View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0002667unrealircdpublic2023-07-07 16:46
ReporterJasonTik Assigned Tosyzop  
Status resolvedResolutionfixed 
Product Version3.2.4 
Fixed in Version6.1.2-rc1 
Summary0002667: Restricted remote includes
Description<@Stskeeps> i must admit adding "include { klines }
<@Stskeeps> in example.conf
<@Stskeeps> has been tempting at times
<@Stskeeps> it would probably be so the include only could do ban{} shit
<@Stskeeps> which is a good idea, go report it :P

It would be nice to be able to specify a list of blocks that would be accepted from a possibly untrusted remote include. It would allow people to distribute lists of spammers or whatever without me having to worry the would put an oper in for themselves in the future.
TagsNo tags attached.
3rd party modules



2005-10-31 00:36

reporter   ~0010618

Last edited: 2005-10-31 00:37

Interesting, though in a case like this it may be more appropriate to just have a cronjob wget the remote include, grep it for any invalid blocks (will come up with a regex for this later - maybe!), remove said blocks as appropriate, cp final result to usable location, kill -HUP `cat`, etc.

Also - what would unreal do with a remote conf that did have a "disallowed" block?


2005-10-31 01:22

reporter   ~0010620

this is whatfor dnsbl and other spamlists are made for.


2005-11-02 21:48

reporter   ~0010624


What are you on about pinstrate? This is _nothing_ to do with dnsbl, ahbl, or any other blacklist.

Allow me to clarify what we're talking about.

Let's say I link to a new network, and they want me to use a remote include for what they tell me is 'permanent glines' - I might want to make SURE that it couldn't have anything silly, like.. let's say, an extra o:line for them on MY server.

THAT is what we are talking about here.

That aside, I'd also wonder how it would work where say, one server had a module that fiddled around with some configuration stuff, and the other one didn't.. but then, we already work around that kind of a situation in extban synching stuff, etc.. so I guess it'd even out.


2005-11-02 22:35

reporter   ~0010625

I should point that the situation mentioned here has a trust issue to it. Iow: if you don't trust the admin for a remote include - don't include!

It makes more sense to do this kind of thing with public remote includes such as spammer lists or even the CVS spamfilter.conf, limiting the set of available blocks in case some sneaky hacker decides to add some extra blocks to the config (although for both cases, worse damage could be done with the blocks that *are* available - ban user/ip { mask *@*; }; spamfilter { regex "."; target user; }; etc...)


2005-11-04 18:05

reporter   ~0010638

aquanight's first post: It would ignore the allowed block, possibly log a warning.

aquanight's second post: It doesnt always have to be like that, it could be netwide Vhosts (I know there are better ways to do this, just an example). You cant do much damage making one of those for yourself, since I will ban you by realip.


2005-11-09 08:56

administrator   ~0010678

This idea has been mentioned before, and I don't know yet, I think it's nice, but it's just not on the very top of my list ;).

A very similar idea will be used for the distributed spamfilter (which would only allow spamfilter { } and some other blocks), though that is all done internally.


2013-01-26 10:55

reporter   ~0017388



2023-07-07 16:46

administrator   ~0022945

Syntax is something like:
include "whatever" { restrict-config { nameofblockallowed; } }

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2005-10-30 15:22 JasonTik New Issue
2005-10-31 00:36 aquanight Note Added: 0010618
2005-10-31 00:37 aquanight Note Edited: 0010618
2005-10-31 01:22 pinstrate Note Added: 0010620
2005-11-02 21:48 w00t Note Added: 0010624
2005-11-02 22:35 aquanight Note Added: 0010625
2005-11-04 18:05 JasonTik Note Added: 0010638
2005-11-09 08:56 syzop Note Added: 0010678
2006-11-12 15:22 syzop Status new => acknowledged
2013-01-26 10:55 katsklaw Note Added: 0017388
2023-07-07 16:46 syzop Assigned To => syzop
2023-07-07 16:46 syzop Status acknowledged => resolved
2023-07-07 16:46 syzop Resolution open => fixed
2023-07-07 16:46 syzop Fixed in Version => 6.1.2-rc1
2023-07-07 16:46 syzop Note Added: 0022945