This is the new home of the egghelp.org community forum.
All data has been migrated (including user logins/passwords) to a new phpBB version.

For more information, see this announcement post. Click the X in the top right-corner of this box to dismiss this message.

Superbitch - leafs require sb_canopany flags?

Old posts that have not been replied to for several years.
Locked
m
midmdl

Post by midmdl »

My botnet consists of a hub and 3 leafs.
I have setup Superbitch (using the same netset.tcl for each bot) with the following settings:
set sb_canop "o|o"
set sb_canopflags "o|o"
set sb_canopany "A|A"
All bots (and I) have o flags.

When I op'd myself through the hub, 2 of the leafs de-opd the hub and me, and then re-op'd me. leaf3 (which had an sb_canopany flag) then dutifully re-op'd the hub, whereupon leafs 1 and 2 de-op'd it. Then they re-op'd it, and it re-op'd the hub, and so on...

I removed the well behaved leaf, and found that only when I flag the hub bot A, can it op me without punishment from the two angry leafs.
Similarly, only when a leaf bot has the A flag, can it op the hub bot without provoking a response from the other leaf. (Otherwise, the other leaf will just de-op the hub.)
Oddly, I find that if I manually op the hub from both leafs at the same time, the hub stays op'd!

I would really like to restrict the bots so that they can only op users/bots with the o flag. I would like to reserve sb_canopany to humans. :smile:
Is this possible? Or does superbitch demand that bots have the sb_canopany flag?
Top
M
Mentolboy

Post by Mentolboy »

I think that it's possible! Bots don't need to have the canopany-flag, but it can result in a op/deop flood! In my botnet, I gave all my bots the global opany-flag. I see no reason why bots shouldn't have that flag??
Top
m
midmdl

Post by midmdl »

Solved.

The problem was that the hub bot had the wrong identd. However, I added the following masks for the hub:
hub!realidentd@*, and hub!*@*
and I still had the problem until I changed its identd back. That is, the leafs failed to recognize the hub until it had a host that resembled the first entry. Superbitch apparently ignores subsequent entries. Slennox? Anyone?
I think that it's possible! Bots don't need to have the canopany-flag, but it can result in a op/deop flood!
Nah. As long as all the bots have the same superbitch settings, a de-op'd bot will stay a de-op'd bot. It *can't* get re-op'd. That is my point above.
In my botnet, I gave all my bots the global opany-flag. I see no reason why bots shouldn't have that flag??
I see no reason why bots should be op'ing any one who doesn't already have an o flag. :grin:

If I want someone new to have op's, I can just flag him/her as +o (or give a bot the A (opany) flag, and then op him/her through that A-flagged bot).
Top
M
Mentolboy

Post by Mentolboy »

myeah maybe you're right :smile:
btw: why do you use this host "hub!*@*"?
hub*!ident@host.* is, according to me still the best..
Top
p
ppslim
Revered One
Posts: 3914
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Liverpool, England

Post by ppslim »

Using nick!*@* is not advisable, as it would only take some1 to kill the bot, and change to it's nickname, to become exempt.

Even nick!ident@* is unsecure, as mirc clients can very quickly change idents.

using somthing more like *!*ident@*.isp.dom is more suitible. This limits who can match the host mask, to those only on that 1 ISP.
Top
Locked

Return to “Archive”