X suspend command bug

child · Post by **child** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:38 am

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.

LadyLu · Post by **LadyLu** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:57 am

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

lemuel · Post by **lemuel** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:07 am

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!

Mitko · Post by **Mitko** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:56 pm

It's a known bug and as I know will be fixed in the new GNUWorld release.

KoGiTo · Post by **KoGiTo** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:00 am

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

Dooku · Post by **Dooku** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:26 am

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 ?

many helpers from #coder-com told me 2 suspend the username , but why ? he made an abuse regarding * not regarding other channels ...

xplora · Post by **xplora** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:58 am

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.

Mitko · Post by **Mitko** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:04 am

Why don't you just remove his global (*) access ?

Dooku · Post by **Dooku** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:09 am

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

a forced one ...

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 ?

Mitko · Post by **Mitko** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:25 pm

Because the stuff should be trustworthy.

sirAndrew · Post by **sirAndrew** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:12 pm

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.

xplora · Post by **xplora** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:30 am

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.

Compy · Post by **Compy** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:29 pm

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

Thread locked

X suspend command bug

X suspend command bug

Login • Register