Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?

It is currently Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:55 am
Post by bogzillaq »
Post by Keops »
he can still use /msg x ban <#ch> *!*@*.* or /msg x kick <#ch> *!*@* or other combinations. and even if there was a command to protect against massban commands, takers can still mass ban and create havoc manually just with ops and without the use of x. my solution was to add a flag to restrict the use of X adduser command only to the manager, because the real problem is if someone with access 400+ starts to add usernames to the channel and create multiple takeovers. and after that, the manager has to erase the usernames one by one because there isn't a command available to clear all the access list.bogzillaq wrote:I would like to take capsunel ideea further more ( sorry for my bad english ) : what if the channel manager could set a minimum access level for the /msg x ban <chan> *!*@* command .that way , only trusted people ( if the minimum its set on 499 ) or him ( the 500 ) could ever use it .
Or how about this : i have 400 on a chan . i use /msg x ban #chan *!*@* 366 400 and X kicks every one but the ones higher then 400 ( or 75 if no level supplied ) and every unregistred nick . is that a solution against "takeovers" or what ?
Post by gemeau50 »
The following was mentioned so many time in this forum:Keops wrote: ..., because the real problem is if someone with access 400+ starts to add usernames to the channel and create multiple takeovers. and after that, the manager has to erase the usernames one by one because there isn't a command available to clear all the access list.
Who named that 400? Any level has to be earned, especially administrator level. The day channel owners will stop giving out administrator level as lollypops, this problem will disappear.ZeroSlashe® wrote:..., as it has been said before so many many many many many times, when you @ someone, it has to be a trusted person!
Post by Keops »
even if he's a trusted user, it doesn't mean he can't turn against you some day and decide to create chaos in your channel. i think the adduser restriction flag would be a good improvement.gemeau50 wrote: Who named that 400? Any level has to be earned, especially administrator level. The day channel owners will stop giving out administrator level as lollypops, this problem will disappear.
Post by gemeau50 »
Anybody could turn against a channel owner, even a 499. How long does it take an owner to remove that user access? ... That user will make his show only ounce.Keops wrote:even if he's a trusted user, it doesn't mean he can't turn against you some day and decide to create chaos in your channel. i think the adduser restriction flag would be a good improvement.
Post by ZeroSlashe® »
Post by Sunger »
Post by gemeau50 »
Useless! since limiting the number of bans or kicks would create the opposite problem. Our floatmargin is set to 8 users per 30 seconds. But, under massive attacks, they can get in at least 15 users simultaneously. Why? ... Lag, X reaction time, ... ; who knows? Or, what would you do if they come in -quietly-, gathering a certain amount of users in the channel before starting an attack? You wouldn't be able to defend yourself.Sunger wrote:So why u don't make that X ban max 10 users in 1 minute ...
Return to “How can we improve undernet?”