View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002453 | unreal | ircd | public | 2005-03-30 07:58 | 2007-04-27 05:14 |
| Reporter | Snake | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | wont fix | ||
| Product Version | 3.2.3 | ||||
| Summary | 0002453: An U:Lined server has not access to /HTM command | ||||
| Description | My Services server cannot send the command /HTM to the network because UnrealIRCd reject it. The message "Permission Denied- You do not have the correct IRC operator privileges" is sent to the U:Lined server, which has normally the full power on the network. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
First off, a U:line does *not* mean it has the ability to do everything. Second, why would a U:line need to send an htm command? |
|
|
I can kind of understand the want for that, ie: services detecting a flood and wanting to send the network into HTM mode... (there isn't any SVSHTM cmd is there? ;)) |
|
|
First of all, how does services detect a flood better than the IRCd? That's simply not possible. Services only receives commands addressed to it. The IRCd receives the commands from all of the users of the server, hence the IRCd is in a *much* better position to detect a flood. Secondly, having services activate HTM will only interfere with the IRCd's internal activation mechanisms. HTM is costly, it shouldn't be activated unless it is needed. Therefore, having the IRCd decide when it needs it, rather than services telling every server on the network it is needed, is a much better way to go. |
|
|
Services will not decide alone to enter in HTM. But HTM can be automatically actived when Services (Anope) enter in DEFCON mode for instance, which can only be actived manually by an IRC Administrator, so it has the same effect than a simple /HTM sent by an IRCop; except it is sent immediately after the DEFCON command. A module to do this thing already exists on Anope.org, I think it's a good idea but if Services don't have the needed access... |
|
|
Why not? If it useful and working with anope why not add permission so the ulined server can send the HTM command to servers? |
|
|
Ok, but did you notice HTM doesn't accept, for example, a server parameter? So services would only be able to put the uplink server into HTM mode. What would be the point of that? Also, DEFCON is not just used for floodbots. I've seen one network use defcon to keep out a particular user that must've had >10000000+ (secured, apparently) proxies. Is something like that worth putting the servers into HTM? No. |
|
|
Yes, but the problem is not to debate about the association of DEFCON with HTM; but to allow the use of HTM to Services. If DEFCON is used seriously by the admins, it is useful to enter in HTM to stop some proxies attacks. After, you decide if you want to use the module which combines both or not. |
|
|
[quote]If DEFCON is used seriously by the admins, it is useful to enter in HTM to stop some proxies attacks.[/quote] HTM should *not* be used to stop proxy attacks. Most likely, it will make matters worse. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-03-30 07:58 | Snake | New Issue | |
| 2005-03-30 18:23 |
|
Note Added: 0009681 | |
| 2005-03-30 23:39 | w00t | Note Added: 0009682 | |
| 2005-03-30 23:44 |
|
Note Added: 0009683 | |
| 2005-03-31 03:11 | Snake | Note Added: 0009685 | |
| 2005-04-10 06:29 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0009723 | |
| 2005-04-10 11:45 | aquanight | Note Added: 0009724 | |
| 2005-04-10 12:46 | Snake | Note Added: 0009725 | |
| 2005-04-10 12:51 | Snake | Note Edited: 0009725 | |
| 2005-04-10 13:53 |
|
Note Added: 0009727 | |
| 2007-04-27 05:14 |
|
Status | new => closed |
| 2007-04-27 05:14 |
|
Resolution | open => wont fix |
