full-disclosure - Why is IRC still around?

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

Message-ID: <20041119221013.GC22245@sentinelchicken.org>
From: tim-security at sentinelchicken.org (Tim)
Subject: Why is IRC still around?

> My mistake; I was referring to the discussion, collaboration, and
> creation, not the spread.

You mentioned DDoS attacks below.  I don't believe that use is a form of
discussion, collaboration, or creation.

> Some say we should, but I am not one of those. My point was to get rid
> of the most well established tool (and easiest to use) for these types
> of activities.

Any tool can be used by anyone for good or evil.  If one knows the
kiddies are all hanging out on IRC, then you can get a lot of good info
about what their new attacks are by loitering on their channels.

> What's the difference? IRC is so well established for the type of
> activity I am referring to.

As it is established for many productive things.  Ever check out
freenode?

> I'll leave the piracy battle for someone else - I just mentioned it as
> a part of the problem.

If you aren't prepared to defend it on this list, better not mention it.
=)

> Sure netcat is an alternative, but which one is easier to use?

Um... netcat, or raw tcp sockets.  I would argue it is easier to write
something that just opens a connection, and listens for commands to come
back, than something that has to speak IRC.  Speaking IRC has its own
advantages, but in the absence of it, it is still trivial to manage a
bot net.

> I thought I would throw out the idea. If you want to call me a troll,
> then so be it, but don't get your panties in a knot over the whole
> thing

Pardon my harsh reply.  It wasn't personal, and is directed only at your
reasoning.  It is a similar reasoning that leads to the slippery slope
toward censorship.

tim