[email protected]

Xander · Post by **Xander** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:17 pm

when im telneting into my server i have to pong a sequence of letters and numbers or else it gives me

:27352644![email protected] PRIVMSG blablabla VERSION?

:deadly.skiddified.net NOTICE AUTH :*** Looking up your hostname...
:deadly.skiddified.net NOTICE AUTH :*** Couldn't resolve your hostname; using yo
ur IP address instead
nick Xander1234
:deadly.skiddified.net NOTICE Xander1234 :*** If you are having problems connect
ing due to ping timeouts, please type /quote pong B0156928 or /raw pong B0156928
now.
PING :B0156928

what is this? and how can i stop this happening. its making havoc with my IRC bot.

Post by **Syzop** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:30 pm

Instead of blaming the IRC server you should just properly implement the IRC protocol and PONG back with the same value ('PONG :B0156928' or ''PONG B0156928' for your example).

If you are on *NIX (that isn't like >5 years old) you can disable nospoof via ./Config (it's the first question) since it isn't really needed, otherwise you can't.

Note that, again because of the IRC protocol, you MUST pong back to any subsequent ping requests that may happen (eg: because of idle time), as outlined in RFC1459 section 4.6.2.

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:31 pm

Read these:

http://forums.unrealircd.com/viewtopic.php?t=2065
http://forums.unrealircd.com/viewtopic.php?t=2035
http://forums.unrealircd.com/viewtopic.php?t=611

I am sure one of them will tell you what you want to know.

aquanight · Post by **aquanight** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:35 am

Syzop wrote:Instead of blaming the IRC server you should just properly implement the IRC protocol and PONG back with the same value ('PONG :B0156928' or ''PONG B0156928' for your example).

I'm curious though - when (like when telnetting) you pong with a wrong value the ircd sends a VERSION request... (from <spoofcookie>!nospoof@<server.name> it seems, kinda against the rules that nicks shouldn't start with a number?) what's up with that? :)

w00t · Post by **w00t** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:46 am

Well, it means you'd never have a legit client get the response - but then why not use IRC or another invalid/reserved nick that's RFC-allowed?

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 2:55 pm

I dont know if it actually checks. But what if you VERSION reply to that nospoof cookie nick. Will it let you in?

aquanight · Post by **aquanight** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:34 pm

w00t wrote:Well, it means you'd never have a legit client get the response - but then why not use IRC or another invalid/reserved nick that's RFC-allowed? :P

Maybe that's the idea - the cookie always starts with a digit for that purpose. And since a client will send a versoin reply to the nick...

Jason wrote:I dont know if it actually checks. But what if you VERSION reply to that nospoof cookie nick. Will it let you in?

Exactly what I'm thinking. I just don't know if that's actually the case, hence why I'm poking Syzop about it ;P .

Post by **Syzop** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:52 pm

The source is your friend :). And unfortunately I don't know anything more than that:

Code: Select all

    /* Homer compatibility */
    sendto_one(cptr, ":%X!nospoof@%s PRIVMSG %s :\1VERSION\1",
        cptr->nospoof, me.name, cptr->name);

I presume it's for some old client that misbehaved :)

aquanight · Post by **aquanight** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:05 pm

Funny enough... it doesn't actually do anything if you try to reply to the CTCP... :) (Something that got partially removed then, I guess...)

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:33 am

That something should probably be fully removed, or reimplemented.