Hidden hubs/hidden servers/flat lists (was RE: Do we need mo

[-wassup-]

because the users cant be packeted directly, so theyll take out the server instead.

why not just hide what server a user is using then? i'm suprised efnet hasnt done this already - its already in the code after all.

[Hardy]

because the users cant be packeted directly, so theyll take out the server instead.

why not just hide what server a user is using then? i'm suprised efnet hasnt done this already - its already in the code after all.

We just arent that desperate yet *cough* undernet.. *cough*

But i would like to see flattend /links and hubs hidden from the links output tho. No one needs to see how we are routing the net to find the soft spots...

[wundr]

But i would like to see flattend /links and hubs hidden from the links output tho. No one needs to see how we are routing the net to find the soft spots...
_________________
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.avalonworks.ca & irc.mzima.net
http://www.efnet.info admin/staff

what is your opinion of http://map.efnet.info then?
Personally, I find it very interesting, but then again, I don't packet, and I also don't run a server listed on there...

[Hardy]

But i would like to see flattend /links and hubs hidden from the links output tho. No one needs to see how we are routing the net to find the soft spots...
_________________
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.avalonworks.ca & irc.mzima.net
http://www.efnet.info admin/staff

what is your opinion of http://map.efnet.info then?
Personally, I find it very interesting, but then again, I don't packet, and I also don't run a server listed on there...

I love the map function, but if we decided to flattend links and hide the hubs it had to be removed offcourse. The reason we can have the map page now is because its just a graphical output of /links , so no "secret" information is given out.

If you look at the map im sure you can see the weak points of the network right now, and agree that the one hubbing most or bridging toward europe is the most "effective" target to hit if you want to create some chaos. With flat links they wouldnt know who hubbed the most.

But this should really be in a new thread..

[Hwy]

Some servers already have flattened links enabled (most of the ratbox and hybrid 7 ones, except demon)

With flattened links, any hybrid 7/ircd-ratbox server can set itself hidden (by setting the serverhide { hidden = yes; }; option in the conf. The only problem is that Hybrid 6 and csircd servers are a weak point, since they do not support flattened links or hiding hubs (but besides the csircd servers (prison, concentric/xo's client server, and nac), are there any client servers running Hybrid 6?).

Note that hybrid 6 hubs can hide themselves too, the hidden option is a kludgy hack, they would just need to put '(H) ' in front of their server comment field in the M: line (without the ' of course)

PS. yes, can you split this thread?

[leeh]

why not just hide what server a user is using then? i'm suprised efnet hasnt done this already - its already in the code after all.

One of the main reasons undernet can do serverhiding and efnet cant is organisation. To do serverhiding, you have to resort to channels for finding opers as you have to disable stats p. Undernet has the ability to say "#channel is our official oper channel, you will find an oper in there who will help you". On efnet youd have to rely on the goodwill of opers, which could be fun ;-).

[Hwy]

why not just hide what server a user is using then? i'm suprised efnet hasnt done this already - its already in the code after all.

It's not in all code...Hybrid 6's serverhide is broken, csircd has no serverhide functionality at all, and there's always ways around it and ways a smart abuser could narrow down a server the client is on.

Not to mention the politics involved in voting serverhiding in...

[munky]

personally, i think hiding client server information is more of a nuisance than anything. hidden hubs are fine, because the users don't need to know that information anyways

security through obscurity usually doesn't work, because there are always ways around it (ie - jump servers, /whois, find the server that tells you the idle time, and you are on the same server as them)

[Hardy]

why not just hide what server a user is using then? i'm suprised efnet hasnt done this already - its already in the code after all.

It's not in all code...Hybrid 6's serverhide is broken, csircd has no serverhide functionality at all, and there's always ways around it and ways a smart abuser could narrow down a server the client is on.

Not to mention the politics involved in voting serverhiding in...

The politics around itwould be awfull

However im afraid that some people feel we have to go the full step to do this by hiding what servers users are on and removing links totally.. But i just want to remove the hubs from it and how we are linking this network together, i dont think its needed to hide what servers the users are on yet.

[Hwy]

...

security through obscurity usually doesn't work, because there are always ways around it (ie - jump servers, /whois, find the server that tells you the idle time, and you are on the same server as them)

That specific issue (local WHOIS) doesn't exist in most modern serverhiding algorithms (meaning you MUST do 'WHOIS nick nick' to get the idle time, if you're on the same server or not (these servers also don't permit 'WHOIS server nick)).

There are always ways not-protocol-related to determine servers (measuring lag for one, knowing which domains are not allowed on certain servers, social engineering). Protocol methods can be fixed, these others cannot.

[munky]

last i checked, /whois nick on undernet would show idle time if you were local

[HM2K]

I would hate to see the link list flattened (although I believe some servers already do... (limelight, xs4all, etc), or the server hidden in the whois, i think it would end up being like other networks...

Stuff like this, makes EFnet no longer EFnet... however I do not like change but as I have been told in the past, sometimes it is for the better... (ie: chanfix, however being banned from the request channel doesn't help my case :p)

[leeh]

I would hate to see the link list flattened (although I believe some servers already do... (limelight, xs4all, etc), or the server hidden in the whois, i think it would end up being like other networks...

I could understand your point with full serverhiding but not with flattened links. There is a case for users wanting to be able to know what server a user is on, however I dont see a reason for users to need to know the routing structure of the network..

[HM2K]

I (sadly) find it interesting to know the network structure... especially from a country/international point of view...

I was actually thinking, does it actually make a big difference if the link list is flattened or not?

Surly the fact that someone knows the "weak spot" of the network doesn't make a difference, when you have hidden hubs etc...

[seiki]

I'm strongly against flattened links, and hidden servernames. I think that's by far the lamest thing undernet has done in a long time.. (update, actually I think the nicklength change was even more lame, and recent).

on ircd.servercentral.net I don't allow servers to hide themselves or the routing hierarcy behind them. I host the map.efnet.info bot, and don't plan on changing my ways anytime soon. soo, plan on enjoying the pretty map for years to come.

-douglas