View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003225 | unreal | ircd | public | 2007-02-02 14:35 | 2015-05-27 18:18 |
| Reporter | djGrrr | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | wont fix | ||
| Platform | * | OS | * | OS Version | * |
| Product Version | 3.3-alpha0 | ||||
| Summary | 0003225: RKLINE and RZLINE | ||||
| Description | It would be nice to be able to add/remove ZLINEs and KLINEs remotely, rather than having to be local to the server. There are quite a few situations where this can be quite useful. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
hmm, actually I like this idea. Also on a network that keeps staff to that particular server for whatever reason, and someone needs to remove it etc. or if it was just an IPv6 server or smth...i like it, not too sure how hard it would be to do it, i dont even know if you would have to spoof a client or smth, anyway...I like it :) |
|
|
coding wise, its actually quite easy, as once you have the command to correct server, you should be able to just the zline/kline functions locally on that server. |
|
|
I can see it being useful, and the coding part should be relatively easy. I think I'll try to start a module with these commands when I come back from my small vacation, maybe thursday. |
|
|
you would think that being able to remotly add a z/k-line would be stupid, since you could just do a Gz/k-line, but i suppose it may have its ups...though not sure, but i still think being able to remotly remove these lines is a good idea |
|
|
being able to add them is very good as well: i currently have a botnet (with 1000s of bots) connecting to my network for which i wrote a bot to get rid of them on connect by gzlining; the thing is, these bots are only connecting to a single server, so theres no point in bogging down all 14 of my servers with 1000s of bans when only one needs these bans, but there is currently no way in adding them remotely |
|
|
i see...well i guess that could make sense. still dont see why you dont connect their and addthem, or do a spamfilter, and the spamfilter will only add it their if you set it to kline or smth or zline |
|
|
Indeed spamfilter is quite an interesting way to remotely add klines or zlines. But not remove them. The next question becomes how you set the required permission for that. gline/gzline priv makes sense, but then you have the admins that don't want every oper under the sun on the network able to tweak with their klines/zlines, where before they couldn't (can't come up with good reason atm, but I'm sure there's *someone* like that). Probably something like a conf block of hosts that can remotely add these (like EFnet does), and they would of course have to be >= global, and maybe require can_g(z)line on top of that. |
|
|
what i do with the bot, cannot be done with the spamfilter, as it gets them instantly on connect with a list of blacklisted nicknames (> 6000 so far), and when the bot misses one (which rarely happens), the spamfilter gets them with a zline, and the bot adds the new nickname to its blacklist, but I would prefer to not run this bot on the remote server. It has GZ:Lined more than 7000 ips so far, 5500 of which i moved to local zlines on that server manually with a bit of scripting. I like the idea of having a conf block for hosts allowed to remotely add k/z:lines, but only for globals, co-admins, and server-admins, services-admins and netadmins should be able to do it anyways A(or maybe just netadmins). |
|
|
Started working on it... I don't know when it will be done. EDIT: No, sorry, this is much too complicated for me. |
|
|
pretty sure this is a dup of an old bug report by me. 1776 and 1430 have the same request (1776 was mine) |
|
|
yes, this has been rejected in the past, but i think it should be considered again, the fact that this is the third time its been requested by three different people should make it more obvious that this is a feature that many people would want and use. When i said earlier that i didn't want to bog down all servers with 1000s of bans that are only usefull on a single server, i really meant BOG down. everyime a user connections, it spikes to 100% cpu usage for around half a second, and for a net that gets 6 connects/minute average, thats really bad. The single server gets maybe 1 connect/minute average, its not nice to have every server regularly freezing to check bans cause there are so many |
|
|
I'd say this one is suitable for a 3rd party module? Any takers? |
|
|
[21:36] <Bricker> Stskeeps: problem with making it 3rd party is that it wont be supportered by us, which is what i think users want (added as a note to self) |
|
|
Admittedly, but if someone code it it might get included as extras/ or whatever. :P |
|
|
haven't seen anyone else request this, so I'm closing this. Can be implemented in a module though (as stated earlier) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-02-02 14:35 | djGrrr | New Issue | |
| 2007-02-02 20:35 | Bricker | Note Added: 0013164 | |
| 2007-02-03 07:01 | djGrrr | Note Added: 0013168 | |
| 2007-02-03 11:34 | Grunt | Note Added: 0013170 | |
| 2007-02-03 17:29 | Bricker | Note Added: 0013171 | |
| 2007-02-03 18:45 | djGrrr | Note Added: 0013173 | |
| 2007-02-03 21:17 | Bricker | Note Added: 0013174 | |
| 2007-02-04 00:45 | aquanight | Note Added: 0013179 | |
| 2007-02-04 05:36 | djGrrr | Note Added: 0013180 | |
| 2007-02-08 10:45 | Grunt | Note Added: 0013201 | |
| 2007-02-08 20:53 | Grunt | Note Edited: 0013201 | |
| 2007-03-14 01:28 | tabrisnet | Note Added: 0013312 | |
| 2007-03-14 07:04 | djGrrr | Note Added: 0013314 | |
| 2007-04-18 05:45 |
|
Relationship added | related to 0001776 |
| 2007-04-18 05:45 |
|
Relationship added | related to 0001430 |
| 2007-04-18 05:45 |
|
Status | new => acknowledged |
| 2007-04-18 05:46 |
|
Note Added: 0013511 | |
| 2007-04-18 05:48 |
|
Relationship added | child of 0003284 |
| 2007-04-18 20:37 | Bricker | Note Added: 0013567 | |
| 2007-04-19 02:07 |
|
Note Added: 0013571 | |
| 2015-05-27 18:18 | syzop | Note Added: 0018356 | |
| 2015-05-27 18:18 | syzop | Status | acknowledged => resolved |
| 2015-05-27 18:18 | syzop | Resolution | open => wont fix |
| 2015-05-27 18:18 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
