| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ascension
Voice
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 8
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: Using netbots and secure op -- Strikelight's tcl or raeky's? |
 |
|
I wanted to update a botnet of 28 eggdrops which will slowly increase to use secure opping on EFnet regardless of ChanFix's existence. I saw [sl] / strikelight made crackerop.tcl a form of cookie op and mentioned it is compatible with netbots, and any other botnet script as it is loaded prior to those scripts. Then there is raeky's/kass lloyd's op.. which according to egghelp tcl search is outdated.. so, is strikelight's crackerop.tcl my best bet? I know he's a long time, reputable tcl scripter... so guessing that is my best choice. I use superbitch and everything but I'd feel more secure with a secure op mechanism, in case a shell box was compromised or any other worst case scenarios..
Opinions appreciated, thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
user
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 1452
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
The cracker/cookie op thing only helps against tcp hijacking - it does NOT help in any way if one of your shells is compromised.
_________________
Have you ever read "The Manual"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ascension
Voice
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, what if someone tried to join using the ident and host of a bot to get op? Would eggdrop op that person given channel is +autoop and +bitch / +superbitch? What is the likeliness of a TCP hijacking -- it seems rather high since the most popular botpack today (written in C) uses a cookie op mechanism on top of super bitch -- i.e. it really seems that if the coder kept it today there is quite a bit of worth to using it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
