View Full Version : auto killed from dalnet
Anyone having the same issue connecting to dalnet?
(autokilled: [AKILL] FDCServers clients are no longer welcome on DALnet due to the high level of abuse. Contact abuse@fdcservers.net for more assistance.)
Looks like it is about time to move away from IRC as this issue is among FDCServers and DALnet and the abuser.
We all suffer due to some inconsiderate act by the abusers, whoever they are.
It appears that DALnet is saying it applies to all FDCServers clients or we could say all FDC IP range.
Oh My god i got this report too from my client
[AKILL ID:1110429603K-a] FDCServers clients are no longer welcome on DALnet due to the high level of abuse. Contact abuse@fdcservers.net for more assistance. (2005/03/10 12.40)
ChronoCross
03-10-2005, 05:55
well that's kinda funny. sall of psy's work for peering downthe drain. well not suprising seeing as how many spam bots/dos bos are on FDC's network. the infinate ips's that FDC gives out doesn't help either. perhaps they should rethink thei ip policy as well.
jalmenaram
03-10-2005, 06:05
What happend with DALnet i recieved akill from fdcservers can u explain this
[autokilled: [AKILL ID:1110429593K-a] FDCServers clients are no longer
welcome on DALnet due to the high level of abuse. Contact
abuse@fdcservers.net for more assistance.]
Can fdcservers maybe explain what is the problems with DALnet please. I never recieved problem with DALnet, maybe fdcservers need give this explain to all customer of this company
Jose Almenara
psyxakias
03-10-2005, 08:45
Hello everyone,
First of all, I have to tell you that my opinion is that the AKILL is DALnet's fault and not FDCservers'. It has nothing to do with how the IP policies that FDCservers has.
A few months ago, more and more people were having issues as DALnet started applying some really strict connection limitations to C Classes. These limitations had several negative effects like your server couldn't have more than X nicknames on DALnet and sometimes X was smaller than the number of IPs you are given. Imagine how hard (sometimes totally impossible) it was for some people to connect in DALnet, especially if there were other businesses established on DALnet at the same C class.
As it was getting worse every day that was passing, SharkTECH (as a hosting provider concentrated mostly to IRC businesses) contacted DALnet in order to see what can be done about this. DALnet admins were pretty cooperative and explained us that in order to prevent this, we have to peer to their IX network which has no limitations but they will expect us to handle reports. However, they seemed to have some serious concerns about how FDCservers was handling abuses until then and we decided to take the responsibility of SharkTECH handling the abuses using dalnetabuse@fdcservers.net so whenever they notice an abuse to inform us in order to keep them satisfied.
At first, everything was going absolutely fine. Once we were receiving a report for something that broke DALnet rules (ie more than 4 nicknames per idents/server), we were immediatelly sending an e-mail to the client including the logs in order for them to have the ability to take action (if they want) to prevent an akill from DALnet to their own server's IPs. Clients were replying back with their actions and everything was running smoothly.
However, DALnet started informing us that they had removed (akilled) some IP blocks from the network without giving us *any* evidences except the ip range. Fruitloop@DALnet (the person who was sending the reports) informed us that they cannot provide us *any* kind of logs because they're as confidential as credit card numbers are and specifically said "the analogy here to this is - would you give me access to your clients credit card information? Of course not, some things MUST stay confidential". A few days after this incident, they suddenly dropped us from the IX network with the excuse that we didn't handle abuses properly. Then after long conversations, we succeed to find a medium solution with DALnet in order for us to handle abuses, *even* if DALnet don't provide us any logs after they assured us that we'll be reconnected back to IX.
Although we continued dealing abuses, IX wasn't activated yet but they kept saying that if we continue cooperating, it will be re-activated. Then Fruitloop@DALnet informed us that there will be another person also who will start contacting us because she cannot handle it alone. The first email that this person sent us was about a client's domain, *not* because it performed an abuse BUT because he was suspecting it may perform *future* abuses because it had a) low TTL values, b) was using DNS round-robin (single host A records pointing to multiple IPs) and he claimed that some action must be taken against it to prevent *future* abuses (!). As that was insane, we couldn't start annoying customers for 'future' abuses and we were told that we won't get IX connectivity back again so we explained them that the only reason that we were consuming our time daily was for to obtain IX connectivity again, otherwise there was no point of us to continue dealing these issues.
Next day (today), they performed an AKILL to all FDC blocks and when my employer contacted FruitLoop, she informed him (as she had done again in past) that she cannot the reason is confidential and she'll have to discuss it directly with FDCservers only.
After all these, I'm asking you the following:
1) How can someone deal an abuse WITHOUT any kind of evidences/logs? Imagine someone come and tell you: "We detected some serious abuses to your IP: 1.2.3.4 but we cannot give you any kind of logs/evidences because they're confidential"? Which serious ISP would accept this, to start blaming customers without any kind of logs? Not to mention that they compared abuse logs almost the same as credit card numbers.
2) Why should someone deal *future* abuses that may occur from clients' domains, just because they have low TTL values and/or use DNS round-robin? That's insane! I would understand their concern to report an abusive domain (and even to AKILL the domain if needed), but how did they expect us to accept predictions about abuses?
I'm truly disappointed of DALnet's attitude on this issue and I have to assure you that we did everything possible to prevent this from happening, while me and my employer consumed hours of dealing these reports and long conversations with admins that no other ISP would. We even had DALnet reports on our daily tasks. I hope you understand that we (SharkTECH) wanted as all of you to keep connectivity to DALnet as we are hosting hundred servers on FDCservers' datacenter and some of our clients need DALnet connectivity, but looks like DALnet didn't really want this and simply found an excuse to drop all FDCservers IPs.
My personal opinion is that this would happen soon or later, even if we hadn't get involved because I saw how negative that admin was reacting even by seeing FDC's name. I remember a sharktech client that forwarded me a log a while ago that between others I noticed how ironically Fruitloop reacted when she saw where client's IP comes from: "Oh nice, FDC servers". Of course, someone would easily ask why would they want FDC/SharkTECH out, why would they hate us? Unfortunately I don't have this answer, I don't even know if it's something personal to FDCservers/SharkTECH or not. I wonder if it's related with their slogan that kept repeating "we offer a free service", which maybe actually means that they don't like people like us that charge clients for hosting.
At last, I wish everyone best luck with this incident and I sincerely apologize if you believe that our attempt to improve DALnet connectivity, may actually made it worse.
Thank you.
jalmenaram
03-10-2005, 09:01
Hi psyxakias thanks by this. But its possible fdc or sharktech removed this akill from DALnet. Maybe need talk with fruitloop and check all the server. I never incur in this problem. I dont understand this akill yet maybe admin of fdc need talk with DALnet or fruitloop and resolved this, and all i need talk with u just only.
Regards
Jose Almenara
psyxakias
03-10-2005, 09:47
jalmenaram, FDCservers' administrators may contact DALnet if they wish to, but I don't think that's the problem. The real problem is that DALnet is totally screwing businesses with absolutely no logical reason. From a 100.000+ users network, they currently have just ~30.000 users and with such behavior, I wouldn't be suprised to see them in <1000 users category (once again).
It's their IRC network, they have the right to drop anyone they want, they have the right to set any rules they want... let them be :hey:
PS: Although it's obvious that my posts are kinda negative for DALnet after my bad experience with DALnet administrators, my primary point was to just let the people of what has happened. If FDCservers ever succeeds to negotiate with DALnet, it will be a real miracle. Take care people.
You know what..
Thats probably the same bull crap mentality that got dal.net DDoS attacked to near death the first time. I bet that will happen again, and dal.net will be an empty wasteland after this fiasco.
I think it's nothing short of asinine the way dal.net opers discriminate against certain people and hosts. Yes it is thier network, and they can do what they want with it, but ummm what good is being an oper when all that will be left is the opers themselves because all the users get tired of the servers being ddosed and lagged severely, or the immoral "I am G0D Fear ME" attitude they take towards certain hosts / people.
It's thier network true, but it IS setup for public "free" use, and if they continue to make things uncomfortable for the public to use the service I dont think they'll be around much longer, at least not in the capacity they once had. Might see them shrink down to a 10,000 user network if that much.
My personal opinion is dalnet has gone the way of the kiddie run network and have begun once again to cut thier own throats as far as thier user count / usability is concerned.
I havent made any threats or anything nor do I plan to, but I can say I do see a repeating trend. This has been going on for a long time. Anyone remember the DAL.net oper wars? :jumpgrin: yea im an old fart whos been around longer than that even. DAL opers spent a whole summer killing and akilling etc... eachother for what ever reasons they felt like. Its the same thing different flavor in my opinion.
:hey: See ya later DAL.net
psyxakias
03-10-2005, 17:00
After all is said and done. We feel we have done everything we could replying to DALnet's abuse reports in best timely manner. We did not neglect any abuse we were provided by DALnet. If you have any suggestions on how to resolve this that we haven't tried we are open to suggestions.
I doubt there is much you can do.
They are nothing short of bone heads.
#1) DAL.net oper wars
--- What decent maturely run IRC network allows its opers to go around killing eachother off the network (/kill) with no recourse. That went on for a good 6 months. Even though it was some years ago
#2) Opers bullying people around
--- What started the attack against DAL that shreded them to peices from what I heard was due to a few cocky DAL opers antagonizing, and harassing its users. I think the same attitude that spawned "Oh gee, FDC IPs" is the same attitude that started that big heady DDoS on dal no doubt in my mind about that. (also reminds me of the immaturity in dal management in point one)
#3) Opers banning entire class C blocks with little to no regard to agreements or due process
--- Again this is just more of the same as points 1 and 2. Lack of maturity and understanding and the ability to stick to an agreement. I have an rr.com cable modem and I cant get on dal.net from either shell nor my home connection because just by connecting there they say I match some type of trojan, which is silly.
Bottom line, you cant reason with a two year old. Why?
They don't know how to speak themselves yet, and they sure as heck cant listen longer than 2 seconds because the attention span is so short. So most anything agreed upon goes in one ear and out the other, just as they clearly demonstrated for us all. Why do I reference them to 2 year olds?
See points 1, 2, and 3 of course its all my opinion, and what I think.
When DAL is no longer existing I'll be laffing pretty hard at all of this BS dalnet has decided to start playing.
The dalnet issues arent anyone's fault. Anyone who blames FDC or sharktech is plain silly, uneducated and just as immature and the dalnet administration that cant keep a promise, or stick to any agreed upon methods to resolve problems. This is all my opinion, and I know psyxakias is lookin for more options / methods to get the issue with dalnet resolved. I just don't see a way. I remember how big a pain in the butt it was to get as far as you did psyxakias. You all went out of your way to make them happy enough to give you access to thier network and they pull this crap....... :nuts:
The world is full of asshats and I'm surrounded by them :help:
:thankyou: for trying man. Dal needs to follow thier own :rulez: but has never and probably never will :cant: :@
If anyone uses dal :ms: <--- do that and stop using dalnet. Very simple way to fix that problem. Move your channels to better more maturely run networks.
ChronoCross
03-10-2005, 19:04
Well it shows you really what direction dalnet is going. It's basically becoming a private network because eventually no one is going to be able to get connected once they switch over to IX because 99% of all isps are infested with dos bots, spam bots, any kind of bots you want an there is nothing in site that's going to stop that. so I say perhaps a few isp's will still remian unbanned but as for long term I doubt it.
Also I'd like to point out what a heaping pile of garbage dalnet has become. I can't believe anyone would still go on there especially since there is nothing interesting on that network. hopefully we will see then end of dalnet in the near future because it is obvious their technical and support staff have about the same intelligence as a muskrat and are not trying to provide a high quality chat network where EVERYONE is free to chat. too many limitations and quite obvious freedom of speech violatons by preventing people from connecting simply based on who they buy their internet from.
jalmenaram
03-10-2005, 19:14
Very jelous this administrators of this company FDC, maybe the fdcservers need talk with they but maybe they one other things from here, this is my real true.
Regards
Jose Almenara
Based on the larger post above that seemed to outline DALnet's problems with FDC...
Lowering DNS ttl so you can connect with a vhost, then quickly change so if people try to attack you they get someone else (or nobody at all) is a semi-common practice. I can see it could be used to abuse, however DALnet should be able to /stats l or similar to always see the real IP if it were an abuse issue. If it's a channel level issue, that's another matter, but still should be able to be escalated to an oper to akill based on IP if they're akick evading.
Logs are always fun - the question comes up of "what kind of abuse were they seeing, would it have shown some technology in the logs that would make it difficult for them to continue finding a certain type of abuse if the logs were released?" ..and similarly, do they know that logs would not be sent beyond the FDC administration to those who would use the logs to try to "get around" the abuse? It's also a fine line in this day of attacks regarding giving out information since there's almost always retaliation. People don't like getting caught - in a way, this mass akill isn't nearly as personal as having an individual account terminated - yah, more people will be upset but when things aren't "personal" people tend to move on faster.
I've seen conversations in the help channels where a FDC hosting customer had actually gotten upset at DALnet for adding limits to their connections. Opers actually pasted /who results in channel showing channel filling and the admin of the abusive server was responding with "raise the limit" and chose to not even remove the extra clients.. their final comment was to "screw it" and they would just get different IP space. (no idea what happened with the user, if they really did get more IP space or if they finally did remove the clones.. but just figured I'd share the attitude I saw)
As for the question above "I wonder if it's related with their slogan that kept repeating "we offer a free service", which maybe actually means that they don't like people like us that charge clients for hosting." ..it wouldn't shock me if it had something to do with it on some level. If FDC is actually selling servers just so people can re-sell (or give out) bnc accounts to whoever they want for connecting to DALnet, it does sound like a ripe situation for abuse to occur. In my experience, shell boxes or mass bnc accounts usually do get setup just to have many people joining channels, or they get used for the mass number of vhosts and attempts to stay away from being banned.. no idea if that's what DALnet was seeing, but I wouldn't be shocked.
Regarding the IX comment - I might be off, but it sounds more like they're going to be adding a lot of IX servers each reaching a limited area. It sounds like this would stop a major attack from reaching a single server for a change. DALnet may be playing games with how they allow access to the IX servers by including it in this issue, but I doubt that was the technical intention behind the guys trying to make it work.. should be a seperate issue for most.
As for how to resolve this? Trust builds over time.. based on the above, if Fruitloop or DALnet immediately associates FDC with abuse, there probably is SOME reason for it - (although everyone involved may disagree on the actual amount and/or impact of it). If FDC really cares about reconnecting.. they could probably start talks with DALnet if they were to show that their servers came with standard configs which limit outgoing connections to IRC networks (ie: iptables rate limiting, owner matching and ideally a way to immediately block outgoing connections from any user's machine to DALnet).. and showed this to DALnet, they might consider sitting down to talks.
DALnet really has nothing to loose.. the moving of file trading channels and such off of their network and their actions after the attacks a few years back show that they are not interested in high user counts.. It's a bit odd to me that there's really that much interest in this akill.. no business should rely on DALnet that much to get upset. As I've been reminded many times "it's only IRC" (of course, doesn't stop me from going back there, but we all need to be reminded occasionally)
jalmenaram
03-10-2005, 19:46
But i supposed just only with fdc no with other if i can check other server company connect and no problem abuse of the user the problem is with fdc. Maybe fdc administrator talk and renew this conversation.
DALnet dont have problem with the user of any account, if they have problem all the company shell recieved akill(abuse)
In dalnet i get 20 user just only with 40 nicks no more i dont understand why of this abuse maybe fdc administrator talk with the leader of this team dont understand why fdc need talk with fruitloop
Maybe fdc and DALnet check with log
Regards
Jose Almenara
An afterthought to my previous post - disregard it..
We do have the resources to start our own network and not have to deal with any of this BS... irc.fdcservers.net anyone?
mikron15
03-10-2005, 20:01
You know what..
Thats probably the same bull crap mentality that got dal.net DDoS attacked to near death the first time. I bet that will happen again, and dal.net will be an empty wasteland after this fiasco.
My personal opinion is dalnet has gone the way of the kiddie run network and have begun once again to cut thier own throats as far as thier user count / usability is concerned.
Yup, i agree with yah, but it will be hard to attack Dalnut compared to the last time.
Thats the reason, we moved from Dalnut and started our own network which is doing very good and also allows us to have totall control over it. On any good day, we avg abt 6-8k users. And we are happy and do not regret leaving Dalnut.
eventide
03-10-2005, 23:00
rabb1d: nice use of emoticons
ShannonS
03-11-2005, 00:06
mikron15 whats your network address?
mikron15
03-11-2005, 00:27
sent via pm
Jim-DALnet
03-11-2005, 01:22
Hello everyone,
First of all, I have to tell you that my opinion is that the AKILL is DALnet's fault and not FDCservers'. It has nothing to do with how the IP policies that FDCservers has.
Let's be totally clear - the ban is DALnet's decision, not fault. That decision has taken over 6 months to be reached and was not arrived at lightly. DALnet does not and has not ever arbritarily banned domains.
A few months ago, more and more people were having issues as DALnet started applying some really strict connection limitations to C Classes. These limitations had several negative effects like your server couldn't have more than X nicknames on DALnet and sometimes X was smaller than the number of IPs you are given. Imagine how hard (sometimes totally impossible) it was for some people to connect in DALnet, especially if there were other businesses established on DALnet at the same C class.
DALnet, in common with many IRC networks suffers from increasing issues relating to spam and zombie bots on the network. One effective means of controlling those is to place limits on the number of concurrent connections allowed from a given IP range. While I will not go into specifics, these limits are set sufficiently high that normal use of the network is unlikely to trigger them and in the occasional instance where they are triggered innocently we can and will increase the limit _if we are satisfied there is a genuine need to do so_.
<snip>
At first, everything was going absolutely fine. Once we were receiving a report for something that broke DALnet rules (ie more than 4 nicknames per idents/server), we were immediatelly sending an e-mail to the client including the logs in order for them to have the ability to take action (if they want) to prevent an akill from DALnet to their own server's IPs. Clients were replying back with their actions and everything was running smoothly.
Here is the first issue. It is an accepted rule of abuse handling that upstream providers (in this case SharkTech) DO NOT pass on, verbatim, abuse reports to thier clients. This is accepted practice across the internet and serves to protect both those making the complaint and the upstream provider. Normal practice is for an upstream to contact thier client, inform them that a valid abuse complaint has been received and require them to take corrective action. At no point does the downstream require to see the evidence, they are being instructed to act _in accordance with their provider's usage policy_.
However, DALnet started informing us that they had removed (akilled) some IP blocks from the network without giving us *any* evidences except the ip range. Fruitloop@DALnet (the person who was sending the reports) informed us that they cannot provide us *any* kind of logs because they're as confidential as credit card numbers are and specifically said "the analogy here to this is - would you give me access to your clients credit card information? Of course not, some things MUST stay confidential". A few days after this incident, they suddenly dropped us from the IX network with the excuse that we didn't handle abuses properly. Then after long conversations, we succeed to find a medium solution with DALnet in order for us to handle abuses, *even* if DALnet don't provide us any logs after they assured us that we'll be reconnected back to IX.
DALnet has no difficulty in proving logs of abuse to ISP's who treat them in a confidential manner. We will not however provide logs which by their nature would assist abusers in evading detection to ISP's who's stated policy is to pass said logs to third parites. In all instances we will provide as much information as we can to any provider, without jepordising DALnet's abuse detection systems. How much we can provide is greatly influenced by a provider's published and stated abuse handling policies.
Although we continued dealing abuses, IX wasn't activated yet but they kept saying that if we continue cooperating, it will be re-activated. Then Fruitloop@DALnet informed us that there will be another person also who will start contacting us because she cannot handle it alone. The first email that this person sent us was about a client's domain, *not* because it performed an abuse BUT because he was suspecting it may perform *future* abuses because it had a) low TTL values, b) was using DNS round-robin (single host A records pointing to multiple IPs) and he claimed that some action must be taken against it to prevent *future* abuses (!). As that was insane, we couldn't start annoying customers for 'future' abuses and we were told that we won't get IX connectivity back again so we explained them that the only reason that we were consuming our time daily was for to obtain IX connectivity again, otherwise there was no point of us to continue dealing these issues.
As you may already have guessed, I was the person who contacted SharkTech regarding this incident. It is interesting to note the omission of certain important facts :
1 : At no time did I claim round-robin dns was absuive. I DID state, rightly, that it's use in conjunction with a shell server intended to connect to public IRC services was conducive to abuse.
2 : The low TTL values, coupled with a large number of zone updates daily are a strong indication of attempts to 'spoof' DNS. DNS spoofing is explicity prohibited on DALnet.
3 : The main point of the message (conveniently ommited) was that the record was inconsistent. The IP of the SharkTech hosted server appeared and disappeared from the DNS record almost at random. Note that ONLY that IP behaved in this way.
The message also detalied the type of abuse seen from this host, without detailed logs. In my opinion more than enough information was provided to SharkTech for them to act on this issue.
Next day (today), they performed an AKILL to all FDC blocks and when my employer contacted FruitLoop, she informed him (as she had done again in past) that she cannot the reason is confidential and she'll have to discuss it directly with FDCservers only.
After all these, I'm asking you the following:
1) How can someone deal an abuse WITHOUT any kind of evidences/logs? Imagine someone come and tell you: "We detected some serious abuses to your IP: 1.2.3.4 but we cannot give you any kind of logs/evidences because they're confidential"? Which serious ISP would accept this, to start blaming customers without any kind of logs? Not to mention that they compared abuse logs almost the same as credit card numbers.
Please see my response to this issue above.
2) Why should someone deal *future* abuses that may occur from clients' domains, just because they have low TTL values and/or use DNS round-robin? That's insane! I would understand their concern to report an abusive domain (and even to AKILL the domain if needed), but how did they expect us to accept predictions about abuses?
No predictions were made.
I'm truly disappointed of DALnet's attitude on this issue and I have to assure you that we did everything possible to prevent this from happening, while me and my employer consumed hours of dealing these reports and long conversations with admins that no other ISP would. We even had DALnet reports on our daily tasks. I hope you understand that we (SharkTECH) wanted as all of you to keep connectivity to DALnet as we are hosting hundred servers on FDCservers' datacenter and some of our clients need DALnet connectivity, but looks like DALnet didn't really want this and simply found an excuse to drop all FDCservers IPs.
DALnet acted in accordance with it's policies and after consideration, nobody was 'looking for an excuse'.
My personal opinion is that this would happen soon or later, even if we hadn't get involved because I saw how negative that admin was reacting even by seeing FDC's name. I remember a sharktech client that forwarded me a log a while ago that between others I noticed how ironically Fruitloop reacted when she saw where client's IP comes from: "Oh nice, FDC servers". Of course, someone would easily ask why would they want FDC/SharkTECH out, why would they hate us? Unfortunately I don't have this answer, I don't even know if it's something personal to FDCservers/SharkTECH or not. I wonder if it's related with their slogan that kept repeating "we offer a free service", which maybe actually means that they don't like people like us that charge clients for hosting.
At last, I wish everyone best luck with this incident and I sincerely apologize if you believe that our attempt to improve DALnet connectivity, may actually made it worse.
Thank you.
DALnet simply request that those using the service do so in accordance with our rules and policies. Where those are broken, we expect ISP's to follow standard practice when handling abuse issues. That is all. There is no personal vendetta or issue with people charging for hosting. Many other shell services have clients on DALnet and continue to do so without incident.
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 01:51
I think that your policy of only allowing a specific number of ip's over a given range is good for normal isp's but for a provider of SERVERS like FDC should be given a different response because there are probably a lod of BNC and eggdrop companies on here that use a rediculous number of ip's to accomodate users from other isp's trying to remain hidden.
I happen to know that psy would not not have made a comment unless the facts were true. Additionally you said it took 6 months for dalnet to come to the conclusion that FDC should be banned? but yet we only recieved peering 1 month ago. and before that no FDC clients could get connected to dalnet. so I would rethink your statement.
I happen to know that psy would not not have made a comment unless the facts were true. Additionally you said it took 6 months for dalnet to come to the conclusion that FDC should be banned? but yet we only recieved peering 1 month ago. and before that no FDC clients could get connected to dalnet. so I would rethink your statement.
Um, you're wrong.. users in my chans were getting killed back in Jan.. On Jan 12th I had people on these IPs get killed:
66.90.112.216
staff.channelwatan.daln3t.org
Sharry.daln3t.org
naveed.superboy.net
66.90.112.220
Last I checked, Jan 12th is before the IX peering AND within 6 months... or is your calendar setup differently than mine? Not that I like DALnet, but I do like the facts being right.. so anyone know of a good alternative where FDC is welcome?
Chrysalis
03-11-2005, 03:21
Have to say fdc should have seen this coming, my own reported abuse to fdc still has said servers left online spreading ddos bots, fdc seem to just give out large ip ranges and be very reluctant to shut down servers which leads to large abuse and is the reason why so many packet kiddies host at fdc.
Dalnet are also right that logs shouldnt be passed from the upstream provider down to the server owner, it should be enough that the upstream provider gives the server owner instructions to deal with the abuse, if not then cut them off.
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 03:55
Well from what I understand fdc's abuse hotline isn't too conerned with things that don't cripple FDC but I could be wrong. but I still think dalnet is wrong to ban entire class C ranges. it just means their lazy in terms of dealing with it.
I still think dalnet is wrong to ban entire class C ranges. it just means their lazy in terms of dealing with it.
Taken from the network you proudly list in your .sig.. "Your Internet provider may be denied access to the server or network if you successfully evade a ban." ..is it just me, or is this a bit of a "it's ok if we do it, but it's not ok if they do it" type thing?
jalmenaram
03-11-2005, 05:39
Hey sharktech and fdc u can resolved fighting this. why fdcservers and sharktech blocked u can bro
Regards
Jose Almenara
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 05:53
Hey sharktech and fdc u can resolved fighting this. why fdcservers and sharktech blocked u can bro
Regards
Jose Almenara
well not to insult you need to learn better english but fromt he way I understand your comment I don't think this is FDC and Sharktech fighting but rather just internal mismanagement on FDC's part as it seem sharktech's abuse team is very good.
But we'lls ee if fdc is able to deal with this....I doubt it since aparently I was misinformed in how long this problem has been going on (aparently it's been over 6 months of abuse comments by dalnet).
I do not want to be the one posting about this subject and prefer to keep it something for psyx to do, but I just couldn't help my self from commenting about this whole issue.
First of all Jim, I worked with YOU,FruitLoop,Msofty,Raskah,wisdom I've spent countless hours being treated like I'm playing "games" on DALnet. Yet what we have done indicated nothing of that nature. I've explainted over and over again the status of sharktech and the nature of our business and where do we SharkTECH/FDCServers stand in regard to our policy and enforcing it.
We processed EVERY single abuse report DALnet has provided us since we had our agreement and we have the email logs to proove that. We stumpled on the LEGAL issue when FruitLoop@DAL.net decided to start giving us abuse reports with no Logs. For us it's VERY simple as of ANY provider looking into an abuse one of his client's server has done keeping in mind every client of ours have sometimes hundreds of clients under him. We do not need the logs for our selves to proove that DALnet is not just falsly accusing someone. We will need it for the server owner. It's security practice you can find in any ISP.
In example, when there is email spam your server is sending and SpamCop reports it they cc to you the email to see the header and have the incriminating evidence for us and our client.
Anyhow, for my beleive in DALnet (I've been on DALnet for more than 8 years) and inspite of the rude behaviour I received (also logged) I decided to push on and try harder to get it resolved. We reached a medium were it seemed that both sides were satisfied with (or it looked). And it was providing DALnet the IP block of the abusive server and the e-mail of it to contact him themselves. Instead of Akilling a complete c-block where most of the time the server might have 2 chunks on 2 different blocks and others use the same c-class.
We acted upon that Fruitlloop@DAL.net sent us the logs and Psyx returned back with the information. The next day Jim-MM (whom I guess is the one replied to Psyx earlier) brought to our attention this issue with a hostname with round-robin and low TTL and YES you claimed it's abusive in this case for
"Second, the DNS for this domain appears to operate in 'round robin' mode. This
of itself is not abusive, however when used (as appears to be the case here) in
conjunction with a server designated to provide shell access to an IRC network
it creates a climate in which abuse flourishes."
First of all, ALL Shell providers host IRCd Services this is a fact, and most of them don't have the knowledge how to block someone from using an IP specifically designed for an IRCd from shell vhost users. Having the TTL that low is a common practice in many cases especially in the round-robin deal since if one of your servers on the round-robin went down you want to be able to delete it from the list and have the whole world reset their cached zone of yours. Anyhow, I talked to Jim-MM regarding this on IRC and he showed and provided me why he's concerned about this host and I informed him the same day that I will be taking care of it personally.
Everything sounded GREAT after that he had a few questions regarding our abuse responce policy and I provided him with details which appeared to be accepted by him. Though I informed him this co-operation is made upon the deal of us having our IX network. Everything sounded cool yet the next day... well you know what happenned.
In regard to everyone else saying that some FDC customers have botnets etc hosted I can assure you personally that we have the tightest network their is regarding such abuse. The only abuse DALnet has been informing us about were: spam, channel fillers, nickchasing, channel invite.
Again I say, I do not have any problem with resolving this issue we don't have any hostile feelings toward anyone and we will work on resolving the issue if we are given the chance. We simply don't know what DALnet wants! You are showing us you want Abuse support well we have been! Flat out tell us what do you want!
Thank you
Tim Timrawi
SharkTECH Internet Services
jalmenaram
03-11-2005, 06:16
I dont need :P ChronoCross the problem no with this 6 month because i know this problem with fdc and dalnet just only of this abuse (clones and flood massive from the customer connect to this Network) because i see this problem mr ChronoCross and i know who abuse
Regards
Jose Almenara
hideident
03-11-2005, 06:34
Hello everyone,
First of all, I have to tell you that my opinion is that the AKILL is DALnet's fault and not FDCservers'. It has nothing to do with how the IP policies that FDCservers has.
Thank you.
:o: :o: :o: :o: :o: :o: :o: :o:
what can i do now?
:o: :o: :o: :o: :o: :o: :o:
i can`t connect to dal net
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 06:41
Very nice post Tim. Dalnet is actually the ones that have to prove themselves ont his issue...IDK from what I'm understanding they are refusing to give logs to prove the abuse? If that is the case this is a completely rediculous policy. I could contact the FBI today and say that the staff members of Dalnet operating from dalnet servers blah and blah are hacking the federal reserve bank computers and are trasfering trillions of dollars....and what would the FBI say? Where's the proof? show me evidence. Simply put logs that show the accuseds behavior and then an internal investigation by sharktech (they should not give the server owner the logs but rather should go in the server and find out what's going on which is why most datacenters/companies have a full tiem abuse team that is dedicated to this. ALL users waive the right to privacy by committing a crime. There are no laws that cover privacy unless it's a medical issue. I think that dalnet should greatly reconsider it's position and FDC should get their heads out of their asses( please FDC feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) and get a dedicated abuse team.
Not only that Chrono, what ticks me off the *MOST* is we found a solution for abuse incidents that they can't provide us with logs. We FOUND the solution that fits us both and they agreed on it yet look what happenned. I really don't see what part of a "policy" this would be if a company is co-operating with you above and beyond how would you do such aggressive thing against them!
I do like the FBI analogy, although I don't think it fits for this. If I'm running an ISP and someone says "we've got a host of connections from X IP abusing us" it doesn't take much to get a netstat or similar and go "yup, there's 105 connections from 4 users".. or if an ISP gets word that a customer of theirs is sending too much data and attacking a host to look at the switch and see the 100mbit output and it would definately make me want to investigate. I do understand that I see things odd, so it could just be me. ..I do also understand that if DALnet has had a history of giving you bogus reports and wasting your time chasing ghosts, then yes - definately get logs going.. if they've always given you real info, then take their word and look to see if it's true.
Meanwhile, for those who are curious, it seems that getting on to Quakenet, accessirc and undernet all work. Now I get to enjoy figuring out where my friends want to meet up... oh the joys of moving.
battlefield
03-11-2005, 08:24
If I'm running an ISP and someone says "we've got a host of connections from X IP abusing us" it doesn't take much to get a netstat or similar and go "yup, there's 105 connections from 4 users".. or if an ISP gets word that a customer of theirs is sending too much data and attacking a host to look at the switch and see the 100mbit output and it would definately make me want to investigate.
lilego3 I can`t tell that you never ran ISP. If my ISP went into my server to snoop around I would sue his ass. Nobody has right to invade my privacy or my data. I am colocating servers in couple different datacenters and if a tech opened my cabinet door for even 1 inch without my consent I`d sue their company for every last penny.
I expect to be notified if there is a problem on one of my servers and I do not expect my ISP to trouble shoot the issues for me.
lilego3 I can`t tell that you never ran ISP. If my ISP went into my server to snoop around I would sue his ass. -snip- I expect to be notified if there is a problem on one of my servers and I do not expect my ISP to trouble shoot the issues for me.
Not only have I run ISPs, but I've worked for several large ones as well. There were times when we had "true" colocated machines where we did not have a login on the machine, however this did not stop our ability to check the switch or bandwidth logs for behaviour which would indicate abuse if we were notified about it.
I realize that you may be doing things on a smaller scale where you don't use managed switches, might not be able to afford network based IDS solutions such as network flight recorder or use similar devices which would alert you to undesired activity on your network, but for an ISP that is actually hosting enterprise-level customers, these things are standard. Perhaps if FDC invested in managed switches and IDS solutions it would help them see some of the abuse before it's reported and be able to take a pro-active role in working with their clients (even if, as battlefield pointed out, the ISP does not have shell level access to the colocated server).
Personally I'd love to see *ALL* ISPs take more responsibility for their customers keeping with the SLAs and AUPs they signed when they apply for their account. Usually it seem like it's all "enter a credit card, if it passes you have a server" which almost always ends badly.
Jim-DALnet
03-11-2005, 10:16
I think that your policy of only allowing a specific number of ip's over a given range is good for normal isp's but for a provider of SERVERS like FDC should be given a different response because there are probably a lod of BNC and eggdrop companies on here that use a rediculous number of ip's to accomodate users from other isp's trying to remain hidden.
As I have already indicated, we can and will increase the limits where justified. If someone is having difficulties like this the admin of the server concerned should contact DALnet and explain the issue, in most cases we will increase the limit almost immediately.
I happen to know that psy would not not have made a comment unless the facts were true. Additionally you said it took 6 months for dalnet to come to the conclusion that FDC should be banned? but yet we only recieved peering 1 month ago. and before that no FDC clients could get connected to dalnet. so I would rethink your statement.
That's very strange, particularly since we only recently introduced the IP limiting system and in light of a previous poters statement that only when we did so did FDC/SharkTech clients begin to have connection isues. Peering is not a requirement to connect to DALnet, these are sperate issues and should not be connected in this way.
I will not be drawn into an onging debate on this issue, suffice it to say that the action taken was considered over a period of months and not in any way a rash or hasty action.
Jim-DALnet
03-11-2005, 10:43
<snip>
We processed EVERY single abuse report DALnet has provided us since we had our agreement and we have the email logs to proove that. We stumpled on the LEGAL issue when FruitLoop@DAL.net decided to start giving us abuse reports with no Logs. For us it's VERY simple as of ANY provider looking into an abuse one of his client's server has done keeping in mind every client of ours have sometimes hundreds of clients under him. We do not need the logs for our selves to proove that DALnet is not just falsly accusing someone. We will need it for the server owner. It's security practice you can find in any ISP.
Actually, you won't. If I forward a complaint to an ISP, I expect that information to remain with the ISP and NOT to be passed on to a third party (with the obvious exception of law enforcement agencies). You, as the network provider have a responsibility for the actions of your clients and more importantly in this case, their clients. As such, when you receive an abuse complaint your response should be simple enough - assess it's validity and either disregard it if invalid or instruct your client to end the abuse originating from thier system.
That is standard ISP abuse handling procedure, yours is not.
In example, when there is email spam your server is sending and SpamCop reports it they cc to you the email to see the header and have the incriminating evidence for us and our client.
Spamcop is a dedicated spam reporting service who simply forward reports submitted by others. They have no detection systems to protect. We do, and revealing how those work to a third party would compormise their continued function.
Anyhow, for my beleive in DALnet (I've been on DALnet for more than 8 years) and inspite of the rude behaviour I received (also logged) I decided to push on and try harder to get it resolved. We reached a medium were it seemed that both sides were satisfied with (or it looked). And it was providing DALnet the IP block of the abusive server and the e-mail of it to contact him themselves. Instead of Akilling a complete c-block where most of the time the server might have 2 chunks on 2 different blocks and others use the same c-class.
We will not play 'whack-a-mole' with abuse. Many of these servers have multiple IP addresses available and not always from within one single /24. In that situation what choice do we have? To avoid that situation is relativly simple - assign IP's in standard CIDR blocks and provide an rwhois server that can be used to identify which block belongs to which server.
We acted upon that Fruitlloop@DAL.net sent us the logs and Psyx returned back with the information. The next day Jim-MM (whom I guess is the one replied to Psyx earlier) brought to our attention this issue with a hostname with round-robin and low TTL and YES you claimed it's abusive in this case for
"Second, the DNS for this domain appears to operate in 'round robin' mode. This
of itself is not abusive, however when used (as appears to be the case here) in
conjunction with a server designated to provide shell access to an IRC network
it creates a climate in which abuse flourishes."
Please explain to me how that statement can be read as indicating that round-robin DNS is abusive. THIS PARTICULAR USE of it is, the system itself is not.
First of all, ALL Shell providers host IRCd Services this is a fact, and most of them don't have the knowledge how to block someone from using an IP specifically designed for an IRCd from shell vhost users. Having the TTL that low is a common practice in many cases especially in the round-robin deal since if one of your servers on the round-robin went down you want to be able to delete it from the list and have the whole world reset their cached zone of yours. Anyhow, I talked to Jim-MM regarding this on IRC and he showed and provided me why he's concerned about this host and I informed him the same day that I will be taking care of it personally.
The technical ability of clients on your network is, to be honest, not our concern. Preventing abuse of our network arising from that inability is. If they cannot run IRCd in a controlled and secure manner then they should not be running it at all and they really shouldn't be running it and connecting to an IRC network large enough to require them to use DNS load balacing.
Again I say, I do not have any problem with resolving this issue we don't have any hostile feelings toward anyone and we will work on resolving the issue if we are given the chance. We simply don't know what DALnet wants! You are showing us you want Abuse support well we have been! Flat out tell us what do you want!
I will be happy to discuss that with you, in private. It's not an issue that I am prepared to discuss in a public forum like this. You have my e-mail address, feel free to contact me if you so wish.
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 11:48
Ever ask yourself this question? :rolleyes:
If fdcservers had a competent abuse department, would we be in this mess in the first place? :confused:
Ever see how many fdc IPs abuse their accounts? :eek:
Ever see that they continue to abuse their accounts? :mad:
What do you think dalnet should do about that, akill them? Of course they will! :p
I'm just as pissed as anyone over this mess, but to blame dalnet for it is nothing less than childish. Dalnet gave fdc more than adequate time to deal with its abuse issues and if you want to know the outcome of that just look at that akill. That speaks volumes about the cooperation fdc gave dalnet.
It's all well and good blaming dalnet since they are available and you can type the blames. However blaming dalnet won't get anything fixed. You see, when you blame someone, you should blame the people responsible who are the people who can fix it.
And that is fdcservers. :D
Password
03-11-2005, 12:12
Hello Every one :)
Seems DALnet wana us to Stop joining there servers Indirect way somtimes they say we are abusing .. ANd they never show us any log I donno till when they will keep treating us In this bad way .. there opers think themselves God's they Never help or give us a solution for any problem ,they want to be always trusted . and they never trust any user , they never treat us In a good way they always wana us to beleive them and think themselves always saying the truth and we are the liars thats enough every one know dalnet shits with there fucking rules Soon there will be no longer more then 5000 users i think they need to change most the staff.. And they should be online not always idle.. enough I'm truly disappointed of DALnet's attitude on this issue and many others
Password
Admin@NetLeb.net
http://www.Netleb.net
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 12:16
Additionally you said it took 6 months for dalnet to come to the conclusion that FDC should be banned? but yet we only recieved peering 1 month ago. and before that no FDC clients could get connected to dalnet. so I would rethink your statement.
There were always the client servers (non-IX) like mesra, hotspeed, matrix, arcor, jade and rumble. Those are the ones fdc clients were using.
You still haven't given us your thoughts on why fdc hasn't acted properly on the abuse issues which got fdc akilled in the first place. Your posts against dalnet lead me to believe that you're either just blatently anti-dalnet, for some "unknown reason", or you're ignorant of the issue being discussed.
Perhaps you've been akilled for abuse too many times. :D
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 12:23
Well from what I understand fdc's abuse hotline isn't too conerned with things that don't cripple FDC but I could be wrong. but I still think dalnet is wrong to ban entire class C ranges. it just means their lazy in terms of dealing with it.
What would you have dalnet do about it, continue making multiple single-IP akills over and over and over and... ? :rolleyes:
After a few months of that, and getting no satisfaction from a company who "says" they have an abuse department, you get rid of the problem. You can't fault dalnet for that. ;)
I'm REALLY starting to think you're one of those multiple akill "victims". :hey:
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 12:41
Very nice post Tim. Dalnet is actually the ones that have to prove themselves ont his issue...IDK from what I'm understanding they are refusing to give logs to prove the abuse? If that is the case this is a completely rediculous policy.
I think you're forgetting an important fact here. Those logs were forwarded, by the abuse department they were sent to, to the server owners WHO WERE THE ABUSERS. If whatever relevant abuse department cannot maintain their own TOS, it makes me wonder why they are in business in the first place. As you can see from the akill, it doesn't work very well.
Whatever company's abuse department has the tools and legal ability to stop those who abuse their policies without forwarding confidential information on to ANYONE other than relevant law enforcement. The abuse department who dalnet contacted simply says, "Stop that! Or else bye bye!"
It really IS just that simple.
Dalnet is wacky as a fruitloop if they think any provider is not entitled to see the log files of the alleged complaint and forward the complaint to the server administer or owner of the server. Of course there are some bad server administers or owners but the major are hard working people just trying to make a living or deeply committed to their hobby. How do you know the server was not hacked or it was a rouge client or a competitor of the server administer trying to cause trouble?
I idealism that the owner of the server is not entitled to know what he is being accused of and a chance to correct the situation is wrong. The idealism that the ISP provided is not entitled to see the log files is plain stupid and would lead to the death of the ISP provider. Unless of course the ISP determines the severity of the alleged complaint is so bad that Law Enforcement should be contacted and/or Law Enforcement has issued a court order regarding the alleged server.
If the owner of the servers can not correct the situation than the abuse department should terminate service.
I imagine Dalnet will continue a slow death as IPS should be very reluctant to disconnect servers with do documentation such as the log files and take the law into their own hands, without having documentation to back up shutting the server down.
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 16:36
What would you have dalnet do about it, continue making multiple single-IP akills over and over and over and... ? :rolleyes:
After a few months of that, and getting no satisfaction from a company who "says" they have an abuse department, you get rid of the problem. You can't fault dalnet for that. ;)
I'm REALLY starting to think you're one of those multiple akill "victims". :hey:
meh I don't have a server at FDC I simply hang here to help out. I just think it's just wierd that they would ban an entire class C range of ip's. I think it's aparent that they have been working with Sharktech who was been very involved in getting things done. it's a problem with FDC that the abuse continues but that still doesn't justify banning everyone.
ChronoCross
03-11-2005, 16:45
There were always the client servers (non-IX) like mesra, hotspeed, matrix, arcor, jade and rumble. Those are the ones fdc clients were using.
You still haven't given us your thoughts on why fdc hasn't acted properly on the abuse issues which got fdc akilled in the first place. Your posts against dalnet lead me to believe that you're either just blatently anti-dalnet, for some "unknown reason", or you're ignorant of the issue being discussed.
Perhaps you've been akilled for abuse too many times. :D
meh I'm not banned on dalnet nor have I ever been. unlike most people I am a resonsible user of IRC.
The reason I think that FDC hasn't acted on these claims of abuse is because FDC doesn't see it as abuse, either that or they forgot about the complaints. Since after they send a email from abuse they need never look into it again, it's not like they have an abuse queue, and even if they did they would still lose track or mistake which ticket is with which server, etc. same stuff they do with the helpdesk. but that's not the point.
Dalnet should NOT ban an entire isp. Even if they have to work harder to keep abusers within FDC out of their network they should. 97% of FDC's dalnet users are NOT abusive and are simply trying to use something they paid for on DALnet, and grouping everyone together is stupid. If I had a link to the news story about verizon banning all email sent from the entire country of germany I would link to the lawsuit that has been filed for discrimination.
Analogy #2: Lets take all black people and ban them from using white restrooms is synonymous with lets take all of FDCservers and ban them from using dalnet.
Dalnet should NOT ban an entire isp. Even if they have to work harder to keep abusers within FDC out of their network they should.
Although again, the network you seem to like says it'll do the same thing, although for "successfully evading a ban" - where in this case it apparently took more than a ban being evaded... or are you also posting to the forums for the other IRC networks and making a plea for all networks to change their policies.. or is it just DALnet?
As for the other discrimination comments - this is not about the human conditions of race, religion or gender or even region/location.. this is about DALnet's desire to not deal with an ISP that they feel has a business policy which welcomes abuse.
It would be interesting to see what besides the DNS issue was happening. So far a lot of talk about logs and DNS. Jigy mentioned several types of abuse that were being dealt with, but not how often the reports of abuse were comming in, if they were the same customers each time or other information that might be fun for us readers..
jalmenaram
03-11-2005, 17:57
I dont understand very fine, what abuse get fdc, abuse of clones or what, just only i see clones, in a one opportunities i recieved one kill by channel filler but i resolved, because in the page of DALnet never appear exp/filler, maybe DALnet need upgrade this page of kline.
Jim-dalnet i know totally the rulez of DALnet other company of ISP get more clones of FDC or more problems of FDC, maybe DALnet need check the other company, all the time i check my server and never abuse and other server of my friend never get this abuse, maybe blocked this server but not all , this is injust for the rest never get abuse.
Regards
Jose Almenara
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 18:43
I have this question.
Who owns the IPs in question? If you do a whois lookup on any of these IPs, who is the owner?
Dalnet deals with fdc on these issues for that reason. If fdc feels the need to forward logs sent by dalnet to resellers then fdc has broken trust and given what IS confidential information to third parties who can use that information for malicious purposes.
It doesn't matter how many resellers fdc has. If fdc can't handle their own abuse complaints against their own customers, they do not need to be in this line of work.
End of story.
It would seem that dalnet has made a choice concerning fdc. It's up to the resellers to "talk" to fdc to get it resolved. Dalnet has done what ANY irc network would do to curb continued and unresolved abuse coming from ONE provider (fdc).
For fdc to forward abuse email and logs to any of their resellers is beyond inexcusable and is piss-poor business practice. They have the means to stop the abuse. They have the logs and CAN tell the resellers who is causing the problems without showing those logs. They can provide dates/times/IPs which are needed by the resellers to stop the abusive practices of the customers on their servers.
Anything less is not doing the job of an abuse department and has directly led to the current akill. They have no excuse whatsoever.
jalmenaram
03-11-2005, 18:51
Yes SheWhoKnows is totally true from this methods u can found who abuse or no :) u can found and dont need logs or nothing and fdc or sharktech check this. (nslookup)
Regards
Jose Almenara
psyxakias
03-11-2005, 21:20
First of all, I have to remind you once again that I still insist this AKILL is exclusively DALnet's decision and it's not related of how good or bad FDC's (or SharkTECH's) abuse department is. If you read this post carefully, you'll realize why I'm saying this. We responded to *ALL* DALnet's reports, we informed *ALL* server owners (always bcc'ing emails to DALnet) about these reports, we even found ways to deal reports that had no logs. DALnet's thank you after all these was an AKILL to all FDC's IP blocks. I assume DALnet probably expected immediate server suspensions/terminations or server takeovers for servers who broke their TOS, which is totally unacceptable and no ISPs should do it just because an IRC network's policy are abused! I'm glad that FDC hasn't taken any such actions as I personally find them TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!
ISPs' Abuse Departments
ISPs, no matter what kind of services they provide (dial-up/adsl access, web hosting, shell hosting, dedicated/virtual server hosting) are getting paid for a simple reason, to provide services. However, every ISP has a Terms of Service (TOS) agreement that client has to follow to prevent any misunderstands/problems between the client and the ISP. ISP's TOS include all computer crimes that are illegal from the laws of the country that ISP is hosted, in order for the ISP to prevent having trouble with laws and have the ability to take actions against the clients. Abuse departments are created to handle THESE abuses, either by warning the client, either by suspension, either by termination depending the seriosity of each case.
ISPs abuse departments are *not* created to deal other services' TOS, like DALnet's. If DALnet expects people to respect it as a serious IRC network, then their abuse department should find ways to handle abuses with the less negative affects to the rest people. Blocking a whole ISP just because DALnet's abuse department is not able to handle people who break their TOS, is totally unacceptable. DALnet can deny access to any ISP they want, but it does not mean it's ISP's fault.
Abuse Logs
In order for an ISP to handle an abuse, in most cases (if not all) ISP provides all evidences to the client in order to explain him why he's warned, or suspended, or terminated. As a customer myself, I want to know the reason that my ADSL provider may terminate me. And even if the ISP includes on their TOS that they may deny/terminate service to anyone without giving a reason, they rarely not provide logs unless there is some serious reason like a government service forces them to terminate a client. Otherwise, we would have several ISPs that would terminate service to clients without reason, in order to steal their money and everybody would be extremely suspicious on ISP's actions.
Some scenarios/questions related to Abuse Departments / Abuse Logs
1) Would you accept your ISP services (dial-up, adsl, hosting) that you have paid to get suspended/terminated, just because an IRC network claims you abused their TOS as long as you didn't abuse ISP's TOS? How then DALnet expects ISPs to take actions against their clients (even with logs)?
2) Would you like your ISP to takeover your business servers and starts deleting your shell clients, without your previous confirmation because of a report?
3) Would you like to get terminated without even knowing the reason or without seeing logs proving the reason?
4) Would you like your business competitors, to take you out of business by sending a fake report?
5) Who assures you that behind an IRC network cannot be some irresponsible people (ie admins) who can request your ISP to terminate you, because they have some kind of profit from your competitors? I honestly don't mean anything against DALnet but if ISPs start taking reports that seriously, who tells me that there won't be some IRC networks that may try to have some profit with something like this?
6) Isn't it possible your competitors to take an account from you, abuse policies of an IRC network and then IRC network blame you for abuse, through your ISP? How will you handle it if the IRC network refuses to gives any logs because of 'confidential data'?
IRC abuses
As IRC networks have their own rules, their abuse departments are the ones who should enforce these rules with the less possible effect to innocent/rest people. ISPs further than handling their own TOS rules, they have absolutely no reason to handle abuse reports that break "others" TOS (like DALnet's).
1) IDENTs
IDENTd is something that every shell server should run (RFC1413) in order to have a static ident on IRC which makes it easier for IRC networks (not ISPs) to punish specific shell accounts, without blocking innocents people that use the same IP/netblock. We always recommended it to our clients but we cannot force them to do it (as nobody does). IRC networks are the ones that can easily force them to run it by not accepting non-identd connections. Most IRC networks already have mechanism on their IRCd or IRC Network services that don't let you get on them and disconnect you with a message "Please run identd". Instead of doing this, DALnet preffered to forward this rule enforcement to ISPs and Fruitloop complained about a server client that refused to install identd. This issue wouldn't even exist if the above mechanism existed.
I'm personally very positive on using IDENTd, but if they want to enforce this rule, IRC networks should setup their servers properly, not expect ISPs to take actions against clients! Several big IRC networks already do that.
a) Is it acceptable for an IRC network to send reports to ISPs because identd is not installed on servers? Shouldn't they have some automated mechanism on their IRCd software to block it?
b) Would you like your server to get terminated because identd crashed? Wouldn't it be much better if the IRC network simply doesn't accept connections, until you notice it?
2) Cloning
Most IRC networks have anti-cloning rules as clones are causing several negative effects to IRC networks and IRC users, like floods which can also cause damage to IRCds like consuming useless traffic that server owner gets charged, fill IRC servers preventing other users to be able to connect etc. So it's obviously really logical to have rules against cloning and there is no doubt about it. However, IRC networks should have their own mechanism on blocking clones and should enforce these rules themselves, without expecting ISPs' abuse departments to do their job by taking actions against their clients.
If they want to enforce rules against cloning then automated limitations per IP or per ident or ident@hostname would really help. However, if someone suceeds to pass through these limitations by changing IPs and idents, then DALnet IRCops may solve it manually with some drastical way but always trying to affect as less innocent people as possible. For example, if the person succeeds to change IPs all the time, they may akill all the actively IPs (one by one) or in worst case of all (not as primary solution) to akill the C class. Afterwards, they may inform the ISP's abuse department showing the logs and if ISP cooperate with IRCops and provide them the IP ranges that the clients use, IRC network may setup the akill in specific non-classed IP ranges (example: 1.1.1.1 - 1.1.1.44, 1.1.3.55 - 1.1.3.99). I know that some IRCds don't have this ability but that's absolutely IRC network's problem to solve by designing a better IRCd, not ISP's.
Why am I saying all these? Simply because DALnet (Fruitloop) kept complaining us about people who ran more than 4+ nicknames per ident and was expecting us to take action against them. Not to mention that in a few cases there were common used idents, different capitilized from different servers (even from non-FDC IPs) that was just a coincidence. Also, at the same time, there are people who run more than 4 nicknames (even 9+) from the same identd using a different ISP and servers neither got akilled, neither got contacted. Some SharkTECH clients that own servers in different datacenters as well, have never been contacted from DALnet about high number of idents, which clearly shows that they're not that objective in some cases.
FDCservers Abuse Department
After years of experience with hosting providers, my opinion is that FDC's abuse department works perfectly in comparison with many other ISPs that I have contacted for serious reasons (ie DDoS) and they didn't even care to respond me or take any actions and problems continued. I have personally cooperated with FDCservers' Abuse department in 2 ways:
- Receiving reports from them: As we're hosting hundred servers, it's common that there were some issues with one of our servers (with or without our client's knowledge) that were abused and FDCservers had e-mailed us to inform us about it, showing us logs and giving us logical time to deal the issue. We have handled and responded to all their reports, they were always really logical and they did not even have to proceed neither to server suspension, neither to our whole network suspension.
- Sending reports to them: As FDCservers hosts thousand servers, it's also common that there are times that some abusive activities were caught from their servers as well against us. I have informed FDC several times about FDC IPs that were involved in abusive activities (that break *their* TOS, not ours) showing them (with evidences of course) the problem and they always took care of the issue with the best possible way.
How SharkTECH got involved on this issue?
As I explained above, SharkTECH is hosting hundred servers on FDC's datacenter so we were the first ones who noticed the problems with unexpected limitations from DALnet side as some customers complained, while we didn't have any issues with any other IRC network. SharkTECH contacted DALnet in order to deal this and DALnet informed us that it will get solved with peering to their IX network but they seemed to have some serious concerns about how FDCservers deals abuses. Although we were sure that FDCservers was doing nothing wrong and their abuse department takes cares issues properly, we insisted on finding a solution. So SharkTECH took it one step further and suggested to cooperate with DALnet to handle any complains DALnet has against FDC clients, in order to get peered. Even though an ISP (like SharkTECH) took the responsibility (that didn't even have to) of dealing something like this that consumed valuable time of our staff, I'd expect DALnet to be thankful but the result was after sending us hundred reports and consuming our time, to AKILL whole FDCservers and then admitting that this was planned in the last 6 months (even before SharkTECH gets involved).
My conclusion
After seeing DALnet's interest (Jim's) to post here, I'm seriously starting to believe that DALnet is not as careless as I thought and I personally apologize if I made any strict/negative comments against DALnet as I really want to believe that they have no personal reasons to AKILL FDCservers.
However, DALnet's abuse team was possibly unable to enforce their own rules and preferred to forward all issues to the ISP, no matter if it's related to ISP's TOS (ie DDoS botnets, email spamming, illegal/warez hosting etc) or IRC abuses that only break DALnet's TOS and DALnet should be the one who will punish the abusers. So when DALnet noticed that the only thing that ISP could do on IRC abuses is to simply forward the reports to the server owner, they decided to AKILL all FDC IPs as they were probably expecting some strict resolution like server suspensions/terminations which is not possible for an ISP to perform them without serious reasons (ie DDoS botnets, email spamming, warez/illegal fileservers etc).
DALnet has to realize that FDCservers is a datacenter that offers valuable services with low prices and already has thousand dedicated servers, many virtual servers, more than 40.000 IPs and blocking all of them is surely not the ideal solution. If DALnet's abuse department wasn't able to deal nickchasing, clones, idents issues then they should either re-consider their rules, improve their services' software and/or the number of members that work in abuse department.
Possible Solutions
We have absolutely no problem to discuss with you some possible solutions that may help both DALnet and FDC/SharkTECH on dealing people that break DALnet's policies. In exchange of course, we are requesting AKILL removal & peering to DALnet IX network. I prefer to discuss these solutions in public than private, as all these clients need to know why they're blocked and if there are any actions taken or ignorance. So I believe the following solutions could be easily done, no matter if the user is using IX or non-IX network:
1) Non-identd connections: You may pernament block all FDC IPs that don't run identd from connecting to DALnet. There is absolutely no problem with us and we don't even need to be informed about it as it's an obvious that IRC networks may have.
2) Channel Invites, IRC Spamming, Clones: If you cannot stop the abuser by akilling single/few IPs (*!*@<IP>), or ident@ip (*!ident@<IP>), or ident@class (*!ident@XXX.XXX.XXX.*), or ident (*!ident@*), then feel free to e-mail us as the last solution with the necessary logs at dalnetabuse@fdcservers.net, we'll be glad to inform the server owner and request him to bring some resolution on this matter. If server owner doesnt take necessary actions, we'll provide you all his IP block(s) in order for you to take any actions (ie akill) you want. However, akilling C classes just because he has got just 15-20 IPs won't be the ideal solution as you'll be blocking other servers for no reason so an ip-range block (*!*@XX.XX.XX.4-33) would be much better.
3) Nickchasing or anything that you cannot provide logs: You may contact us at dalnetabuse@fdcservers.net and we'll provide you all client's IP ranges and client's e-mail address that has used (as it's not considered as private) to allocate them. Afterwards, your abuse department may either contact him, either AKILL his range if there is no cooperation from his side. Once again akilling whole C classes unless the client surely owns the whole class is not ideal as there are classes that are owned even by 8 people.
Thank you for reading my post and hoping in a future cooperation.
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 21:59
psyxakias
http://www.fdcservers.net/aup.html
Read it.
psyxakias
03-11-2005, 22:08
psyxakias
http://www.fdcservers.net/aup.html
Read it.Can you please more specific?
I'd also appreciate if you could inform us what's your current role/position on the issue. FDC client? DALnet Staff? Neither? I'm noticing some kind of aggresive behavior or something, so that's why I'm asking. You know what's my role and the reasons I'm trying to prove the obvious, that DALnet incorrectly akilled FDCservers. What's yours? Thanks.
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 22:15
The fact that the decision to make the akill was made by dalnet is not in dispute. Dalnet made that decision and, of course, it wasn't made lightly.
The reasons why would seem to be what is in dispute.
Every IP you give to people belongs to fdc.
They are ultimately responsible.
After months and months of abuse from all aspects of fdc, dalnet said, "Okay, that's enough." Followed by a ban of all fdc. A logical outcome considering the abuse was coming from fdc.
I think this thread should end right now. It's plain to see that nothing is going to change since the people who need to change it are waiting on an irc network to back down from enforcing its aup because others won't enforce theirs. You can go on about what you or anyone else was doing to placate dalnet but that will never change the fact that the abuse only got worse.
So, fdc can remain banned from dalnet and we can all go about other business. :)
I hope you have a good day.
It's DEFINETLY obvious whois trying to resolve the situation. I've noticed your "piss-business" comments and I saw your support conversations with me ENOUGH to proove to me what kind of a poor attitude and unprofessional behaviour you own which I admit it got me under MY skin once enough to blow me. I will provide the logs soon in public to whom ever is interested to read.
Again, We have provided *SOLUTIONS* (unlike the other side which clearly you see in this thread provided none) not only on this forum but on IRC and via E-mail. And our solutions are still available and unlike others we stand by them.
We will not be cornered by your attitude or your threats. We provided the assistance regarding which issues you will never receive from any ISP abuse department. I've worked in many ISPs and hosted in many ISPs long enough to know that. I think me and psyx have repeated our selves enough times on this thread and it's getting rediculous saying it over and over again.
You trully wanna resolve this issue GREAT! follow the agreement we had you approved yourself and others in DALnet's staff.
I wish you the best with your blatant behaviour and wish DALnet the best in the road choosen.
Thank you
Tim Timrawi
SharkTECH Internet Services
SheWhoKnows
03-11-2005, 22:55
By the way, psyxakias, that was a hell of a post and I see your point very well and evidently you see dalnet's point even though you don't agree with it.
I didn't mean to sound hostile since I don't feel that way. I simply have friends who have accounts with you and others at fdc and I'm always one to jump in and try to help no matter how misguided it may be. Call it passion, not hostility. I apologize for making you think I was hostile.
I simply see things in black and white since I don't have your inside grey vision.
I also see, very well mind you, your point about the akills for the specific abusers. However, I don't know of an irc network staff who has the time or the patience to continually take care of the number of abusers dalnet is having to put up with from fdc IPs. Remember, those people are unpaid and donate what spare time they can to running every single aspect of that network. Of course they're going to ask for help from providers. I'm sure they get a lot of help, too.
Everyone who has been around dalnet for a few years remembers the time all of aol was banned. It was aol who got that ban lifted by helping dalnet curb the abuse.
Personally, I think you're stuck in the middle here. You're doing what you can to resolve the issue but you're doing it from the middle ground. People on both sides of you are the ones who need to make the big decisions, in my opinion.
Well, anyway, my only hope is that the dispute is resolved as fast as it possibly can be. Like you say, it's the innocent users who are actually paying the price at the moment. That sucks big time but I think we both really see and understand why it's happening.
I really do wish you to have a good day even though I suspect you're not. ;-)
May the users ultimately win.
FruitLoop why are you hiding your identity? Whats to hide in here?
psyxakias
03-11-2005, 23:19
I also see, very well mind you, your point about the akills for the specific abusers. However, I don't know of an irc network staff who has the time or the patience to continually take care of the number of abusers dalnet is having to put up with from fdc IPs. Remember, those people are unpaid and donate what spare time they can to running every single aspect of that network. Of course they're going to ask for help from providers. I'm sure they get a lot of help, too.I have already mentioned all these to my Conclusion part. If they don't have the appropriate staff, organization, automated tactics to control their own network and enforce their own rules properly, then they cannot blame ISPs for their internal problems. If I couldn't control my business and enforce my own rules properly without affecting innocents, I'd close it.
Everyone who has been around dalnet for a few years remembers the time all of aol was banned. It was aol who got that ban lifted by helping dalnet curb the abuse.As I rarely use DALnet, I didn't know about this. But thanks for informing me that DALnet is not the first time who acts like this, although I don't know how exactly they ended up on akilling AOL. Unfortunately your post made me realize that they don't learn from their mistakes and will keep doing it to several ISPs. Good luck to them.
Personally, I think you're stuck in the middle here. You're doing what you can to resolve the issue but you're doing it from the middle ground. People on both sides of you are the ones who need to make the big decisions, in my opinion.Big decisions like what? Maybe FDC should authorize FDC techs to start unplugging or terminating server, on their request? Or maybe providing router access to DALnet to deny IPs, mac addresses. You can't be serious. DALnet was provided with all they asked, we even provided our client's e-mails in reports that had no logs and you're telling me that big decisions should be taken?
Well, anyway, my only hope is that the dispute is resolved as fast as it possibly can be. Like you say, it's the innocent users who are actually paying the price at the moment. That sucks big time but I think we both really see and understand why it's happening.DALnet should actually see this, neither FDC, neither SharkTECH that already fullfil DALnet's requests at the best possible way, even doing things that no other ISP would do.
I really do wish you to have a good day even though I suspect you're not. ;-)You too. Thanks
psyxakias
http://www.fdcservers.net/aup.html
Read it.you still didn't specify why and what exactly made you suggest me FDC's AUP? Does it mention that FDCservers should take actions against clients, when they get akilled or banned from IRC networks? Looks like I'm blind, please show me.
jalmenaram
03-11-2005, 23:41
Ummm FruitLoop here ok.
U are good girl i know you at the time when i need help u help me. maybe u(DALnet) and fdc/sharktech resolved this problem because u and fdc can be friends and the same company DALnet and FDC "peace and love".
U can talk FruitLoop what is the problem with this conversation and resolved this problem soon because both company need peace and no fighting.
DALnet is my second house and i chatting from 1997 and maybe DALnet need upgrade the page of Kline because dont appear exp/fill.
Go Go lady Fruit :) (f)
Hugs for all
Jose A
Gabo_
helper of IRCayuda
Jim-DALnet
03-12-2005, 00:06
It would be interesting to see what besides the DNS issue was happening. So far a lot of talk about logs and DNS. Jigy mentioned several types of abuse that were being dealt with, but not how often the reports of abuse were comming in, if they were the same customers each time or other information that might be fun for us readers..
While I don't doubt it would be interesting it would also be unprofessional in the extreme for us to publish information of that kind.
It would also be unfair to both FDC and SharkTech for us to discuss details of communications between us and for that reason I regret that I cannot answer your question other than to confirm what has already been said - several types of abuse were involved.
Jim,
As far as SharkTECH's side we have no problem with you revealing details or logs of our replies to your requests. We have done NOTHING wrong to be hesitant one bit about to release to public hands.
Jim-DALnet
03-12-2005, 00:24
<snip>
Thank you for reading my post and hoping in a future cooperation.
Thank you for a reasoned and considered response, however I do not feel it approriate to discuss issues of this nature in detail on a public forum such as this.
Further, as this ban affects all clients of FDC Servers it would be more appropriate for us to discuss these issues with a repersentative from FDC. To date, no formal contact has been made with DALnet by anyone representing FDC servers since the ban took effect.
We will happily discuss the current issues with an authorised representative of FDC Servers and sincerely hope to work with FDC towards a mutually acceptable solution to this issue. FDC Servers have my e-mail address and are welcome to contact me directly, alternatively DALnet's K-Line team (who deal with network-wide bans) can be reached via http://www.dal.net/admin/contactkline.php3
psyxakias
03-12-2005, 01:36
Thank you for a reasoned and considered response, however I do not feel it approriate to discuss issues of this nature in detail on a public forum such as this.
Further, as this ban affects all clients of FDC Servers it would be more appropriate for us to discuss these issues with a repersentative from FDC. To date, no formal contact has been made with DALnet by anyone representing FDC servers since the ban took effect.
We will happily discuss the current issues with an authorised representative of FDC Servers and sincerely hope to work with FDC towards a mutually acceptable solution to this issue. FDC Servers have my e-mail address and are welcome to contact me directly, alternatively DALnet's K-Line team (who deal with network-wide bans) can be reached via http://www.dal.net/admin/contactkline.php3Thanks for your useful response. I'm really hoping that there will be a successful discussion after all to solve this issue :)
alaskaguy
03-12-2005, 06:54
Thanks for your useful response. I'm really hoping that there will be a successful discussion after all to solve this issue :)
Greetings -
Jim made it clear that DALnet wants a discourse with FDCservers personnel, not Sharktech personnel or any other "designee". Sharktech has tried, and failed, to be a good arbiter of abuse issues regarding DALnet and FDC-hosted users thereof.
A little history about myself first. I've been a user of DALnet since 1997. I've observed and analyzed abuse patterns on DALnet starting with the advent of script.ini and continuing on ever since. I started off as an IRCOp on the MassAds team in '98 or so, and joined the Exploits team a few years ago. Exploits and MassAds abuse issues are not always related, but they often converge due to their very nature.
I am one of the DALnet IRCOps who feels FDC netblocks should not be allowed connectivity to DALnet at this point in time. From my own point of view as a team member of both Exploits and MassAds...we consistently see several major issues from a wide range of FDC IPs, as detailed below:
1) Channel Filling - Loading of lots and lots of client processes from FDC IPs into channels common to these clients. This is not typical behavior of normal real clients. Perhaps *some* of these channels are channels that "could" be considered as congregation channels for FDC clients. That'd be the small minority, though.
Rather, many "filled" channels are channels that have no known affiliation with shell servers or FDC. They are channels that are normal chat channels, but which simply have a boatload of FDC-hosted processes in them. Considering that we have been told of and have logs of people selling client processes to fill channels in order to make those channels look popular, we deal with that abuse as our Acceptable Use Policy (http://www.dal.net/aup/) dictates that we should. This means akilling the *uid@ip.ip.ip.* of "filling" clients.
We do this with FDC clients as we do with ANY clients we see channel filling, there is no discrimination here.
It seems that as soon as we AKill a userid@ a FDC IP range though, that client quickly returns with another userid. This means that the relevant FDC (or downstream) server admin is either ignorant of or cares less about properly administering their users of IRC. Otherwise they'd force identd to work properly so that IRC server admins could deal with abuse from the shell *user* level rather than the IP range level.
We do *not* regularly see good identd enforcement of FDC client connections. Every DALnet client connection from FDC IP ranges should be using the account name of the shell login and those shell account names should NOT be changed on a whim. Nor should shell users be able to bypass DALnet identd checking by running midentd or other identd processes through their shell accounts.
2) Nickname Chasing - This has always been an issue on DALnet, ever since we instituted NickServ. DALnet has taken measures to address this, from two perspectives: much better analysis of where the chasing is coming from, and making the chasing much more difficult regarding the ultimate goal of the chasers (obtaining the nickname after expiration).
There are nickname chasers and harvesters who then sell those nicknames. This is of course against the DALnet AUP. Nicknames should be first come, first served. When scripted bots and automated processes track possible nickname expiration and chase accordingly, guess what...Joe User (he with no automated processes) loses bigtime.
Suffice it to say that we are now much more informed of this sort of abuse than we used to be. And guess what - FDC clients have been a *significant* portion of the nick chasing abuse on DALnet.
When we see that this is the case and when this sort of abuse emanates on a regular basis from the same point of origin, we tend to assume that it is condoned or at least overlooked, by the upstream. If nothing else, we can safely say that the upstream doesn't watch their traffic very carefully.
3) Clones / Useless Clients - There have been claims that agreements were made regarding FDC servers clients gaining routing to DALnet IX servers. Whether or not these "IX-server" agreements were ever made, I can tell you that FDC IP ranges had no issues at all reaching DALnet.
On numerous days when I know that there was no specific IX-server routing enabled for FDC netblocks, we had ~2,000 supposed "clients" connected from FDC ranges. This indicates that they didn't ever really need any special routing considerations from DALnet.
Meanwhile, any IRCOp on DALnet has to wonder when fully a tenth of the network or better appears to "come from" FDC IP ranges. Sure, this could be a testament to how popular FDCservers colocated servers are, but common sense dictates that this isn't the case. Rather, it indicates a lack of true administration of the servers on those IP ranges, which then is conducive to rampant abuse, and thus, lots of frivolous connections from there.
Rather than rambling on any longer, I'll simply say that our AKill of FDC netmasks was just as well considered as our AKill of AOL was a couple years ago. FDC (or the reps that they chose to send to us) have been unable to properly adress abuse. Therefore, we have denied access to those ranges, as we have every right to do. Unless and until we see that they can and do address abuse like a true provider can do, we will continue to deny access.
ChronoCross
03-12-2005, 07:52
did you ban the following?
*!*@*.t-dialin.net
*!*@*.bezeqint.net
these are by far the biggest abusers of ip's ont he planet not only for IRC but for websites, forums, streaming resources, etc. IF you banned FDC for the reasons mentioned above you should probably akill those ranges as well.
alaskaguy
03-12-2005, 08:54
did you ban the following?
*!*@*.t-dialin.net
*!*@*.bezeqint.net
these are by far the biggest abusers of ip's ont he planet not only for IRC but for websites, forums, streaming resources, etc. IF you banned FDC for the reasons mentioned above you should probably akill those ranges as well.
This forum is about FDC client issues, not about non-FDC related domains....
jalmenaram
03-12-2005, 09:29
Alaskaguy, maybe i can understand from chronocross its example of ban maybe or no explain chronocross :)
Regards
Jose Almenara
jalmenaram
03-12-2005, 09:58
Alaskaguy if u check other provider of shells or servers dedicated (ISP) u can found more abuse of FDC and u can found a big channel just only with bots and u get a lot of clones from this channels.
Example for me just only i get in my channel until 22 people. i get from fdc 10 no more or maybe less 7, my nick one bot my other admin and 4 helps, i know this abuse i was helper in dalnet and i was team member of docs and i know how DALnet work in this case(max by ident 2 users and no more) but if u check other company get more process and get more users by one user connect 4 nicks in one user, because i check from the webpage of kline.
I know fdcservers team need talk with urs DALnet and resolved this problem and finish this chapter.
Jose Almenara
While I don't doubt it would be interesting it would also be unprofessional in the extreme for us to publish information of that kind.
It would also be unfair to both FDC and SharkTech for us to discuss details of communications between us and for that reason I regret that I cannot answer your question other than to confirm what has already been said - several types of abuse were involved.
IRC logs are "public" if obtained from a channel "public channel" and not a private chat. What part of the hipa laws would you be violating sharing the logs? I have read in several places you talk in such ways indirectly.
Thank you for a reasoned and considered response, however I do not feel it approriate to discuss issues of this nature in detail on a public forum such as this.
Oh ... MY.... GOD
why not... you dont want the general public to know dal.nets true nature and prejudices?
did you ban the following?
*!*@*.t-dialin.net
*!*@*.bezeqint.net
these are by far the biggest abusers of ip's ont he planet not only for IRC but for websites, forums, streaming resources, etc. IF you banned FDC for the reasons mentioned above you should probably akill those ranges as well.
This forum is about FDC client issues, not about non-FDC related domains....
Well I dont know irc.dal.net is not accessable from my rr.com connection.
So then again are you banning all of rr.com to ?
perfectly logical questions
jalmenaram
03-12-2005, 15:11
Hey dont fighting just only jim try to help what is the problem
Stop rabb1d ok dont said this to here
Maybe u need relax and go to sleep rabb1d
Regards
Jose Almenara
Hey dont fighting just only jim try to help what is the problem
Stop rabb1d ok dont said this to here
Maybe u need relax and go to sleep rabb1d
Regards
Jose Almenara
You sure hes trying to help?
sounds to me like hes defending / trying to keep dal.net from becoming a dead network. Attempting to focus the blame for the inability to follow an agreed upon process on someone else. Yea I wouldnt want the general public to know I banned entire /24's just because I dont like a particular ISP or country as well. Prejudice is never a good thing in any light.
If the IP blocks are SWIP to sharktech or the dedicated server customer who then would be directly contacted Mr. JIM?
jalmenaram
03-12-2005, 15:23
In my opinion yes, because i know jim but little u dont defending if u send this bad words maybe u need take a relax, maybe with ur posted just only fighting more between fdc/sharktech and dalnet maybe u need close and u take vacation. Just only resolved this problem from fdcservers with dalnet not u
Its my opinion
Regards
Jose Almenara
Totally agreed with rabb1d. This forum had been read up to 2500++ time since it 1st post in this issue. All of dal.net user is concentrade, Why? Because now is FDC, who is victim tomorrow? They don't know what happen between FDC/DALnet, but why my psybnc/bots access deniel on DAL but working good on other network?? Whom is quatify to know the fact except FDC and discuss this on FDC forum?? Ever DALnet given the log or answer, FDC is responsbile to tell and responsible to all customer what been happen, but remember, them are here to read everyday. 2500++ prove it.
On my opinion, Jim can't help in this issue!! Why? please turn back to page 1 read all what rabb1d been post. I'm not rabb1d supporter but rabb1d tell out all about DALnet, because all of this me and my friend a quit DALnet 2 year ago.
God bless you DAL.net
In my opinion yes, because i know jim but little u dont defending if u send this bad words maybe u need take a relax, maybe with ur posted just only fighting more between fdc/sharktech and dalnet maybe u need close and u take vacation. Just only resolved this problem from fdcservers with dalnet not u
Its my opinion
Regards
Jose Almenara
Ok, so you may be just a suck up then. Thanks for clarifying.
You dont think JIM will make you a dal oper do ya?
LOL
SheWhoKnows
03-12-2005, 16:49
FruitLoop why are you hiding your identity? Whats to hide in here?
I think we can all be quite certain that if FruitLoop were on this forum, she would not be hiding. :rolleyes:
I think we can all be quite certain that if FruitLoop were on this forum, she would not be hiding. :rolleyes:
Thank you SheWhoBlows...
SheWhoKnows
03-12-2005, 17:36
Thank you SheWhoBlows...
Perhaps in a few years when you are old enough to have some hair on your face. :D
My apologies to the rest of the readers.
Perhaps in a few years when you are old enough to have some hair on your face. :D
My apologies to the rest of the readers.
I shave the hair on my face doofus. Im 30 something and married.
Now i THINK if youd only do something about the hair on your ass back and chest you can talk to me about facial hair.
HeKnowsShe
03-12-2005, 18:08
After seeing all these oper power drama, i just got a few questions for Dalnet opers.
1) Why is FDC banned only on DALNET and not on Efnet/Undernet/Quakenet, though Dalnet is not even half the size of these networks.
2) Why does dalnet get hits all the time, and why does it have so much downtime? Is dalnet hosting packet kiddies?
3) How come all the good channels and nick names are with the dalnet opers, i've seen many cases myself, and many lots of oper abuses to take away good channels and nicknames.
4) Why is dalnet not showing the logs of abuse? I've been on irc for many years now and also served many hosting companies, whenever there is any kind of abuse all networks provide all the necessary logs, why is dalnet not showing them? Is this another oper abuse?
5) If dalnet is so much against abuses and/or abusers, why is dalnet allow so many known packet kiddies to even have channel or nicknames on dalnet? Because from all these posts it seems, dalnet does not provides logs of abuse, so you don't need to show the logs when you ban any packet kiddie?
6) Why are dalnet opers opped in so many packet kiddies channels ?
e.g. Tashie is opped in #e.l.i.t.e
7) Sharktech is one of those providers, who gave the shell providers confidence and ability to kick out packetkiddies as they don't have fear of packet kiddies dropping them, and you call them supporting abuse
8) I'm a client of sharktech and many other providers like gigeservers, staminus etc... and i've never found any other provider monitoring their network for abuses. I've seen so many instance of shakrtech terminating and suspending servers, but never found it in any other providers. Sharktech is the only one who searches/monitors the servers of their clients and find out and stop the abusive activities going on their servers, where as in case of most other networks, they don't care till there is some serious complain, and even if you complain they ignore it most of the times.
You call a provider of this kind as abusive?
Well if you answer all the above questions, you will find it yourself, that you are doing something wrong with a provider of this kind. Moreover I can smell some dalnet opers got personal problems with sharktech this the reason they are doing this, so who ever it is show up your ugly face and if you got the guts speak it in public.
HeKnowsShe
03-12-2005, 18:11
: /Whois for Tashie [Tashie@staff.dalnet]
:
: Realname: Handle {W}ith Care
: Channels: @#dalnet-cybercafe @#e.l.i.t.e @#30&flirty @#tashie
: Server: oi.ix.au.dal.net[I come from a land down under]
: Status: Tashie is a registered nick.
: IRCop: is [is an IRC Operator - Services Administrator]
: Signed on: Sat Mar 12 21:41:57 2005
: End of /Whois
ChronoCross
03-12-2005, 18:26
ok well I know you all are loving talking about this issue but I think you all need to calm down and not be so angry. afterall it's only irc. and remember there should not be flaming in this thread especially against the dalnet staff. Sharktech is working hard to get connectivity with dalnet back and although I do not see a resolution on this issue anytime soon I'm sure it will come eventually.
Regards,
ChronoCross
HeKnowsShe
03-12-2005, 18:44
With great power (Dalnet Opers / Power to ban) you even got big responsibility, so instead of banning the whole fdc network, you should just ban the abusive users and their ips, and if you do so you can easily stop the abusers, because if you are thinking that fdc will give them new ips then you are wrong, as fdc is short on ips, ips are scarce
So if you have the power don't misuse it, and take the responsibility of removing just teh abusive users, don't harm the innocent users. And if you think you are not capable of taking this responsibility, resign from your post, as this world is full of lot of capable people.
HeKnowsShe
03-12-2005, 18:49
ok well I know you all are loving talking about this issue but I think you all need to calm down and not be so angry. afterall it's only irc. and remember there should not be flaming in this thread especially against the dalnet staff. Sharktech is working hard to get connectivity with dalnet back and although I do not see a resolution on this issue anytime soon I'm sure it will come eventually.
Regards,
ChronoCross
That's the problem, sharktech is working hard, but dalnet is not, they just know how to misuse the power, and ignoring the responsibility that they get along with all the powers.
And it is not just IRC, it costs $$, users are changing shell providers, many shell providers are leaving sharktech, so it is just not IRC, it is lot more ... it is affecting the source of living for many people
ok well I know you all are loving talking about this issue but I think you all need to calm down and not be so angry. afterall it's only irc. and remember there should not be flaming in this thread especially against the dalnet staff. Sharktech is working hard to get connectivity with dalnet back and although I do not see a resolution on this issue anytime soon I'm sure it will come eventually.
Regards,
ChronoCross
"ITS only IRC ?"
some people make their only source of income providing services to the IRC community. I'm quite confident dalnet has costed a few people quite a chunk of lost revenue over their lame stance.
well guys please lets show some respect...
For dalnet's opers specially alaskaguy and Jim-DALnet and FruitLoop... u saying dalnet getting abuse cuz of FDC & sharktech clients im one of sharktech client and I have worked with another server provider befor ... I never seen a company takeing care for their work like sharktech they taking care for the abuse more than thier client thats happen with me once they send me warning cuz one of my customers broke the dalnet's rules and now u saying they are not able or they cost problem every ISP cost abuse if u guys look deeply u will find all the isps cost abuse but don't know why u choosing "FDC" I know ISP provide PPl to run BOTNET and another lame thing I remember when I make my deal with (Jigy) sharktech he told me he working illegal and everything must be illegal if I did anything un illegal he will stop my server well and now u saying they cost abuse how come ? I don't know if u will believe me or not its up to you ... and what u think about *!*@*qualitynet.net does they cost abuse most of abuse users came from qualitynet.net chase nick flood attack botnet everything they do they are lamer professional they don't know anything just abuse ... i just want dalnet look deeply abit and they will see what FDC doing they provide us good server to hide our IPs its safe us No DDos and now u saying abuse ... we are working just need little help from u we are all loveing dalnet we staying online on dalnet more most of our time and everyone spend alot years on dalnet ... dalnet our house I hopefull u will understand us and working with us to find compromise
Regards
Jaber Sellawi
ManegaR JoShells Owner
Chrysalis
03-13-2005, 01:16
I think the problem here isnt sharktech its FDC, remember sharktech is a reseller of FDC services and FDC is ultimatly the upstream provider and owner of the ip's, Jim has already said FDC havent even bothered to try and contact him yet but sharktech has so its clear what the problem is here I think sharktech have just got caught in the crossfire.
Manansala
03-13-2005, 03:59
It's all about business my friends. He who has the power to protect his business or a friend's is a standard nature of succeeding.
"Succeeding is not enough. Others must fail."
In other words, they are protecting their business whatever businesses they might have... e.g. Shell & IRCd Services. Shut down others and there will be no competition. No competition means no sharing of clients and their $$$.
"Must succeed and must kill the others. Kill! Kill! Kill!"
Don't get me wrong. More clients, more power, more control.
"Salam." They say and its their network. They can do whatever they want with it. Say, make a new Network powered by "ALL" FDC Server clients and start from there. I oversee the potential. With the proper administration and marketing strategy, and all is helping all... it will work.
Manansala
03-13-2005, 04:08
Not to mention, I was one of the first FDC clients who fought for this over and over again, then SharkTech came to the rescue and made everything possible.
This is not the first time that this happened. If DALnet doesn't want us, don't force ourselves. It's still their network and they have all the right to do whatever it takes to protect their backyard.
Say NO LOGS. Means, "Buzz off, this is our network. Make your own."
i think dalnet is just unfair , there r lots of provider and they also got channel fillers ..well a user buy 2-3 bg if he loads 5- 6 nicks in that and park it in his channel..whats wrong in it?..nothing is gonna be wrong till they actually abuse any dalnet service or channel..and dalnet could have just akilled those particular servers which caused problem..instead of banning the whole ISP range and cause problems for small providers like us...whos income depend on the shell services...and 90% of our costumer r on dalnet..and now everyone asking for refund and all...well its not our fault..dalnet just played up with us...i dont think any of other shell provider actually work as in dalnet policy..they r not targetted why US???
and too bad none of FDC staff actually replied to dalnet its bad from FDC part
all dalnet is doing is killing poor ppl like us nthing else
i been dalnet user since 1997 didnt expect this frm them
Run for your lives :nuts: the asshats are coming :help:
psyxakias
03-14-2005, 08:58
Game Over, folks! Akill is final because DALnet has been totally uncooperative with FDC, having insane expectations (ie server suspensions/terminations) on any IRC "abuses" (clones, low domain ttl, nickchasing, channel spamming etc) even when there are no logs and I'm truly tired to explain any further. In real short, they want all of us as hostages :@
Bye Bye DALnet :hitting:
Raistlin_Majere
03-14-2005, 14:25
:takes off his DALNet Kline team hat:
This post does not represent DALNet - it's my views as someone who runs a network for an ISP, and has devoted much time and effort to various abuse cases, and dealing with IRC abuse in general.
Hello there, I'm here to dispell some myths that have been circulating these forums. I'm privvy to both sides of the communications being a DALNet Kline team member, and I'm seeing a lot of FUD here.
There are several abuse issues here, which I will try to address indepentently. First let me tell you that our requirement of dealing with someone with the power to TOS accounts is not unreasonable. If you do not have the power to enforce terms of service, what good are you? You can tell us the IP ranges they have assigned so