Remove ddos attack botnets, and actually have support online

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.
Tulle
Posts: 4

Re: actually

Post by Tulle »

sirAndrew wrote:
Tulle wrote:
trmade98 wrote:You right.. it takes a LONG LONG TIME TO TYPE

/msg chanserv FORBID #<channame> BOTNET

i can understand why you have a waiting list.


:classic:


Do whatever you want. I`m sorry for trying to help you clean up botnets. Let them run wild. Dalnet did. Look how it worked for them.

END OF THREAD

-trmade98


The problem is that Undernet doesn't really have such a "lockdown" feature. There is no simple way of closing down a channel. An oper can get ops in a channel and set the channel invite only and kick all users in it, but then she'd have to join a bot or something in order to keep the channel.



Wrong, GNUworld and Undernet does have a feature that can be used to close down a channel. It`s called a GChan.

Code: Select all

-UWorld- ****** GCHAN COMMAND ******
-
-UWorld- Sets a bad channel gline on a channel
-
-UWorld- Syntax: /msg UWorld Gchan <#channel> <duration/-per> <reason>');
-
-UWorld- if a -per is specified as a duration, the gline will be permanent


Ircops can gline a whole channel. That doesn`t mean that all the users from the channel will get gline it will only kick all the users on the channel and won`t allow anyone to join the channel anymore. [/code]


Sure, GNUWorld provides commands which you can use to gline entire channels, /msg euworld gline #channel, etc, but this doesn't mean that opers are allowed to use it. Same goes for gchan, etc.
Tulle

User avatar
FoXXy
Posts: 19
Location: At my computer

Post by FoXXy »

BotNets bleah ... unstopable :)

Tulle
Posts: 4

Post by Tulle »

sirAndrew wrote:
Tulle wrote:
trmade98 wrote:You right.. it takes a LONG LONG TIME TO TYPE

/msg chanserv FORBID #<channame> BOTNET

i can understand why you have a waiting list.


:classic:


Do whatever you want. I`m sorry for trying to help you clean up botnets. Let them run wild. Dalnet did. Look how it worked for them.

END OF THREAD

-trmade98


The problem is that Undernet doesn't really have such a "lockdown" feature. There is no simple way of closing down a channel. An oper can get ops in a channel and set the channel invite only and kick all users in it, but then she'd have to join a bot or something in order to keep the channel.



Wrong, GNUworld and Undernet does have a feature that can be used to close down a channel. It`s called a GChan.

Code: Select all

-UWorld- ****** GCHAN COMMAND ******
-
-UWorld- Sets a bad channel gline on a channel
-
-UWorld- Syntax: /msg UWorld Gchan <#channel> <duration/-per> <reason>');
-
-UWorld- if a -per is specified as a duration, the gline will be permanent


Ircops can gline a whole channel. That doesn`t mean that all the users from the channel will get gline it will only kick all the users on the channel and won`t allow anyone to join the channel anymore. [/code]


The fact that "gchan" or "gline #channel" commands exist in uworld doesn't necessarily mean that any ircop is allowed to use them.
Tulle

User avatar
Dude
Posts: 64
Location: Brasov

Post by Dude »

Drones can only be stopped by the continuous software development. And maybe some tcpip changes for smurfers.
Dudes & dudettes

ewolix
Posts: 1
Location: Celje, Slovenia

Post by ewolix »

Well, I found many botnets and I destroyed them .. myself with no 'help' opers who are not listening to us, well anyway.. does anybody really care ? no, so shut up :x
u dare ?

User avatar
Criterion
Posts: 2
Location: 127.0.0.1

Post by Criterion »

Well, Undernet is now officially a lame network. I've found a list of like 200 botnets, and they are CONNECTED RIGHT NOW. Most of the oper channels, oh sorry, ALL of the oper channels told me to go to another place to get help, and finally, one of them told me to go to #report-abuse (which was +i), or write to some kind of e-mail that nobody is reading.

How am I supposed to get rid of them now? Slap them until they die? I'm not sure if a trout is a weapon of mass destruction though...

EDIT: Undernet is a complete disaster

Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

i think opers and network admins are been threaten by botnet owners. thats why they're afraid of banning them. with the drones they have, they could easily lockdown the entire network for weeks.

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

I don't want to discuss on this subject bu,t I feel the need to say this: if you don't know anything and you just hear voices, then don't talk ! That's all I am going to say even if I can write 10 pages and how the things really are. Thanks for your time you lost reading my post.

Best Regards,
Mit 8)
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
Image

Lion-O
Posts: 11
Location: #linux

Post by Lion-O »

Mitko wrote:I don't want to discuss on this subject bu,t I feel the need to say this: if you don't know anything and you just hear voices, then don't talk !

One of the reasons people talk and pick up rumours is the lack of information given through official channels. Add to that the experiences which everyone can get themselves when it comes to reporting botnets (the statement that there are dozens of them connected right now is simply true), flooders and other kiddies and you have the perfect ground for speculation.

While I do understand and acknowledge that in many cases its best not to give too much attention to kiddies since they'll thrive on it, one also has to realize that sometimes its even worse not to provide any information at all. That will only make your users suspicious and unhappy when it seems there is a growing lack of interest in their welfare. And that is the situation which Undernet is coping with right now, and unless something drastic changes I fear the worst.

Why not simply stand up to them? Fear is not exactly the right motivation to do the things which seem to be done right now.

So what if kiddies try to level the entire network? It happened to Dalnet and everyone declared them dead. Yeah, well, look at where they are now ? I'd say if kiddies want to spoil the fun for all of us don't give in to them but take action. And if that action results in them flooding the network simply shut it down for $amount_of_time when worse comes to worst. Your users probably won't like it, but I'm quite sure that they'll like a network which stands up to all the crap a lot better than a network which seemingly tries to shove all the trouble into the shoes of its users. And I'm also quite sure that whenever something like this should happen and Undernet doesn't make a secret about what is going on they can also expect a majority of the users to back them up on their decision and to return home the moment the net is back up.

Sometimes I wonder.. Is it still about fun and hobby when it comes to Undernet or has it already grown too big for those simple motivations to exist ?
With kind regards, Lion-O

User avatar
ZeroSlashe®
Posts: 238
Location: Netherlands

Post by ZeroSlashe® »

Everybody whines, everybody complains, everybody knows better and everybody has an idea of how it should be done to get rid of it.

How about this:
stop whining
stop complaining
if you know better and have an idea of how it should be done, make it clear with ideas that can work and will do enough to get rid of the issues.

It's always complaining and asking coders / opers / admins to get rid of them, but how are they supposed to do that, do they wanna shut the network down for a certain amount of time and have it fixed (heck that could take weeks?) or they wanna find a way to keep the network running yet finding a way at the same time to kill the drones.

Think about that, coders / opers / admins are humans too, not machines, they need ideas and to solve issues yet make certain decisions aswell before it will be a mess.
Image

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

trmade98 wrote:Is that channel closed?

If not, then you have to ask yourself... could all of my energy aruging been better put toward doing a channel close?

-trmade98


dude, whats the purpose of closing a chan ?
They will simply create a new one. So closing a chan is USELESS !
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

Lion-O
Posts: 11
Location: #linux

Post by Lion-O »

Ok, here is a suggestion... Try to give out a little more information and insight as to what is going on right now. I am sure that this will end a - lot - of 'whining'.

So far all I can see of this 'whining' isn't so much about telling coders / opers / etc. that they're doing it all wrong. Its more like pleeing to actually get something done. There is a difference there... The cause for that is IMO the lack of information. People don't know whats going on and don't know where they stand.

If people would know that something is being done without getting the impression to be completely left on their own, they wouldn't whine this much IMO.

Don't believe me ?

Just take a look at several websites concerning IRC networks. Whenever UnderNet hit the topic this year you'll almost immediatly hear about netsplits, kiddies, floodbots, botnets (and the channels housing them) almost everytime followed with hopes and expectations that people will do something about it some day. Where, in the same thread, you're also bound to find messages from people on other (large) networks who can understand the issues, but come up with stories what "their" network does.

The difference ?

I bet that both parties suffer in the same amounts, all larger networks seem to be suffering from these issues. But some networks don't make a secret about it, thus creating at least some sympathy with their users for the trouble they experience, while others try to totally ignore the problem. The moment some user asks about the symptoms (netsplits, floods, kiddies) they're told to stop whining.

While I do understand that it gets tiresome to hear the same stories over and over and over again and absolutely agree that a mere "STFU" is relieving. However, why not try to think about what is causing all those 'whiners' to speak up like this and try to find a way to silence them while keeping them happy (well, sort of anyway) ?


And if you guys don't have the time for all this extra overhead, fine, why not just consider appointing someone as 'spokes- man/woman' who knows whats going on and who's sole responsibility is to inform the public while making sure not to give out too much information ? No more worries about several people bringing out several 'official' stories, no extra overhead for the current bunch of coders / opers / etc. and last but certainly not least: finally some clarification for all your users as to what the heck is going on.
With kind regards, Lion-O

Tulle
Posts: 4

Post by Tulle »

ZeroSlashe® wrote:if you know better and have an idea of how it should be done, make it clear with ideas that can work and will do enough to get rid of the issues.


There are A LOT of people who have awesome ideas which would get rid of alot of Undernets drones/floodbots. Thing is that most Undernet admins just put their heads in the sand, and ignore the problem. This is very sad, since there most probably are more drones than actual users on Undernet right now.

ZeroSlashe® wrote:It's always complaining and asking coders / opers / admins to get rid of them, but how are they supposed to do that, do they wanna shut the network down for a certain amount of time and have it fixed (heck that could take weeks?) or they wanna find a way to keep the network running yet finding a way at the same time to kill the drones.


No, but they could implement some tools for opers which would make it possible to remove the drones. Other networks use the tools, and they'd work on Undernet as well. It's just that Undernet is based on the "If we don't hurt them, they wont hurt us" policy, which is just bullshit. Servers and users will be packeted as long as script kiddies are allowed on the net.
Tulle

Lion-O
Posts: 11
Location: #linux

Post by Lion-O »

Well, the silence is telling something. I guess people don't want this discussed anymore.

However, having suffered from 20+ netsplits in one day (I am aware of the different ircu versions being used on the network but really; if you put the blame for the increasing splits on that you're insulting ircu IMVHO) I'm wondering why people still need to be logged into services to get a cloaked hostmask. With all these splits thats becoming harder and harder to do.

So why not consider cloaking by default ? Thats also bound to make a lot of "fishing bots" obsolete thus perhaps relieving the network of some extra overhead. For example; replace the 1st or first 2 parts of the hostname with 'undernet'.

Lion-O!peter@myhostname.provider.nl could become Lion-O!peter@undernet.provider.nl. Or perhaps simply replace it entirely with "unregistered.undernet.org" which gets changed the moment you log onto services.

Just another 2 cents.
With kind regards, Lion-O

User avatar
Hyper^
Posts: 92
Location: Transylvania

Post by Hyper^ »

Lion-O wrote:
Lion-O!peter@myhostname.provider.nl could become Lion-O!peter@undernet.provider.nl. Or perhaps simply replace it entirely with "unregistered.undernet.org" which gets changed the moment you log onto services.


ok but did you have in mind the ban problem?
how will you ban individual if everyone has the same host? and don't tell me you'll ban the nick or identd... because than can be easyly changed for evading bans...
Watch out your attitude! Follow the white rabbit...