Poll: Do you want to bring back 1.0?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
YES
53.92%
55 53.92%
NO
45.10%
46 45.10%
0.93
0%
0 0%
0.92
0.98%
1 0.98%
Total 102 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Petition to bring back AC v 1.0
#65
(12 Nov 10, 03:11PM)Brahma Wrote: I argued to flowtron we should institute a pattern: we should send the same number of octets to whois and cubelister.

wahnfred convinced flowtron that 3 octets was not a security issue... again, point your weapon to other side.

But I gave you a whole argument (when WahnFred was discussing it as well)...

and it's a perfectly valid argument...

Code:
20:44:12 <@Brahma> jamz: once you said it was not a big issue given 3 octets in the whois command 20:44:20 -!- Shield{TyD} [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout] 20:44:32 <@Brahma> what can you say about 3 octets/whois and internet security? 20:45:16 <@flowtron> yeah, we're thinking of changing either the whois or the ext.ping 20:45:18 <@Drakas> changing it from 2 to 3 makes it much easier to find and identify the real user... only 255 addresses to look for, compared to 16k... 20:45:27 <@flowtron> anyway - they should be the same length. 20:45:37 <@Drakas> make both 2 octets 20:45:39 <@flowtron> Drakas: yes, that's an obvious answer 20:45:47 <@Brahma> Drakas: i know your opinion 20:45:53 <@Drakas> it's fact, not opinion 20:46:00 <@flowtron> but - even if you ping the 255 addresses - you'll still not know which of those ISP-customers is your target, will you?!? 20:46:02 <@Brahma> which is pretty paranoic, you know 20:46:11 <@Brahma> but it is acceptable 20:46:18 <@Brahma> jamz! 20:46:23 <@Drakas> uhm 20:46:25 <@jamz> Honestly Brahma, I couldn't care less. I'll work with what's available 20:46:26 <@Brahma> you work with these things 20:46:32 <@jamz> It won't affect the game 20:46:37 <@Brahma> no 20:46:43 <@Brahma> we are asking your opinion 20:46:52 <@Drakas> no, assuming the udp port is constant throughout a gaming session, it makes it much easier to find the who user is 20:47:05 <@Drakas> the outside udp port of the client that is being used for receiving :P 20:47:07 <@Drakas> and sending 20:47:18 <@jamz> Broadcast the whole IP, but in a random order 20:47:24 <@Drakas> (I'm not sure entirely, but it's possible there's a problem) 20:47:41 -!- BCFHaerkefiende [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout] 20:47:44 <@Brahma> the point is: ext ping gives 3 octets... and we do not want to change it, except if it is a big security hole 20:48:08 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:48:14 <@Brahma> do you think it is jamz? and why do you think what you think? 20:48:16 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 20:48:16 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o DES|Bukz] by Q 20:48:16 <@Brahma> please 20:48:18 -!- BCFHaerkefiende [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 20:49:03 <@jamz> Do I think it is what? A big security hole? 20:49:06 <@jamz> No 20:49:23 <@Drakas> why make it to 3? :) 20:49:33 <@Brahma> pattern Drakas 20:49:33 <@Drakas> there's more of a privacy than security concern here 20:49:35 <@flowtron> because ext.ping is 3 ATM 20:49:41 <@flowtron> and we want to have them both the same 20:49:43 <@Brahma> ext ping info already gives 3 20:49:47 <@flowtron> so it's change either the one or the other 20:49:51 <@Drakas> yes, and that should be reduced to 2 20:49:56 <@flowtron> both have arguments in their favour and against them 20:50:06 <@Brahma> jamz: what is your job?... btw 20:50:13 <@jamz> What does the law say about revealing 3 octets? 20:50:17 <@jamz> Network Manager 20:50:24 <@Brahma> ok 20:50:32 <@Drakas> what law? 20:50:38 <@jamz> any law 20:50:40 <@jamz> anywhere 20:50:49 <@Drakas> ac isn't restricted by any law 20:50:56 <@Drakas> only ac server operators 20:51:03 <@Drakas> depending where the servers are located 20:51:03 <@jamz> No, but it makes sense to adhere to it, not go beyond it 20:51:29 <@Drakas> it makes sense to have ethic obligation to protect users' privacy 20:51:54 < pwnage-> It will still be privacy 20:52:03 <@jamz> Well, I refer you to my answer of 6 minutes ago 20:52:13 < pwnage-> :) 20:52:35 <@Drakas> you people are so foolish tbh 20:52:44 < pwnage-> thx for the compliment 20:52:46 <@Drakas> what happens when an AC server sends all info request pings ? 20:52:51 <@Drakas> it sends out YOUR IP address 20:53:03 <@Drakas> you can _easily_ link any used to any exact IP address if you give more than 2 octets 20:53:38 <@Drakas> so a person who wants to invade your privacy (ie. get your IP address) only has to run a server, find your first 3 octets (or even 2, although that makes things much harder), and then match it all up 20:53:54 <@Drakas> so getting full 4 octets is not that much a challenge, is it? 20:54:01 <@Drakas> if you make it 3, might as well make it 4 20:54:38 <@Drakas> now, you can't automatically decide whether any of the servers are being run for malicious purposes, so the 3-octet is relatively unsafe 20:55:06 <@Drakas> thx listening to my argument pwnage- 20:55:09 <@flowtron> Drakas: you have a valid argument, but a terrible way of presenting it 20:55:15 <@Drakas> not really... 20:55:26 <@Drakas> what way do you think would be better? 20:56:16 <@jamz> Drakas, does anyone other than you share you concern? 20:56:24 <@jamz> your concern* 20:56:33 <@Drakas> that's pretty much irrelevant 20:56:52 <@Drakas> how accepted an argument is does not influence its validity 20:57:23 <@flowtron> but presentation can make it easier to agree with you or easier to start a flamewar 20:57:32 <@jamz> It might be better to get someone less, er... psasionate, to put your point 20:57:38 <@Drakas> well, I'm not talking to 14-year-olds, am I? 20:57:55 <@Drakas> read over, understand what I'm saying 20:58:03 <@flowtron> it's still annoying to be talked down to. 20:58:08 <@flowtron> I understand perfectly 20:58:14 <@flowtron> and it was exactly my first response 20:58:16 <@Drakas> sorry then 20:58:25 <@flowtron> when Brahma asked about 3 octets for whois 20:58:32 <@Drakas> :F 20:58:37 <@flowtron> I actually wasn't aware the ext.ping was giving out more 20:58:38 <@Drakas> I have poor temper.. -> 20:58:45 <@flowtron> indeed. that was /my/ point 20:58:47 <@flowtron> ;( 20:58:52 <@flowtron> err. I meant ;) 20:59:53 <@flowtron> the ext.ping is something we just took from the other cubeengine games, so .. 21:00:14 <@flowtron> .. we started contemplating wether or not it was safe enough to go with 3 octets for whois too. 21:00:17 <@Drakas> well...if you're really interested in being able to get the full IP address without releaving it to malicious parties, just use a little bit of PGP 21:00:23 <@Drakas> revealing * 21:01:05 < SKB> malicious parties know how to get full ip 21:01:05 <@Drakas> so users can report full encrypted IPs, and only trusted parties can decrypt them 21:01:13 <@flowtron> uhm, isn't one use of whois to be able to post for BL-entry? 21:02:06 <@Drakas> well, an admin decrypts it, replaces it with the real IP if the entry seems sufficient 21:02:28 <@flowtron> Drakas: your speaking of the server logs here? 21:02:34 <@Drakas> this sort of thing might also let us distinguish from pointless entries 21:02:42 <@flowtron> how so? 21:03:00 <@Drakas> I'm not talking about them 21:03:29 <@Drakas> this is just an example of how you could make whois absolutely safe without releasing the sensitive info to everyone 21:03:36 <@Drakas> user does: /whois cn 21:03:51 <@Drakas> server sends: encrypt(pub_key, clients[cn]->ip) 21:04:03 <@Drakas> user gets that code, ab8231b23ubj1j23bj12jb31b (whatever..) 21:04:12 <@flowtron> yeah, I understand that bit. 21:04:14 <@Drakas> then they can post it 21:04:27 <@Drakas> but, ugh, this would be very easy to distinguish without a salt :o 21:04:43 < pwnage-> Users should post that code? ab8231b23ubj1j23bj12jb31b 21:05:02 <@Drakas> then a trusted party decodes that code, has the ip, posts it to the thread 21:05:08 <@Drakas> this is just an example case, anyway 21:05:14 <@flowtron> yeah, well, we have some "evil plans" about in-game auth .. maybe that'll help too. 21:05:16 <@Drakas> I'm still for 2-octet IPs, no more, no less 21:05:17 < Francois> when they /whois they get that code ? 21:05:36 <@flowtron> Drakas: Brahma and I have agreed on 2 octets already ;) 21:05:48 < Francois> csl already reveal 3 octets 21:06:01 <@flowtron> Francois: that was his suggestion, to further obfuscate the IP and protect the innocent but presumed guilty 21:06:07 <@flowtron> Francois: that's the issue here 21:06:13 <@flowtron> we're changing it to 3rd==0 now :-P 21:06:23 < SKB> aff 21:06:25 < Francois> :/ 21:06:40 < Francois> was nice 21:07:13 < Francois> to spot some blacklisted guys on bad managed servers 21:07:13 <@flowtron> too nice for my taste and Drakas' too as it seems. 21:07:20 <@Brahma> but i would like the opinion of a network manager like jamz... :P but you know, i am paranoid too 21:07:42 <@Brahma> "finish with my woman cause she couldn't help me with my mind" 21:08:30 <@flowtron> 2 octets should still be enough for comparing to BL - and if we manage to pull in-game auth off I hope that will make gaming with "reliable people" an easier job for us all 21:08:45 < Francois> for some countries yes 21:08:54 < SKB> bah 21:08:59 < Francois> some FAI are too weird 21:08:59 < SKB> what about /report cn 21:09:05 <@jamz> The only advantage I can see for 2 octets is to distinguish between countries for geo lookups in some cases 21:09:07 < SKB> and a separate log serverside? 21:09:12 <@jamz> 3 octets* sorry 21:09:48 < IAF|Lucas> SKB you have to trust server hoster for that :p 21:10:07 < SKB> this would help administration though 21:10:08 < IAF|Lucas> isn't the encrypt solution weak ? 21:10:20 <@flowtron> any server hoster should be able to get all 4 w/o much difficulty whatever our code does 21:11:04 < pwnage-> yes. Because he is the server hoster 21:11:26 < BCFH|Ua51> hmm 21:11:35 < BCFH|Ua51> is brahma a good beer ? 21:11:43 < lipe> nah 21:11:48 < lipe> Skol is better 21:11:49 < lipe> :B 21:11:59 < BCFH|Ua51> what about budvar ? .. 21:12:01 < pwnage-> BCFH|Ua51, it is 21:12:01 < lipe> desculpa brahma, mas eh verdade :P:P::P:P 21:12:08 < BCFH|Ua51> =) 21:12:11 < BCFH|Ua51> good 21:12:18 < Francois> blue chimay 21:12:22 < pwnage-> http://brahma.com/ 21:13:11 < BCFH|Ua51> ohh they sell it in ukraine in russia 21:13:13 < BCFH|Ua51> very good 21:15:09 <@Brahma> lipe: you understand of beer as much as you know about bears 21:15:51 < lipe> but i dont know nothing about bears 21:15:57 < lipe> ah 21:15:57 <@Brahma> BCFH|Ua51: Brahma is a medium quality beer around here... the same as Skol or Antactica (all from AmBev) 21:16:00 < lipe> shit.. 21:16:03 < lipe> ._. 21:16:26 <@Brahma> but the taste of the beer here change too much with the region 21:16:45 < TheCrema> Brahma Extra is pretty decent 21:17:07 <@Brahma> as far Brazil is a big country, you will find people saying Brahma is pee, or Brahma is awesome 21:17:32 < lipe> brahma is good, but skol still ftw! 21:17:33 <@Brahma> Brahma Extra is one level about of those I cited... so, it is less affected by this region issue 21:17:43 <@Brahma> where do you live, lipe? 21:17:49 < lipe> Rio de janeiro 21:18:22 <@Brahma> you should say: Brahma is good, but Itaipava is better 21:18:24 <@Brahma> :P 21:18:29 < lipe> nah 21:18:30 < lipe> :P 21:18:38 <@Brahma> Itaipava is the same origin of Bohemia 21:18:42 < BCFH|Ua51> ahh ok =) 21:18:45 < TheCrema> Wanna drink a good beer, try Samuel Adams, Boston Lager or Light :P best american beer by far!! 21:18:54 <@Brahma> :D 21:19:06 < pwnage-> hi TheCrema 21:19:24 < TheCrema> pwage lad, sup? 21:20:02 <@Drakas> 21:10:08 < IAF|Lucas> isn't the encrypt solution weak ? 21:20:06 <@Drakas> not if we introduce salts 21:20:17 -!- Toca [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 21:20:21 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o Toca] by Q 21:20:24 <@Brahma> hey TheCrema 21:20:26 <@Brahma> ops 21:20:30 <@Brahma> hey Toca 21:20:36 < BCFHaerkefiende> hoi Toca 21:20:37 < IAF|Lucas> hash ftw 21:20:37 < TheCrema> maluco 21:20:37 <@Brahma> deceiving TAB 21:20:38 <@Drakas> if the encrypted value isn't salted we obviously run into trouble :) 21:21:03 <@Toca> Hi Brahma BCFHaerkefiende :) 21:21:33 <@flowtron> Drakas: but then we need the post to include the server it came from, to know the salt 21:21:42 <@Drakas> no... 21:21:43 <@flowtron> Hi Toca 21:21:56 <@Toca> hey flowtron :) 21:22:03 <@Drakas> salts are random numbers only the encrypting and decrypting party will know 21:22:11 <@flowtron> I know about salts 21:22:17 <@flowtron> that's why I said 21:22:22 <@flowtron> if we don't know who encrypted it 21:22:26 <@flowtron> we won't know the salt 21:22:28 <@Drakas> we won't need to... 21:22:53 <@Drakas> ip is 122.8.10.5 -> then we simply encrypt rand(0,255).rand(0,255)......122.8.10.5.rand(0,255).rand(0,255).... 21:23:28 <@Drakas> and then when we decrypt, we know exactly what the ip is because we konw its position 21:23:34 <@Drakas> salts prevent the collision attack 21:23:46 < CIA-2> actiongame: baarreth * r5235 /trunk/ac/source/src/serverevents.h: sg gib, more restrictive (only gibs at max damage) 21:23:49 <@Brahma> ok people 21:23:56 <@Brahma> i need to test a real dm in 1.1 now 21:24:00 <@Drakas> I'm in 21:24:01 <@Brahma> only real men 21:24:12 <@Brahma> ok... you are a real man too Drakas 21:24:24 <@Brahma> connect to avenger.if.usp.br 21:24:26 <@Brahma> ftw 21:24:34 < TheCrema> okie dokey 21:25:05 < WahnFred> [22:45] <Drakas> make both 2 octets 21:25:22 <@Drakas> lemme compilleee Brahma 21:25:33 < WahnFred> Drakas: yeah, make it even harder to permban haxors ... 21:25:46 -!- Gibstick [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 21:25:46 <@Drakas> WahnFred: I *just* proposed a whole solution to that 21:25:59 <@Drakas> read the rest of the conversation 21:26:30 < WahnFred> 3 octects is safe and the best solution in my opinion 21:26:48 <@Drakas> and I gave a whole reasoning why 3 octets is unsafe, equivalent to 4 octets 21:27:25 -!- kick52 [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 21:28:45 <@Drakas> ok, almost compiled 21:30:23 < CIA-2> actiongame: flowtron * r5236 /trunk/ac/source/src/texture.cpp: whitespace fixes 21:30:36 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:30:45 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 21:30:47 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o DES|Bukz] by Q 21:30:47 < CIA-2> actiongame: flowtron * r5237 /trunk/ac/bin_unix/ (linux_64_client linux_64_server): linux64 bins 21:31:17 < WahnFred> drakas, please give me a short summary - i don't have the time to read it all 21:31:17 <@flowtron> WahnFred: well, I've been torn here between all the available arguments 21:31:34 <@flowtron> drakas way of presenting his point isn't so nice to read IMHO 21:31:56 <@flowtron> basically he says if we give out 3 octets it's easy to poll the 254 IPs in their range 21:32:07 <@flowtron> to find out which client is listening on the AC port 21:32:28 <@flowtron> which I had as first objection against 3 octects too 21:32:48 <@flowtron> whois in AC only gives out 2 - I was actually unaware that CSL uses 3 since for ever. 21:33:13 <@flowtron> so we want them both the same, and need to decide with which variant to go. 21:33:38 < WahnFred> http://cubeengine.com/forum.php4?action=display_thread&thread_id=1 21:33:45 < WahnFred> by Aardappel on 01/05/2002 01:55 through 213.75.159.5 21:34:14 < WahnFred> full ip ... 21:34:53 <@flowtron> hm, showing me someone who's sticking their head into the barrel of a gun won't make me think better about guns 21:36:55 < WahnFred> problem: there are a lot of cheaters around in cube1/2 and the 3 octects help a lot to nearly identfiy them. 21:37:10 <@flowtron> yes, that's the big argument in favour of 3 21:37:28 <@flowtron> but, in a pinch, I prefer the more secure/private solution 21:39:29 <@flowtron> I mean, I guess the question is - would anybody that has the tools to attack a given IP be /that/ interested in the specific IP of one (or a bunch) of AC-players? 21:39:39 <@DES|Bukz> lol 21:39:44 <@DES|Bukz> i seriously doubt it 21:39:44 <@flowtron> given 2 octets or 3 wouldn't make much of diff to that kind of person 21:39:47 <@DES|Bukz> but I guess you never know 21:39:54 <@flowtron> they'd just attack the subnet and see what they get 21:40:18 < WahnFred> hmm, at first the ac community should concentrate on a master sending IP's only, not dyndns addresses :) 21:40:35 <@flowtron> which reminds me to finish that awesome CSR episode soon. totally mind-blowing. ROP - result oriented programming - I got to 0:46:00 of 2:48:00 so far. 21:40:50 -!- DES|Medusa [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube 21:41:07 < WahnFred> heard about dns highjacking - a security issue! :p 21:41:13 <@flowtron> WahnFred: we just have a manually moderated M.S. ATM and hostnames are preferred 21:41:34 <@flowtron> s/CSR/CRE/ 21:41:43 <@flowtron> CRE=ChaosRadioExpress 21:42:34 <@flowtron> WahnFred: I hear you, but one /can/ go overboard on the security concerns 21:42:35 <@Brahma> WahnFred: i agree that 3 octets will be hardly used as a security exploit, if a malicious attacker wants your ip, he will find it if the server sends 2 or 3 octets... 21:42:37 <@Brahma> but 21:42:44 <@flowtron> if any server starts violating the rules, we delete it. 21:42:58 <@Brahma> what is the purpose in getting 3 octets from the servers? 21:43:09 <@flowtron> makes rangebans more specific 21:43:22 <@flowtron> but that has ups & downs in itself 21:43:28 <@Brahma> it does not reply my question 21:43:57 <@Brahma> because people can ask the ips to the server owners 21:44:02 <@flowtron> and as someone pointed out earlier for GeoIP lookups IIRC 3 are needed for any amount of reliability 21:44:48 -!- MusicMan10 [[email protected]] has left #assaultcube [] 21:44:53 <@flowtron> Brahma: you mean: post 2 octets and server and then the hoster looks up the matching IPs and hands them to RK for insertion into the BL !?!? 21:45:04 <@Brahma> yes 21:45:13 <@Brahma> but this is not my point 21:45:23 <@Brahma> why the C.L. users need the 3 octets? 21:45:33 <@Brahma> they use it for something? 21:45:40 <@flowtron> I guess for GeoIP lookups 21:45:46 < WahnFred> 2 octets say nothing about the player - it's useless at all - for geoip and at least banning a range 21:46:24 <@Brahma> if it is not really a security risk, as WahnFred and jamz pointed out, i think we should extend 3 octets to all 21:46:48 <@Brahma> but if it is really a security risk, we should reduce all to 2 octets 21:47:03 <@DES|Bukz> if someone who is experienced enough with that stuff wants to find a full IP they will get it 21:47:07 <@Brahma> imho, i do not think it is a security risk 21:47:11 <@DES|Bukz> I doubt AC is their first choice in methods of getting it 21:47:18 <@Brahma> but i am paranoid at the same time 21:47:41 <@Brahma> this is a important point Bukz 21:47:43 <@flowtron> Brahma: I just said - I don't think any1 with the capabilities to hurt a specific IP will need more than 2 octets to target anyway 21:47:52 <@Brahma> yes 21:48:35 <@Brahma> flowtron: if someone manages to hit other person attacking his ip (ping), i think he will find the victim ip by other meanings 21:48:37 <@flowtron> so, I guess the to-and-fro comes to an end: we'll make whois give 3 octets and ext.ping stays fully informative as before 21:48:41 <@Brahma> like asking the guy to enter in a server 21:48:52 <@flowtron> one he controls- exactly 21:48:54 <@Brahma> okey

Well, I was wrong about the 'accepting' part in my previous post. But sacrifising security/privacy for a display of flag... dunno
Thanks given by:


Messages In This Thread
Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by uniJ00$ - 11 Nov 10, 12:14AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Mael - 11 Nov 10, 12:20AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Mael - 11 Nov 10, 12:24AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Vermi - 11 Nov 10, 10:17AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by V-Man - 11 Nov 10, 11:19AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Vermi - 11 Nov 10, 11:26AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by makkE - 11 Nov 10, 12:30AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by lucky - 11 Nov 10, 01:10AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by V-Man - 11 Nov 10, 01:21AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by pufig - 11 Nov 10, 07:12AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by JMM - 11 Nov 10, 07:33AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by pakit - 11 Nov 10, 09:59AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Luc@s - 11 Nov 10, 10:35AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Vermi - 11 Nov 10, 10:41AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by makkE - 11 Nov 10, 01:33PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Vermi - 11 Nov 10, 10:04AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by XFA - 11 Nov 10, 10:07AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Luc@s - 11 Nov 10, 02:39PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by ketar - 12 Nov 10, 02:18PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by JMM - 12 Nov 10, 02:06PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by makkE - 12 Nov 10, 02:08PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by pakit - 12 Nov 10, 02:36PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by JMM - 12 Nov 10, 02:13PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Drakas - 12 Nov 10, 03:16PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by pakit - 13 Nov 10, 10:31AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by V-Man - 13 Nov 10, 03:39PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by Mael - 14 Nov 10, 12:29AM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by XFA - 14 Nov 10, 12:16PM
RE: Petition to bring back AC v 1.0 - by V-Man - 15 Nov 10, 12:35AM