Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The “private” IRC channel was not as private as you thought it was…


sort by: page size:

> IRC is inherently non-private because anybody can join

Servers and channels can have passwords. Channels can also be invite-only.


It's hard to characterize with absolutes. There were a lot of different networks and channels in IRC. It's true it was anonymous, but I'm also sure there were inappropriate jokes, perceptions, etc, shared in IRC.

IRC is not exactly a beacon of privacy ;-)

> IRC safe?

Definitely not. It has always been a public communications channel. I don't think anyone ever had any privacy expectations regarding IRC.


Which IRC channel was that on then?

IRC isn't really anonymous or private. Your IP address is visible to everyone by default.

Anonymous channels existed in IRC servers around the globe, on million-user-plus networks and tiny networks alike. It's chilling to think whole networks of people completely unrelated to Anonymous could get taken down just because a few morons were using a channel to organize attacks.

(Also, am I missing something, or did they completely miss an opportunity to collect intel by taking them offline and making them move to more private channels?)


> It forces attackers to use a active attack rather than a passive one.

The MITM or eavesdrop can happen on a bridge. If the client doesn't check the certificate and accepts any, its about as good as plaintext. It could be worse, even, due to the false sense of security.

> Which is the only security most IRC can have anyway, since the attacker could just join the channel and listen in that way, since most IRC networks are public.

IRC network private or public is irrelevant.

There were, for sure, private channels back in the days (90s). Back then you could set a channel secret (hidden) and set a password on it, effectively making it a private channel (would not show up in /whois or /list). Bots could kick people who are unknown based on filters. For example, without an auth to an Eggdrop, you could get insta kickbanned even _with_ the correct password.

Then there's PMs which are one on one (except for server(s)).

If one of the IRC servers is compromised though (or tapped, or whatever), that makes sniffing a channel or PMs child play.

There's also the problem of data integrity. If you are asking for (or giving) help in #linux and someone can change the data on the fly, [...]

FWIW, UnrealIRCd, even back then, innovated (or invented) a lot of new features on top of IRC. Some of these added security, though I don't know examples out of my head.


Were you on IRC anonymously?

That's what was going on on the IRC channel as well at some point.

Yeah not to defend how bad those spaces were but my memories of technical IRC channels on like Freenode was that they were mostly about helping people and discussing the technology the channel was about.

You never had to disclose any aspect of your identity. Your gender or ethnicity. You were just a username. The only thing someone could find out about you was your general location based on IP address but even that could be masked if you want.

I understand closer relationships formed on IRC I’m just saying, you could go there for help without experiencing prejudice. There was no expectation of revealing your real self.


> IRC never had any channel discovery

wot? It didn't have server discovery, but once you connected to a server, you could definitely discover channels.


> it's harder to discover channels.

IRC never had any channel discovery, so how does modern breed of group chats make channel discovery harder?

IRC does make a lot of things we now take for granted harder (file/image/video sharing, search, persistent history, mobile support...)


IRC is listed as "E2E Private" true?

I don't think he directly ran his own IRC, it was a "in partnership with another organization" sort of thing.

> Many IRC networks evolved to have some form of identity verification through nickserv

Some IRC networks do, but it's always an ad-hoc extension. IRC qua IRC doesn't.

> there were many umbrella servers that would be used for various communities to call home in a proto-Discord world.

Did those have channels that passed blacklists around and would ban you on other channels' say-so, or because you were in channels they didn't like? I'm sure there were some channels that did, but it certainly wasn't seen as a positive.

> They maintained a blacklist of hosts that were compromised in case of spyware, or if users were particularly prolific and abusive across networks.

That's not the same thing at all. I'm talking about getting banned on one server just because you joined another server.


I'm not saying they were all in one channel lmao

What does it matter? If you go on IRC now every channel is idle, no chat, just joins quits and parts, boring, dead.

> If the hundred or ten people you want to talk to are there,

They're not, and haven't been in 10 years. I'd love to get back into IRC but there's no IRC to go back to.


IRC is still like that.

Out of curiosity, which public IRC channel was this being discussed in, before it was understood to be a bug? That sounds like a fun channel.
next

Legal | privacy