X suspend command bug

Ask your questions about ircu and GNUWorld, share your ideas, and help the coders in their work.
User avatar
child
Posts: 11
Location: Bucharest, Romania

X suspend command bug

Post by child »

I don't know if this has been already discussed and I don't know if the ones who knew about this bug and take advantage of it will curse on me, but here it is.
X has a bug that allows a person with, let's say, 499 to unsuspend an access of 498, even if the suspension was of level 500. Like, I if you're the manager and suspend a user's access (498) on your channel, I, with 499 access level can easily unsuspend that guy.
my life might be someone else's dream.

User avatar
LadyLu
Posts: 95
Location: Bucharest/Romania

Post by LadyLu »

I`m not sure if an 499 access could unsuspend an user suspended by 500 but including yesterday for example, i had a case in a channel and , as normally, a 450 access couldn`t unsuspend a 500 suspend.
Anyway. i`ll try to check also from the 499 level as i think you say this error you get it from that level only. Never tried :)
I`m not a tease, I`m just a reflection of what you cannot please..

User avatar
lemuel
Posts: 408
Location: Southeast Asia, Philippines

Post by lemuel »

Ok here.

I'm using my username the 500 one to suspend a user who got 300 access level then try to unsuspend the suspension using my friends username who got access level of 499 then this is what X notice
-X- Cannot unsuspend a user that was suspended at a higher level than your own access.
Then that's it. Hope that helps.

Cheers! :wink:
I love Maria Katrina Rey

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

It's a known bug and as I know will be fixed in the new GNUWorld release.
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

User avatar
KoGiTo
Posts: 36
Location: Heaven

Post by KoGiTo »

as Mitko said, that's a known bug. However, it is not known by users. and that's a good thing. don't give it out :)
Dubito Ergo Cogito , Cogito Ergo Sum !

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

Thats NOTHING ! As a co-ordinator .... if an official must be suspended how do u resov the proble , simple u will say ... well its not that easy .... , you will do /msg x suspend * username duration , but ! the abuser can still use the * commands , don't u think this must be fixed ? :D many helpers from #coder-com told me 2 suspend the username , but why ? he made an abuse regarding * not regarding other channels ...
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
[img]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4327/undernetuser0jm.png[/img]

User avatar
xplora
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Post by xplora »

suspending the whole username makes a lot of sense, a properly run Services will have back channels etc that the * users will also have access to, suspending just the * access will not stop them from using there access in those channels, the only way is to suspend the username as a whole then get the password etc fixed.

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

Why don't you just remove his global (*) access ?
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

Well because i have other rules on that network , lol u didn't understand i just want him 2 be a suspended , i think it woud be cool if this will work i mean ... i give him a brake :devious: a forced one ... :devil: so ... because if i globaly suspend him .... he will not be able even 2 use his username ... or 2 login , 2 protect himself(mode x) + i remove him if he makes more abuses or someting ... , i mean .... users have the suspend command why the staff shoud't ? :wink:
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
[img]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4327/undernetuser0jm.png[/img]

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

Because the stuff should be trustworthy.
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

User avatar
sirAndrew
Posts: 760
Location: Romania

Post by sirAndrew »

Exactly....Owning a network it`s just like owning a channel...do you give anyone +400 access on your channel? I hope not! The same thing wkith global access, if you trusted him and he deserves a global access suspend well you can trust him he won`t use the facilities he can use while being suspend. If you don`t trust him then remove his global access. The whole thing with global access was ment for people worth your trust...not people you need to suspend every 2 days because they can`t follow your rules.
sirAndrew @ Undernet.org

8 years on this forum and i'm still the #1 poster around.

User avatar
xplora
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Post by xplora »

xplora wrote:suspending the whole username makes a lot of sense, a properly run Services will have back channels etc that the * users will also have access to, suspending just the * access will not stop them from using there access in those channels, the only way is to suspend the username as a whole then get the password etc fixed.
This also applies to removing the * access, that doesn't resolve any other channels the username has access to, the best option is to globally suspend until you have sorted out the issues with the username owner, if something like removal of * access is needed, then it is probably safe to assume * access isn't the only access to be removed.
As the others have mentioned, if * access needs to be suspended, you have more issues than just their * access.

User avatar
Compy
Posts: 67
Location: Atlanta GA, USA

Post by Compy »

Looks like your questions have been answered here.
X's suspend commands are running normally on undernet aswell.

Thread locked