IRC in the Dog House?

Emperor Tiberius asks: "It seems more and more dedicated server companies are turning tail to the idea of hosting IRC machines. Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged. Why is IRC (the once applauded chat medium) being thrown to the dogs? Some might say the horrendous botnets written for the protocol are a part of the problem. However, if we were to shut down the IRC protocol. Isn't it theoretically possible the botnet authors would just migrate to a different protocols like Oscar/AIM, ICQ, ICB, Jabber, just to name a few? If so, how would we manage the problem? Would we shutdown all ICB servers, and cut-off the ICQ network? Are we trying to kill off the problem in the wrong way, or is there a compromise to keep IRC alive, and keep botnets away?"

Rackshack doesn't care...

[Chester K]

Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged.

The submitter misread Rackshack's AUP (as I did when I was signing up for service through them, on this specific topic incidentally -- so I emailed them for clarification). Many of the items in their AUP apply to their virtual servers only -- where many customers share one physical machine. IRC servers aren't permitted on those machines because of the load they put on the machine.

If you've got your own Rackshack server, you can run IRC on it all you want.

Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation'

[iCEBaLM]

Except that there is no content stored on the servers, and all the swapping is done via DCC (Direct Client Connection) and not through the server.

Hosting an IRC server is not like running an illegal music swapping site in the open. Now, running and serving content in one of said IRC servers channels... that's a different story.

-- iCEBaLM

It has nothing to do with botnets

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an oper on a major irc network, so I'm aware of a lot of what goes into running a server. The problem is that when a kiddie gets upset (at other users, a channel or some perceived slight by an oper/the network), they DDoS the server. This uses bandwidth, and bandwidth is money. IRC servers use a good chunk of bandwidth just for regular user behavior, and this blows that away. The bandwidth providers aren't getting much out of this other than a little brand recognition (if that much), so their charity isn't limitless. Hosting providers restrict IRC for this reason, too. They don't want to up the risk of being attacked. Running an IRC server is, unfortunately, a high risk activity these days.

Re:Rackshack doesn't care...

[cybotix]

Rackshack doesn't allow linking your ircd to any public networks (although I doubt any network will accept a Rackshack server anyway :p). They won't mind if you run a private ircd on their servers, but I guess if it ever gets dos'ed/packetted you'll have to pay for the transfer used...

Re:Real reason

[Omega Hacker]

Indeed, I'm co-owner of PDXcolo.net [pdxcolo.net], using User-Mode Linux to do virtual hosting where you actually get root on the box. One of our customers has purchased the largest such system we offer, and proceeded to use it to run a chatnet.org site. Within days we were hit by 50+Mbps DDoS attacks, which actually took out our upstream provider's router at one point. He's still a customer, and we still have problems every once in a while, but we've been told by our upstream ISP that if something like this happens again, *we* are responsible for it. That's going to mean we get either disconnected (BAD) or fined (we can handle that), but it definitely means we won't be allowing that customer to run an IRC server anymore.

That said, other comments to the effect that if it isn't IRC it will be something else are entirely true. I've heard of DNS providers being DDoS'd out of existence because some pathetic 9 year old script kiddie decided to DDoS the *domain* of a site he doesn't like.

Personally, I wish backbone providers had a little more, um, backbone, when it comes to tracking bandwidth spikes through the net to actually catch the attackers. But no, they get paid for the bandwidth whether it's legitimate or not, so they couldn't care less.

Some still offer IRC a home!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It seems more and more dedicated server companies are turning tail to the idea of hosting IRC machines."

At $350 a month, httpd.net [httpd.net] is home for a huge number of IRC servers. With an incredibly advanced and secured network that has been running continuously for over SEVEN YEARS, it has the experience that proves that IRC hosting can be done effectively.

It's not cheap, but quality never is.

In those seven years, it has rarely had any substantial downtime due to attacks, mostly thanks to a serious investment by the administrators to ensure uplink filtering.

Its definitely worth a look when you get serious about a permanent home for an IRC server.

Re:Real reason

[RevAaron]

Indeed. If/when a responsible IRC network like Freenode goes away, I imagine it will be because of better means of communication or a lack of interest. When you run your IRC server in a way that people can exploit it for their evil doings (ok, over simplification!) it's no surprise people will avoid it.

Re:Rackshack doesn't care...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth the Rackshack AUP:

IRC networks: It is absolutely forbidden to host an IRC server that is part of or connected to another IRC network or server. Servers found to be connecting to or part of these networks will be immediately removed from our network without notice. The server will not be reconnected to the network until such time that you agree to completely remove any and all traces of the irc server, and agree to let us have access to your server to confirm that the content has been completely removed. Any server guilty of a second violation will result in immediate account termination.

...be it virtual or dedicated.

Re:Real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Dynamic DNS providers seem to be another target for DDoS attacks simply because they piss off the same sort of "users": Most DDNS providers have a policy which prohibits use of their service for illegal purposes, like warez servers. I'm not sure how script kiddies expect to change this by taking out the DDNS provider, but kicking warez-domains off DDNS is apparently a direct way to load-test your infrastructure.