/oper idea

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:16 am

Just curious, would it be possible to permit remote opering of all but locops? This would be useful in an environment where you have a large uncontrolled pooling DNS, since you are never sure where you might end up, and... yes... Just an idea.

aquanight · Post by **aquanight** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:21 am

Kinda tricky really, since successful global /opers are announced as "MODE opernick +oandfriends" and failed opers... well we know there.

Unfortunately, there really isn't any direct mechanism to send the results of a successful "remote oper", and I don't know how code/syz would like to do this.

On a side note, I think I saw something similar on the bugs forum

.

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:32 am

Well, the way I imagined it working was with a new parameter:

/oper <uid> <pass> [servername]

ie /oper w00t testpass zap.netronet.com

It would then send a request for auth to zap.netronet.com or something, similar to /whois <nick> [nick] I guess. (this is a spur of the moment thought, you can tell can't you

)

codemastr · Post by **codemastr** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:22 am

Why not just use remote includes to load the oper block on all servers?

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:25 am

...

You know, I didnt think of that!

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:54 am

But what about those without remote includes (since it IS so difficult to install for alot of us)

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:47 am

Like us

Just tried, and remote includes refuse to work (!)

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:36 am

what would be the difference from this and a global IRCOp?

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:07 am

This would enable that global oper to log in on any server in the network without remote includes, or duplicate oper blocks on all the servers.

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:44 pm

why would you need that? A global oper can already affect other servers remotely.

I guess what I'm asking for is a specific example.

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:42 pm

An additional parameter to /oper

/oper Nick Passwd [server]

When the server parameter is specified, that server will then return to the server the oper is on a success or fail. The success responce should contain the flags and info for the oper, and the fail should return the appropriate reason.

Example:
Global-oper has an oline on server-A
Global-oper is connected to server-B

Global-oper would login as follows:
/oper Global-oper password server-A.mynet.com

server-A then responds with a success or fail:
success: sends the needed information to server-B
fail: sends the reason why it failed

Hope that helps.

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:52 pm

No it don't help .. it don't matter what server the global oper is on .. they have equal access network wide.

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:32 am

Yes, they do have access network wide. This suggestion is so they can log in on any server on the network.

aquanight · Post by **aquanight** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:46 am

The question is, how do you go about indicating success or failure? Sure you can go and send the ERR_NOOPERHOST error across server boundaries, but you can't indicate a success by any standard means (sending a MODE +o) because the only server that can change a MODE for a client is either the server holding that client, or a U:Lined server using SVS[2]MODE.

katsklaw · Post by **katsklaw** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:03 am

Stealth wrote:Yes, they do have access network wide. This suggestion is so they can log in on any server on the network.

I totally disagree with this feature then .. Servers are to be staffed by their own staff .. not by anyone. If an oper can't do his/her duties from their own server ... then they don't need an O:Line.

coders, if this is implemeted .. please make it so I can switch it off.