[Oppinion]Would anyone use an IRC Interface Module in there hacks?

So everyone would have to render a client for the IRC over the game they're hacking? Not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at here. None the less, sounds like a cool idea.

OldSchool People like to do So =).

IRC is nice, but you do know that irc servers are/were succesfully used to host as communication center for bot-nets and other virus shit

This'd make it verry easy to put something like that together, even I could do it

And I believe I heard that there are free irc server hosts out there, so we wouldn't have to host it...

Yeah but it wouldn't make it much easier.

The problem here is, it would make it harder to the mods to determine whether it is or is not a remote trojan, because all the hacks would use the winsock api.

I could try and implement client-side security but it'd be a waste of time, esp. in the hands of hackers.

That would be so cool. I would love to implement that, I've thought about it but never got around to it since I was and still am busy learning other things more related to game hacking. I know a lot of hackers use IRC to control their rootkits and things, but there's so many good things that can come from this:

*An MPGH network that would identify other MPGHers in game.
*A ingame chat.
*Checks for updates, etc.

I'm experimenting with a P2P self-discovery network, possibly to be used in my hacks. At the moment I'm kinda baffled about the self-discovery technique, so I might use the tracker-client model that we see in torrents, or any other P2P network so far. I don't really like this though, because it'll be based on a central server... and yeah.

Well, the point is to use a common IRC protocol so users who aren't using the hacks but have access to(say a web-based) IRC clients, can communicate with one another. There's no point inventing our own protocol because it'd defeat the purpose.

Security is obviously a risk but a p2p protocol doesn't help the security issues unless we have an untrustworthy host for the central server.

Anyway, I'm working on something w\ dave, but it shouldn't take long, so I'll start on this as soon as I'm done.

We could always make a gateway that conforms to IRC standards for users who want to use it via. other protocols.

The reason I was using a P2P network rather than a central based network was because the admin of another hacking site bought me this host, for which hosted several popular application news and information servers on, such as Portal. He said that he'd keep it running, and, 1 month after Portal's release, he suspended my account. -.-

So now I'm serverless, looking into cloud, non-centralised technologies which don't require a central server for whatever they do.

Also, the IRC protocol has a few shortcomings for my purpose, such as file exchange, metadata exchange (which can be done through lots of filtering, but web-access users will see lots of spammage), and a few other problems inherit with the current IRC server forks, in particular, authentication.

We'd still need a server of some sort to direct the peers to one another. Or we could have the clients manually type the IP Addresses of a peer in a network they wish to join, which would be a bad idea. Also unsync versions would be absolute hell.

Though the IRC protocol doesn't specify any sort of file-sharing, most IRC clients do implement file sharing via the DCC protocol. What do you mean by the exchange of meta-data? As meta-data is simply defined as information about information. I don't see any reason why one would need to transfer such, and if they did, surely the meta-data is small enough to be sent via a file transfer or a pm.

In regards to authentication, the majority of the IRC servers grant one the ability to reserve a nickname. I think what you mean though, is one reserving someone else's name, which has been a problem in the past. If the IRC is configurable enough, this could be solved. However, I doubt it will become a large enough problem if the room is monitored.

You do make some valid points though, and I'll try to take them into consideration. I would just rather avoid inventing a new protocol because the IRC protocol is used by a large variety of messaging services.

I'll talk to you on msn about this. Add me

I could write up a massive essay about why and such.

1. NickServ allows protecting usernames with passwords, but they are sent in clear text.
2. For example, information about the players. Their in game statistics, perhaps? The existing methods of transfering such data are either clumsy or an overkill (and thus we have a considerable overhead when dealing with large numbers)
3. There are methods which I can think of that allow a decentralised system of communication, without relying on a single server. Getting it to work at a fast enough speed for the average user is, however, another problem.
4. We don't need an advanced and complex protocol - we need one that works to our needs, is extensible and expandable in the future, and is fast, stable and high quality. I love speed, stability and quality. My releases and code reflects that.

And i'm off for now! 30 minutes late for an appointment, and i'm still at home --"
sorry, typed this message in a MASSIVE rush.

1. We could hash the passwords before they're sent. However, unless someone is monitoring the network, this isn't much of a security risk, unless ofc we have an untrustworthy host. Hashing passwords would also likely lose compatibility with other IRC clients unless we implement a sort of signature in the password so the server knows it's been hashed(which shouldn't be hard to do).

2. Statistic sharing wouldn't be apart of this module because it would be game-specific, and this is supposed to be a general IRC module. However, that is a good idea, and I may actually consider creating my own protocol for that very reason. Never thought of that.

3. P2P networking is a bad idea. The hacks will become obsolete within a week, so the server information would need to be updated anyway. We can theoretically setup a reliable server which manages peer registration, then redirect the peers to them. But that isn't really the point of a p2p connection. P2P connections are good to lightening the load on the central server and preventing lag with users who are not close to the central server. Since the IRC server is not network intensive, there isn't a point of using the P2P connection model. This also introduces some security risks w\ the P2P model. How would we store user data if there was no central server? I.e room admins and mods? Which of the many connected clients would dictate whether a user should be kicked or moded?

4. I agree. The IRC protocol is fairly simple, reliable and universal.

Hmm, after reading your points I may consider developing my own protocol(also it would be a lot easier then reading through the IRC protocol manual, lol). Hmmz, I'll think about it. However, I still think that the centralized server is a much more secure and reliable method.

I'd still go for the centralized server, I know for sure that some users (or the most of them) are behind a hardware firewall (router/modem)

I know I'am and this would produce problems if there's no server to connect to, because forwarding often doesn't work for me (it's just crappy, I know how it works, but it won't work )

And for the average computer user forwarding/connecting and receiving scary messages from their firewalls would be a bummer, they just want to use the hacks, they don't want to go massive trouble and stuff just to be able to chat in-game

If you implend it (so will I) it'll have to be easy to use, because if it isn't people won't use it

I like irc but I don't like the idea of using it for an interface for hacks... Perhaps a botnet but not hacks
~lilneo