<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-gb">
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://forum.eggheads.org/app.php/feed/topic/13296" />

	<title>egghelp/eggheads community</title>
	<subtitle>Discussion of eggdrop bots, shell accounts and tcl scripts.</subtitle>
	<link href="https://forum.eggheads.org/index.php" />
	<updated>2007-03-26T09:15:26-04:00</updated>

	<author><name><![CDATA[egghelp/eggheads community]]></name></author>
	<id>https://forum.eggheads.org/app.php/feed/topic/13296</id>

		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[ascension]]></name></author>
		<updated>2007-03-26T09:15:26-04:00</updated>

		<published>2007-03-26T09:15:26-04:00</published>
		<id>https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71616#p71616</id>
		<link href="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71616#p71616"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Using netbots and secure op -- Strikelight's tcl or raeky's?]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71616#p71616"><![CDATA[
Well, what if someone tried to join using the ident and host of a bot to get op? Would eggdrop op that person given channel is +autoop and +bitch / +superbitch? What is the likeliness of a TCP hijacking -- it seems rather high since the most popular botpack today (written in C) uses a cookie op mechanism on top of super bitch -- i.e. it really seems that if the coder kept it today there is quite a bit of worth to using it?<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="https://forum.eggheads.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=8851">ascension</a> — Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:15 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[user]]></name></author>
		<updated>2007-03-26T08:43:13-04:00</updated>

		<published>2007-03-26T08:43:13-04:00</published>
		<id>https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71615#p71615</id>
		<link href="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71615#p71615"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Using netbots and secure op -- Strikelight's tcl or raeky's?]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71615#p71615"><![CDATA[
The cracker/cookie op thing only helps against tcp hijacking - it does NOT help in any way if one of your shells is compromised.<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="https://forum.eggheads.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=2878">user</a> — Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:43 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[ascension]]></name></author>
		<updated>2007-03-26T08:31:05-04:00</updated>

		<published>2007-03-26T08:31:05-04:00</published>
		<id>https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71614#p71614</id>
		<link href="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71614#p71614"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Using netbots and secure op -- Strikelight's tcl or raeky's?]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="https://forum.eggheads.org/viewtopic.php?p=71614#p71614"><![CDATA[
I wanted to update a botnet of 28 eggdrops which will slowly increase to use secure opping on EFnet regardless of ChanFix's existence. I saw [sl] / strikelight made crackerop.tcl a form of cookie op and mentioned it is compatible with netbots, and any other botnet script as it is loaded prior to those scripts. Then there is raeky's/kass lloyd's op.. which according to egghelp tcl search is outdated.. so, is strikelight's crackerop.tcl my best bet? I know he's a long time, reputable tcl scripter... so guessing that is my best choice. I use superbitch and everything but I'd feel more secure with a secure op mechanism, in case a shell box was compromised or any other worst case scenarios..<br><br>Opinions appreciated, thanks!<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="https://forum.eggheads.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=8851">ascension</a> — Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:31 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
	</feed>
