Re: [Full-Disclosure] Why is IRC still around?

From: vord (vordhosbn_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04

  • Next message: Clement Dupuis: "RE: [ok] [Full-Disclosure] Certifications" 
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:54:00 -0600

    bart

    the point was obviously wasted on you. firstly, "that it would be
    appropriate to consider doing away with all of them [forms of
    communication] .." is by no means a logical conclusion to draw from my
    premise[s], nor did i ever express or imply such nonsense. however, i
    did state rather explicitly that it is NECESSARY to demand their
    continued evolution and potential [perhaps eventual] demise as they
    become obsolete.

    second, each and every form of communication has dispensable flaws in
    addition to its inherent and perhaps indispensable ones. where IRC is
    concerned, some flaws of the former variety are undeniably major
    contributing factors to the rampant malware plague and therefore
    worthy of some [more] attention, and [please note] not impossible to
    eliminate ... if only people were concerned.

    third, personal responsibility is precisely the issue here. placing
    all the blame on people who use guns to kill will never solve the
    problem of gun-related crime -- the same is true of placing all the
    blame for the existence of malware on malware creators, especially
    considering how long it has been allowed to flourish -- it is
    concordantly irresponsible behavior to continue to do so [fool me
    once, twice, three times]. naivety and idealism might make you happy
    inside, bart, but they NEVER solve anything.

    in conclusion, we should be trying to solve the problem from more than
    one angle. trying to convince people not to write worms, waiting until
    worms are released and issuing patches/inoculations, and all attempts
    at early detection/prevention are certainly noble endeavours. but
    history proves that they are not enough. a new angle of attack is
    necessary: the potential avenues for abuse should not ONLY be
    considered during development, but more importantly after deployment
    -- the internet itself [and most technology, i should say] has more or
    less been fire and forget [until its abused] ... and this is primarily
    why the computer security industry exists [lack of foresight].

    i have nothing more to say on the subject, all replies should be
    directed off list if you insist upon making one.

    btw, the infrastructure simply doesn't exist to move all business off
    the internet ... the net is now built-in to the world economy, and has
    been for some time; don't be confused about this.

    deaf ears, no doubt.

    --vord
    #hackphreak/undernet
    sucka

    On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:01:31 -0600, bart.lansing@kohls.com
    <bart.lansing@kohls.com> wrote:
    >
    > Vord,
    >
    > Let's extend your logic a bit...
    >
    > Given your diatribe, one can easily make the following assertion and assume
    > your full support:
    >
    > {It is clear that the internet...being composed of largely uncontrollable,
    > independent nodes...may easily be subverted for uses that are counter to the
    > greater good of society. Therefore, as alternate means of communications
    > and conducting legitmate business are in fact available, the internet will
    > be closed until further notice. Please feel free to create a new internet
    > which cannot be subverted or otherwise used in any manner which does not
    > conform to the societal conventions we have chosen to enforce. }
    >
    > There is no communications channel which can not be subverted in some way or
    > another, be it digital, analog, or paper. Your arguements/pontifications
    > below, if carried to their logical conclusion, suggest that it would be
    > approriate to consider doing away with all of them due to the potential
    > which exists for abuse/misuse.
    >
    > How about a little focus on the people who are responsible, instead...you
    > know, encouraging personal responsibility...that sort of thing?
    >
    > In any society, whether meat-based or bit-based, freedom does indeed have
    > the side-effect of making it harder to prevent bad people from doing bad
    > things. Nonetheless, I'll gladly take the headaches of dealing with bad
    > people and bad things while enjoying the relative freedoms I have.
    >
    >
    > full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com wrote on 11/20/2004 02:03:00 AM:
    >
    >
    >
    > > ive never seen so many repetitive and knee-jerk reactions to one
    > > [potentially baseless] post in all my years of watching FD [the
    > > obvious exceptions being the OT political nonsense occurring here,
    > > especially as of late] as witnessed during my reading of this thread.
    > >
    > > but moving right along ... :D
    > >
    > > my take is that Danny merely suggests burning the security candle at
    > > both ends. it is complete nonsense to approve of ANYTHING simply
    > > because it has some, or even a vast lot, of legitimate users/uses.
    > > some things are just not worth defending or perpetuating, and perhaps
    > > IRC is one of them? [this is his question].
    > >
    > > and for the record, "they would move to another resource" is not a
    > > coherent argument against his position [his question, rather]
    > > concerning the elimination of a problem-child medium. perhaps the cost
    > > to society via the spread piracy and virii [more importantly the
    > > altter] isnt worth the measly gain IRC affords its legitimate users?
    > > [well?]
    > >
    > > it IS incoherent, however, to argue that IRC (1) is the kiddiots means
    > > of choice for controlling his worms because it is the easiest or most
    > > efficient way to do so, while also contending (2) that an IRC sunset
    > > would not cause the immediate dissappearance of substansial
    > > internet-wide problems. making it harder MAKES IT HARDER and must
    > > therefore to some degree reduce the probability of abuse. therefore
    > > the gain afforded to legitimate users by this medium should be
    > > weighted against the direct affect its eradication would have on REAL
    > > problems -- and, clearly, no one here is qualified to make this
    > > judgement, else they would have offered such proof in immediate
    > > response to the original post as opposed to blabbing incessantly about
    > > incredibly obvious bullshit. the only potentially useful point anyone
    > > has made [not that it wasnt obvious] concerns the difficulty in
    > > removing the medium ... but this is irrelavent, of course, since it is
    > > more likely that the security community would suggest [and perhaps
    > > assist in the developement of] a replacement [most importantly] to the
    > > larger IRC networks.
    > >
    > > if shooting people is evil, OBVIOUSLY guns are flawed, but only
    > > insofar as people are capable of abusing them, willing to abuse them,
    > > and effective in their attempts at doing so. so to burn the candle at
    > > both ends you have to fight the spread of trojans and virii by fixing
    > > the holes they exploit and providing detection services, while also
    > > continually analyzing and evolving the structure on which it all
    > > rests. ie, the internet at its core... protocols, etc.
    > >
    > > im sure the original ford model-T had plenty of legitimate users who
    > > didnt drive drunk or generally cause mayhem ... i dont see it around
    > > anymore though ... hmm, i wonder if that correlates directly to the
    > > increased safety of automobiles ... hmm hmm, indeed. </sardonicism>
    > >
    > > the issue is certainly not at all as cut and dry as most of you have
    > > made it out to be.
    > >
    > > --vord
    > > #hackphreak/undernet
    > > invulnerable to the accidents of people and books.
    > >
    > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:08:33 -0000, Darren Wolfe
    > > <darren@thecosmicgerbil.com> wrote:
    > > > I have never replied to anything on this list (I read it to keep up to
    > date
    > > > on vulnerabilities, but im not really qualified to contribute anything)
    > but
    > > > this particular message has peaked my interest.
    > > >
    > > > 1. Agreed, by using flaws in IE they then go on to subvert mirc into
    > > > spamming people.
    > > > 2. They do.
    > > > 3. A tremendous amount :)
    > > > 4. This is only because IRC provides the perfect medium in which to
    > control
    > > > those zombies (a single message from one person is immediately sent to
    > > > everyone in the channel at the same time). If a better medium was
    > available,
    > > > they'd use that.
    > > >
    > > > IRC is as close to a real time group conversation as you can get that
    > > > doesn't used closed protocols. It's fast, simple and used by an
    > enormous
    > > > number of people - particuarly those who play online games, and for
    > open
    > > > source projects (#gentoo on freenode regularly has over 900 people in
    > it).
    > > >
    > > > In answer to your final question - IRC is very useful for quick
    > > > conversations in real time with groups of people. Sure there are other
    > > > things - usenet, web based forums, email based mailing lists, IM
    > networks
    > > > etc but none have that group feeling as much as IRC.
    > > >
    > > > It's problem is twofold - firstly, mirc (the most popular client) has a
    > > > number of flaws that make it easy to steal peoples "auth passwords".
    > But
    > > > these are not automated! The user must be tricked into typing some
    > commands
    > > > to set the exploit in motion.
    > > > This is also the second problem - a link may be mentioned in a channel
    > and
    > > > people will click on it - from there, if your browser is vulnerable,
    > you can
    > > > be hit by any number of trojans. There was a winamp trojan going about
    > a
    > > > few months ago (which I reported and is now fixed - go me :D ) which
    > > > involved clicking a link in irc that opened winamp through a file
    > > > association that exploited a security flaw that installed a script for
    > mirc
    > > > that spammed the same link to everyone in the channel.
    > > >
    > > > Like any other medium, it is a combination of a lack of knowledge by
    > the
    > > > users and exploits/vulnerabilities in software, the only difference, is
    > that
    > > > on IRC it tends to spread quickly because of its real time nature.
    > > > So in conclusion, no, IRC should not be killed off, mirc's scripting
    > > > vulnerabilities should be closed in some way, and vulnerabilities in
    > other
    > > > software should continue to be discovered and fixed.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com
    > > > [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Danny
    > > > Sent: 19 November 2004 17:40
    > > > To: Mailing List - Full-Disclosure
    > > > Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Why is IRC still around?
    > > >
    > > > Well, it sure does help the anti-virus (anti-malware) and security
    > > > consulting business, but besides that... is it not safe to say that:
    > > >
    > > > 1) A hell of a lot of viruses/worms/trojans use IRC to wreck further
    > havoc?
    > > > 2) A considerable amount of "script kiddies" originate and grow through
    > IRC?
    > > > 3) A wee bit of software piracy occurs?
    > > > 4) That many organized DoS attacks through PC zombies are initiated
    > through
    > > > IRC?
    > > > 5) The anonymity of the whole thing helps to foster all the illegal and
    > > > malicious activity that occurs?
    > > > The list goes on and on...
    > > >
    > > > Sorry to offend those that use IRC legitimately (LOL - find something
    > else
    > > > to chat with your buddies), but why the hell are we not pushing to
    > sunset
    > > > IRC?
    > > >
    > > > What would IT be like today without IRC (or the like)? Am I
    > narrowminded to
    >
    >
    > > > say that it would be a much safer place?
    > > >
    > > > ...D
    > > >
    > > > _______________________________________________
    > > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    > > >
    > > > _______________________________________________
    > > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    > > >
    > >
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    >

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Clement Dupuis: "RE: [ok] [Full-Disclosure] Certifications"

    Relevant Pages

    • [Full-disclosure] Stealthier Internet access
      ... Stealthier Internet access ... Nevertheless anonymous and secure communication in the world today is ... (Here are few basic bookmarks to improve Stealthier internet access for windows) ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • ebooks share lits 289
      ... Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives From Southwestern ... Concept, Design, and Deployment of Internet ... Democratic Institutions Praeger Series in Political Communication, ... A Practical Guide Routledge Education ...
      (sci.med.nutrition)
    • Re: Yet another thread on the legality of port scanning
      ... > The normal means of communicating on the internet is via IP ... Authorized users are told they are authorized users. ... is an acceptable connection in the absence of explicit permission? ... effective communication of ideas, not random unsolicited ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • Cable Modems [Telecom]
      ... the real driver of the communication revolution ... industry's early efforts to offer internet service. ... industry would never be successful, pointing out, among other ... Modem manufacturers have proliferated too, ...
      (comp.dcom.telecom)
    • Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service [telecom]
      ... several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART." ... BART itself is not the rescue agency. ... to be a common carrier because it doesn't accept all communication traffic ... BART may have accepted liability ...
      (comp.dcom.telecom)