full-disclosure - SSL compliant IRCd's?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: ge at egotistical.reprehensible.net (Gadi Evron)
Subject: SSL compliant IRCd's?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Seeing that usual "MS sucks" debate above with no real purpose, I got to
thinking..

SSL supporting IRC servers have been around for a very long time now.

There are a couple of implementations, and a few more private
implementations.. some of which use an SSL tunnel on both ends (client
and server) in order to get it working.

I haven't looked into this in many years, ever since I tried and help
start one of the very first SSL'd IRC networks (suidnet, I think the
website is still up), nor do I use IRC much anymore.

Anyone has any details regarding current useful IRCd + SSL
implementations they can recommend?

I'd appreciate any input.

One worry I always have when encryption is involved, especially in a
"place" such as the IRC, where user-errors and mistakes can be paramount
and critical to security is that when using any kind of encryption,
people generally feel "safe" and "secure". Encryption, psychologically
and sociologically speaking can be very dangerous.

Just my $0.02.

Thanks again for your input and comments, I am looking forward to trying
some new daemons.

	Gadi Evron.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAsx1cqH6NtwbH1FARAgsZAKCMGYzqLgoVjNRHLtz1CvP83WJ+qQCdFQgh
dZQxfyz8aNQAn8HYr+GBGKA=
=U5y9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----