Slashdot Mirror
IRC in the Dog House?
Emperor Tiberius asks: "It seems more and more dedicated server companies are turning tail to the idea of hosting IRC machines. Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged. Why is IRC (the once applauded chat medium) being thrown to the dogs? Some might say the horrendous botnets written for the protocol are a part of the problem. However, if we were to shut down the IRC protocol. Isn't it theoretically possible the botnet authors would just migrate to a different protocols like Oscar/AIM, ICQ, ICB, Jabber, just to name a few? If so, how would we manage the problem? Would we shutdown all ICB servers, and cut-off the ICQ network? Are we trying to kill off the problem in the wrong way, or is there a compromise to keep IRC alive, and keep botnets away?"
Hosts like Rackshack are adding 'no-IRC' rules to their AUPs at the risk of having one's server unplugged.
The submitter misread Rackshack's AUP (as I did when I was signing up for service through them, on this specific topic incidentally -- so I emailed them for clarification). Many of the items in their AUP apply to their virtual servers only -- where many customers share one physical machine. IRC servers aren't permitted on those machines because of the load they put on the machine.
If you've got your own Rackshack server, you can run IRC on it all you want.
NO CARRIER
I don't think that hosting companies necessarily care about the IRC protocol itself, but more with the problems that come along with hosting a service known for attracting the worst kind of attention while sucking up tremendous amounts of bandwidth.
The
technical requirements for running an Undernet.org server explain it pretty clearly. 5 Mbps of legit traffic, plus becoming a target for massive DDOS attacks? Why would a hosting company want that kind of service in their netblock?
Yea, sure, other IRC networks aren't nearly as high-profile, but this is the reputation that IRC has gotten, along with being a haven for copyright violation.
If you want to run an IRC server, then get your own dedicated net connection from a backbone provider and you can host whatever (legal) service you want.
I'm an oper on a major irc network, so I'm aware of a lot of what goes into running a server. The problem is that when a kiddie gets upset (at other users, a channel or some perceived slight by an oper/the network), they DDoS the server. This uses bandwidth, and bandwidth is money. IRC servers use a good chunk of bandwidth just for regular user behavior, and this blows that away. The bandwidth providers aren't getting much out of this other than a little brand recognition (if that much), so their charity isn't limitless. Hosting providers restrict IRC for this reason, too. They don't want to up the risk of being attacked. Running an IRC server is, unfortunately, a high risk activity these days.
At $350 a month, httpd.net is home for a huge number of IRC servers. With an incredibly advanced and secured network that has been running continuously for over SEVEN YEARS, it has the experience that proves that IRC hosting can be done effectively.
It's not cheap, but quality never is.
In those seven years, it has rarely had any substantial downtime due to attacks, mostly thanks to a serious investment by the administrators to ensure uplink filtering.
Its definitely worth a look when you get serious about a permanent home for an IRC server.
I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion of IRC...
Regarding shells: there are many legitimate reasons to use a shell for IRC, from vanity hosts to bypassing firewall restrictions. While the use of vanity hosts (vhosts) is debatable, there's nothing wrong with wanting to show off something like the domain name of a website you maintain or a project you're involved with...
You can't just assume thaty everyone uses a shell to hide or do something illegal. Besides, most people who really want to hide properly use a variety of non-legitimate proxies or route through trojan-infected individuals - it's too easy to get caught by using a dedicated IRC proxy on a shell maintained for such a purpose.
Regarding accountability: If said server gets banned from a network because of something like 20 users using the same account, then it's their own fault for failing to prevent such things from happening.
Regarding bots: There's nothing wrong with running a bot to keep others off a nickname. I do it on many networks and I usually don't have a problem with DDoS. Then again, I usually avoid networks like EFnet where there's no real way to protect hostname information from someone who really wants to pound my bot into the ground.
Regarding illegal activity: Those who are committing illegal activity don't just use IRC. they use all forms of chat, including this "Jabber" you speak of.
Regarding DDoS: There have been several improvements on a majority of IRCds that protect people from the attacks you describe, the biggest example of which is hostmasking (usermode +x or +z, depending on the daemon). Additional steps are also in the process of being taken to improve said safety on IRC.
Besides that, "Kiddies" can sniff out IP adddresses just as easily via other chat mediums as they can with uncloaked users on IRC if they have the right tools. I've been DDoSed by morons on ICQ and AIM many a time...
Regarding MPAA/RIAA: Most shell providers prohibit said illegal activity, passing the blame onto the end user since they violated the shell server's ToS. Those that don't are asking for it. Remember - the RIAA/MPAA doesn't give a crap about what's sitting on someone's server - they're out to fry whoever put it there. And do you think whoever operated the shell is going to help them? Damn right they are...
Yes, IRC has it's faults, but keep in mind that only a portion of networks (See: EFnet, IRCnet) are lagging behind in terms of evolution. The others are working hard to bring IRC up to par with other chat mediums. All of the things you've mentioned haven't gone unnoticed within the community...