Problem with the pingers
 

Problem with the pingers

Started by Josecar, 11 October, 2008, 22:45:05

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Josecar

Sorry being so pain in the a....

I had a BotINFOArrival function working just fine with PtokaX 0.4.0.0, now with 0.4.1.1 dchublist pinger keep showing error (HubSw Error), and showing the hub with 0 users, etc. I've tryed to find the cause, then removed completly BotINFOArrival with no better results.

So, two questions
1) Is it mandatory having a BotINFOArrival function with Ptokax 0.4.1.1 ?

The second may be need be posted in request of scripts, I'll do it if told so.
2) Can anybody help me with a BotINFOArrival function that actually works with 0.4.1.1 and dchubist pinger? (didn't test others)

As always, thanks in advance.

PD: More tested, no a single pinger has entered since the change to 0.4.1.1, both with or without BotINFOArrival function.


ATAG

We also had the dchublist hubsw error issue... Try to register the pinger's nick (and edit the settings on dchublist.com) and it will work :)

Josecar

#2
Already did that, I've registered dchublist, and edited www.hublist.com, security yes and put there the nick and pass of the pinger.

But did not work, this is the result if I send pingers from there in debug mode:

  • Socket created
  • Connected
    [->] $Lock EXTENDEDPROTOCOLoFkjKH`gAt7riJFb5LOVxLBAkbRwin Pk=PtokaX
    [->]
    [->] Sorry, this hub banned yourself from hublist because allow CTM exploit.

    I do not understand who banned who, in the banlist of my hub is not dchublist pinger or its IP.
    And certainly I don't know what CTM exploit is.

    I'll like to know if I am doing something wrong or that is a PtokaX problem, it will be good to know if sombody is running with 0.4.1.1 with the pingers working normally.

    If there is no other solution, it will be better solution to roll back to 0.4.0.0 and wait for a PtokaX upgarade to try again than to function without hublists.

Annie

I run 0.4.1.1  i have have no problems with the pingers coming in.  CTM exploit (connect to me).  Have you got this setting ticked in Ptokax , Advance Security,  check if user send the correct ip in protocol command (DDOS protection) ticked?

PPK

Quote from: Josecar on 13 October, 2008, 06:56:28
I do not understand who banned who
You are banned yourself. Hub allowing attacks to hubs/websites etc. don't deserve to be listed on hublists ::)
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall

Josecar

#5
Wow, light at the end!!

First of all things, I apologize with anyone that may be put in risk because of my hub (I am not the owner, by the way, there are no owner)
I have to say in discharge that was not aware of the status of that protection, my access to the hub is trough FTP, belived it was checked. Anyway I'm guilty for omission, had no included all settings in the hub config (till now)

Second, that was a pretty agressive response (are you sure that is checked DDOS protection? would did it and be nicer), instead it seems we do not deserve being in hublist.

Last but no least: I have read the changelog in the wiki, and if there are something like "For now on, ptokax will reject pingers if you do not check DDOS protection", I missed it.  And being PotkaX a closed code, things that are not documented can't be guessed.
I assume no one knows that, if Bastya or Mutor or Hungarista or any of scripters have known that, my guess is they would have responded.  I know things are like "take it or leave it", and we choose to take it. Trasting in dchublist I saw there thate there are now more Ynhubs than Ptokax, their loss if they take the easy way.

PPK knows well that we, PtotaX followeres, are very grateful to him for the time and exceptional dedication he has, and many of us try to keep actualized thus corresponding his work and benefiting of it, (interfases, actualizations, security changes, etc.), no matter if old things go well or not. But also in our humble way, many of us give time or put money for our commmunties, bad faith or our side would just not be assumed.

Anyway, problem solved, thanks.

ATAG

[off]
Quote from: Josecar on 13 October, 2008, 15:20:36And being PotkaX a closed code, things that are not documented can't be guessed.

Quote from: PtokaX.cpp
/*

* PtokaX - hub server for Direct Connect peer to peer network.



* Copyright (C) 2002-2005  Ptaczek, Ptaczek at PtokaX dot org

* Copyright (C) 2004-2008  Petr Kozelka, PPK at PtokaX dot org



* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify

* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

* the Free Software Foundation, version 3 of the License.



* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,

* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the

* GNU General Public License for more details.



* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

* along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

*/

[/off]

Josecar

I don't know what are you trying to say with that quote of the posix source code, is in the init page of this web.
-------> PosiX source (was tested on Linux/FreeBSD).
And has been released under GNU, ok. Maybe yu're trying to say that PotkaX is open? Our PtokaX for windows with GUI?

And you are missing the point: it helps when things are documented (even if the code is open). It is already not so easy learn lua  (at least for some of us, not too brillant), keep your bot up to day; let's no do things more difficult with undocumented features and responses that make you feel like a felon when you did a mistake.

I do not want a discussion dude, so it is the last post in this thread for me.






SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk