On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Kobi Shmueli <kobi@dal.net> wrote:
Jose Almenara wrote:
i see in other network get problem with bans and abused from the users, maybe need to resolved other problems the first. if DALnet add this recieved
Why don't you tell us what problems these other networks have with bans and abuse from users so we'll be prepared for them?
In some rare cases, address masking might be used to assist a miscreant in commiting an abuse. They might use address masking to evade client-side /ignore filters. Torment a user while masked, then unmask. However, my observation, in seeing the networks where masking has been implemented on a certain scale: this is not that common. When masking is enabled by default, especially. Masking also helps curtail whole family of other types of abuse: attempts to 'hack' other IRC users. For example, attempts to spoof TCP RST packets to disconnect their target from IRC, by convincing either the server that the target closed the connection, or to convince them that the server disconnected them . Not to mention other abusive activity such as attempts to "hack in" or make an intelligent effort to exploit unique security weaknesses on their PC (or NAT) box's open ports, in response to things said (or actions taken) on IRC Or crude attempts to directly "flood" a user off IRC, such as by using a simple SYN flood, or other trivial technique that common windows-based desktop OSes and many Broadband "routers" are not equipped to handle. There are both abuses to other IRC'ers enabled by masking, and abuses enabled by having no masking and making actual IP addresses of IRC'ers public. A full analysis on the value (worth) VS cost of masking, should in theory include both (abuses possible only with masking, and abuses possible only without masking), at ends of the spectrum, I like to think neither abuse is _extremely_ common, but definitely neither possibilities should be ignored. -- -J