Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(March 1995)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: RFC 1413 & irc... A stupid combination
From: Christopher Davis <ckd @ loiosh . kei . com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 17:18:26 -0500
To: nsayer @ quack . kfu . com (Nick Sayer)
Cc: firewalls @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <gu7wBrc @ quack . kfu . com>
References: <gu7wBrc @ quack . kfu . com>

NS> == Nick Sayer <nsayer @
 quack .
 kfu .
 com>

 NS> Once AGAIN I find myself in the familiar flamewar with the folks
 NS> in charge of IRC over pidentd.

"folks in charge of IRC".  That's a good one; send it to rec.humor.funny.

As for your complaint about the misuse of RFC1413 data tagged OTHER:

        if (strncmp(system, "OTHER", 5))
                cptr->flags |= FLAGS_GOTID;

That's lines 240-241 of s_auth.c from the current server version (2.8.21).

 NS> What happens is that irc uses the result of an ident query
 NS> as the LHS of the user's identity, with the RHS being the
 NS> result of a gethostbyaddr().

Of course, this is only if the query *doesn't* have OTHER, and also is in
lieu of believing the client-supplied userid field.  The user @
 host
"identity" information on IRC is so badly broken it's not funny, but for
hysterical raisins it's going to stay until the protocol gets rewritten.

 NS> irc is clearly using the information returned for more than logging.
 NS> It is, in fact, using it as an authentication protocol - it is
 NS> regarding the returned result as a user's identity. This clearly
 NS> violates both the spirit and letter of the RFC.

IRC's use of it predates that RFC, if I recall correctly, and 931 is
far more liberal about use of returned data (automatic logins?  gack).

 NS> sigh. I'm sorry. It's just that this is the bazzilionth time...

It's also about the zillionth time I've seen complaints about IRC of one
sort or another.  Let's face it, IRC is horrifically broken *and*
horrifically popular.  Just like X.  At least it's still at least
theoretically practical to write something better than IRC and take over
the "market"; I doubt you could stamp out X at this point, even if you
were Microsoft.
-- 
Christopher Davis * <ckd @
 kei .
 com> * <URL:http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/>
     512/03829F89 =  D7 C9 A7 80 8C 84 3F B2  27 E1 48 61 BF FC 18 B4
    1024/66CB73DD =  46 8E FD F5 12 8E 13 4C  2C 8A 92 A3 B0 D5 2A 5E
	  [ Public keys available by finger, WWW, or keyserver ]


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: NTP in Cisco's (was: something else)
From: Robert Sargent <sargent @ SGT . COM>
Next: TCP port used for Oracle SQLNet?
From: mark @ isotro . ca (Mark Marcelissen)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: RFC 1413 & irc... A stupid combination
From: peter @ nmti . com (Peter da Silva)
Next: WebForce, SGI and Firewalls
From: uusr445!bock!daves @ rambone . psi . net

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com