IRC in the Dog House? 94
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?"
Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Warez (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it just may be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Combine that with the public image of IRC being used for illegal file distrobution and "hackers", IRC's in low reguard.
it's not about the protocol (Score:5, Insightful)
The
technical requirements [undernet.org] for running an Undernet.org server explain it pretty clearly. 5 Mbps of legit traffic, plus becoming a target for massive DDOS attacks? Why would a hosting company want that kind of service in their netblock?
Yea, sure, other IRC networks aren't nearly as high-profile, but this is the reputation that IRC has gotten, along with being a haven for copyright violation.
If you want to run an IRC server, then get your own dedicated net connection from a backbone provider and you can host whatever (legal) service you want.
Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (Score:3, Insightful)
Hosting an IRC server in this day and age is like running an illegal music swapping site in the open. At some point the powers that be (the RIAA or the BSA, for example) will act, so why tempt them in the first place?
Not necessarily... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Some trojans already use non-IRC protocol. Some trojans already use more than one protocol.
2) Almost all of the larger networks run some type of anti-drone and anti-proxy system to prevent the problem from getting out of control. Said programs are widely available in a variety of forms for most IRC daemons.
Newer worms target smaller networks because of this, since smaller networks generally don't run said software (besides the usual nickname/channel services). Many worms also use private IRC networks, since the botnets can't be tracked and/or shut down as easily on them.
3) Most IRC servers are not hosted by people who lease servers at small hosting companies. A majority of servers linked to larger networks are either hosted by ISPs or by large entities with large amounts of bandwidth to burn.
Smaller hosting providers purposely shun IRC servers because they know that they can be a bandwidth burden (not to mention a DDoS target). Larger hosts, which monitor their bandwidth 24/7, usually don't object to hosting servers - all they have to do is blackhole the server's IP when a DDoS attack comes their way and the disruption is minimalized.
EFnet [efnet.info] may have lost some high-profile servers lately, but the majority of IRC networks are doing well server-wise. QuakeNet [quakenet.org] (the world's largest IRC network) is in the process of starting a campaign to link more North American servers... and not because the network needs more servers (they could easily handle 300000 users in their current state), but because they want to draw in more North American users.
Re:Hosting IRC is asking for a BSA 'investigation' (Score:3, Insightful)
DCC was introduced on the Client-side as a method of sending pictures. It has remained client-side. Too bad it evolved into what it is considered today...
Think of it this way: Let's say that ICQ doesn't support file-sharing. Eventually someone figures out a way to file-share over the ICQ network by using just messages and codes it into a popular alternative client. Said protocol spreads and ten years later is generaly considered a basic feature of an ICQ client. That's basically what DCC is to IRC.
For those that don't believe, check out this article [irchelp.org].
Why people don't like IRC (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're lucky the bot won't be used to host illegal warez using up any bandwidth that is left over from the DDoS, and now you have the RIAA/MPAA knocking on your door too.
People that want to hide from people are often doing it because they are involved in illegal activities such as CC# trading, and/or DDoS networks. So you are getting paid in illegal money (that people will want back), by someone you can't trace.
The people that want to use IRC shell accounts tend to "trade" them on IRC so that they can get even more obscure ones to hide even better (or to have backups in case their main one gets attacked). So now the account is used by 20 people, none of which are accountable for their actions, who are drawing attacks against your services.
In general, letting people IRC from your shell is just asking for trouble. There are plenty of shell providers that capture this niche market with hundreds of "vhosts" so you can choose which "leet" hostname you will appear to come from. They are better set up to weather DDoS, and they are careful about accepting CC#'s.
One of the reasons that IRC has such a bad rep is that it's very "instantanious" to see the affects that your attacks have on people. You can see someone's real IP, and DDoS them and watch them get disconnected. You could pick some random IP off the internet and DDoS that, but it's not nearly as satisfying as watching someone "Ping timeout" off IRC. Other networks like Jabber, ICQ, MSN etc don't give you the IP address of the remote person without their permission, and you have less of a situation where you can see other people. There are less common resources (such as globally nick names) to fight over. The networks aren't as vunerable to attack (DDoS'ing an IRC hub will make the entire network split in two, not just preventing people of that server from talking, but denying half the network from talking to the other half. DDoS'ing a Jabber server prevents users on just that server from talking).
I personally think that the IRC protocol should die a natural death (and, in fact, should have died it about 10 years ago when it was obvious it wasn't going to work) and should be replaced with something like Jabber.
Re:Warez (Score:4, Insightful)
And hardware stores allow people to make bombs, and weapons. Get off the illegal excuse. Anything can be abused.
And DDoS applications now use websites to load commands, and IRC network scan for large bot type networks. Its pretty easy for the police to track people on IRC, if your worried about illegal stuff, dont worry, the feds sit on irc and pretend to be 14 yo girls. Last count, there are over 75 cyber cops sitting on networks just looking for pedophiles. Imagine how many are looking for movies and other warez?
But on the good side, IRC can be encrypted, a place to chat with other people with same interests, get questions answered, user groups, etc. IRC isnt going away, just look at how many networks there are, gamesnet.net, slashnet, opensource servers, support servers for companies, DJ groups, etc. There are thousands of small servers out there, other than the big ones, Efnet, Undernet, etc.
IRC is a tool, when a better tool comes along, you trade up. Until then, go get irssi and have fun.
IRC Needs Improvements (Score:5, Insightful)
The current state of
The lack of security design is another. Using nicks as identifiers just isn't a fantastic idea -- in this day and age, a public key can reasonably be part of an identifier. Encryption should be simply part of the protocol, at least client-to-client, and ideally to the server as well. There isn't *that* much traffic from each client (though it'd certainly put more load on the server, and might require a more fanned-out-network.
Fserves are an affront to humanity. Granted, this isn't really a native IRC issue, but client support for easy linking to sftp servers would be a good idea.
A fair bit of IRC is a holdover from the days when everything was terminal-based. There's no reason you can't make good text-based clients that provide the same presentation (say, showing chanop prefixed with an "@", but the data being transferred to the client shouldn't be constrained by these formatting issues.
It would be nice to have some kind of anonyminity features, even if most people don't use them and doing so degrades performance. Say, the ability to form "rings" of clients that proxy each others' server-bound data.
Some sort of native support in IRC for mapping IRC networks would be nice.
IRC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Micropayments (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why people don't like IRC (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding shells: there are many legitimate reasons to use a shell for IRC, from vanity hosts to bypassing firewall restrictions. While the use of vanity hosts (vhosts) is debatable [spamcalc.net], there's nothing wrong with wanting to show off something like the domain name of a website you maintain or a project you're involved with...
You can't just assume thaty everyone uses a shell to hide or do something illegal. Besides, most people who really want to hide properly use a variety of non-legitimate proxies or route through trojan-infected individuals - it's too easy to get caught by using a dedicated IRC proxy on a shell maintained for such a purpose.
Regarding accountability: If said server gets banned from a network because of something like 20 users using the same account, then it's their own fault for failing to prevent such things from happening.
Regarding bots: There's nothing wrong with running a bot to keep others off a nickname. I do it on many networks and I usually don't have a problem with DDoS. Then again, I usually avoid networks like EFnet where there's no real way to protect hostname information from someone who really wants to pound my bot into the ground.
Regarding illegal activity: Those who are committing illegal activity don't just use IRC. they use all forms of chat, including this "Jabber" you speak of.
Regarding DDoS: There have been several improvements on a majority of IRCds that protect people from the attacks you describe, the biggest example of which is hostmasking (usermode +x or +z, depending on the daemon). Additional steps are also in the process of being taken to improve said safety on IRC.
Besides that, "Kiddies" can sniff out IP adddresses just as easily via other chat mediums as they can with uncloaked users on IRC if they have the right tools. I've been DDoSed by morons on ICQ and AIM many a time...
Regarding MPAA/RIAA: Most shell providers prohibit said illegal activity, passing the blame onto the end user since they violated the shell server's ToS. Those that don't are asking for it. Remember - the RIAA/MPAA doesn't give a crap about what's sitting on someone's server - they're out to fry whoever put it there. And do you think whoever operated the shell is going to help them? Damn right they are...
Yes, IRC has it's faults, but keep in mind that only a portion of networks (See: EFnet, IRCnet) are lagging behind in terms of evolution. The others are working hard to bring IRC up to par with other chat mediums. All of the things you've mentioned haven't gone unnoticed within the community...
Re:IRC Needs Improvements-but you missed security (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok... Security 101 class - what does a public key give you on IRC that a nick doesn't ???
Absolutely nothing without a trust relationship beyond knowing that the same key is used to log in (and probably attaching nick usage to a private key somehow usefully). Oh and at 1.5kbit (or ~190 bytes without parity checking) private keys are a little large to throw around on a per message bassis.
Quiz II - What are you protecting from when you encrypt between you and the server (lets assume you also ment authenticate as well - since encryption without authentication is worthless)
Well I would say nothing, because your message will be decrypted - and re-encrypted to anyone that was listening to you where they can post it anywhere they want (to a log file maybe ?) - also the irc server has the message in the clear, so you have to trust it as well... not a pretty site.
I won't argue too hard with the rest though