do instead of providing abusers a free ride.



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:29 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 14
@xplora: First off, thanks for your reply.

xplora wrote:
TOR has been abused by so many people and especially these people that write viruses, and do a lot of the email spamming

I've seen more bots on traditional ISP's than on Tor. Also, Tor blocks outgoing smtp connections.

www.torproject.org wrote:
So ordinary DDoS attacks are not possible over Tor. (...) The default Tor exit policy rejects all outgoing port 25 (SMTP) traffic.

http://www.torproject.org/faq-abuse.html.en#IrcBans might be an interesting read for admins.

xplora wrote:
with Undernets username and +x features the hiding that TOR does should not be needed

It's less about hiding, but more about security. My provider uses DHCP, so I don't have "my own" IP. For me, evading a ban would be as simple resetting my router. But I'm almost never online from home; it's either from work where I use Tor to get around the block of the IRC ports because admins say that IRC is only used for evil things (funny coincidence that the admins at Undernet say the same about Tor) and public hotspots where I don't feel safe knowing that Joe Doe can fire up his laptop and sniff my traffic (yes, I route all traffic through Tor when I am on hotspots).

xplora wrote:
get TOR cleaned up

One can say the same for any other ISP. I've seen malicious activity coming from everywhere, not just Tor.

I would just like to ask a simple question:
Why is auto-cloaking Tor users not an option? Ops can then easily allow or deny Tor on their channels just like Comcast, Verizon or any other ISP.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:57 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:23 pm
Posts: 14
I made the decision to move my channels away from Undernet. All the years I've been on the network have been fun, but the current situation is far from acceptable. I've messaged users about the switch and told them to pass the message on to others so hopefully nobody will get lost. Furthermore, I also notified other chanops I know to consider a move. It's sad that this was the only solution for me, but spending weeks on the offical forum without getting anywhere just doesn't cut it.

@xplo
I know you're not going to reply, but anyway: it's your attitude that kills the network. You were wrong to think that you can force users to play by the rules you consider perfect. That would work if Undernet was the only network; but it is not. Frankly, I do not really care if I am on a network with dozens of servers and hundreds of thousands of users (drones) or if my channels and users will double the statistics of the network I move to. I only care about server uptime. So far there was no netsplit, no flood, no spam, no drone and Tor works just fine. But I know you won't miss me.

@Eenie
At least you have made the effort to help and resolve things, but I hope you can understand my decision. If there were sysops like you, this network would be a great place. Thanks.

@Puck7
Thanks for your support. I quietly left Dalnet before, but I thought that Undernet deserves a discussion about the problems after all the years I've spent here. The issue has been brought up and now it's up to staff to decide the future of its network. There seem to be too many deaf ears though.

@xplora
In my opinion Undernet should seriously rethink its policies. If the fight against drones and abuse would be taken as serious as it's claimed, then officials should look around on the forum a bit more. There are many threads about drones and such where nothing gets done; and I bet #cc-power and #whitehat are still a haven for exactly the activity Undernet claims to fight with measures such as blocking Tor.

Having said all this, it seems like Undernet is doomed to follow the road Dalnet went. I pull out my channels and users, so drone/user ratio goes up. Soon, Undernet will be nothing but a drone network. Too bad it had to go this far.

Goodbye Undernet and rest in peace.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:23 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:14 pm
Posts: 1
I just want to say to Torman, that I was in your situation, 12 years ago. Undernet was full of senseless "security" policies, arrogant opers and clueless admins.

They didn't have a forum to complain about at the time, so after being K-lined for the nth time for chatting thru a NAT wall with my friends who I was living together with and sharing a internetconnection with (the admins/opers didnt know what NAT was at the time, all connections from the same IP was K-lined by trigger happy opers claiming that you were a clone/bot), I took my business to EFnet instead, and I never, ever looked back.

Even tough EFnet at the time was the equivalent of IRC wild west, atleast some stupid oper wasnt all up in your business, unless something illegal actually happened.

After the switch I found that a lot of EFnet people were "disgruntled" Undernet-users. Anyways, I went on to found/takeover a few successful channels, which most of them are still running successfully today.

So thanks Undernet for K-lining me so much, and showing me the true IRC at EFnet.

Rest in peace.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Annyoing "security" policy
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:22 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard
I don't understand this kind of attitude. If you're no longer using UnderNet as your main network or not at all, why are you even making such remarks? Be well in Efnet then.



_________________
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 5 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron