elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 20:13:59 GMT
"q. Attempted or actual access of Telnet without being authorized - the IP(s) of the offender will be subject to both server and forum perm ban. An admin that changes IP and gets a failed attempt is not a violation of this policy. Admins that submit perm ban requests under this rule should state both the name (if noted in the logs) and the IP. If the name submitted is that of an of admin (the perm ban requestor believes it's a poser), a PM will be sent to the admin to verify if they had made the attempt or not." This is being made with reference to: totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/67217/enderman13It was pointed out that this rule covers a simple connection to telnet without any proof of malicious intent or actual access, it also doesn't cover Rcon which is essentially the same concept. I suggest we modify it to: q. Confirmed access of Telnet or Rcon without being authorized, or attempted access with malicious intent (eg. User threatened to crash the server or was already clearly violating section 2 offenses and proceeds to attempt to access telnet or Rcon). In addition to this, spamming telnet or rcon with attempted logins to the extent that it interferes with an admin's ability to moderate the server remotely. - the IP(s) of the offender will be subject to both server and forum perm ban. An admin that changes IP and gets a failed attempt is not a violation of this policy. Admins that submit perm ban requests under this rule should state both the name (if noted in the logs) and the IP. If the name submitted is that of an of admin (the perm ban requestor believes it's a poser), a PM will be sent to the admin to verify if they had made the attempt or not. Feedback/modifications welcome
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 16, 2020 20:22:35 GMT
Sure, but how do you prove malicious intent?
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 20:25:14 GMT
Sure, but how do you prove malicious intent? "eg. User threatened to crash the server or was already clearly violating section 2 offenses and proceeds to attempt to access telnet or Rcon" I guess it depends on the case, you can't generalize how malicious intent is proven.
|
|
Geek
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,372
| Likes: 1,104
|
Post by Geek on Jun 16, 2020 20:34:46 GMT
I don't think malicious intent should need to be proven: I don't think there is a legitimate reason for attempting to connect to telnet unless you're a telnet+. It creates a bar that would make it almost impossible to enforce the rule, by making the circumstances in which the rule is engaged unlikely to occur.
If Rcon is similar to telnet, then I have no issue with just replacing 'telnet'with 'telnet or rcon' in 1q of the conduct policy.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 20:38:23 GMT
I don't think malicious intent should need to be proven: I don't think there is a legitimate reason for attempting to connect to telnet unless you're a telnet+. It creates a bar that would make it almost impossible to enforce the rule, by making the circumstances in which the rule is engaged unlikely to occur. If Rcon is similar to telnet, then I have no issue with just replacing 'telnet'with 'telnet or rcon' in 1q of the conduct policy. I have no personal issue with this, and it would mean Enderman1 would be eligible for permban under this, however, the issue of malicious intent was brought up in the permban request so I included it in this. I'd like to hear what others think of this before I edit the OP.
|
|
Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jun 16, 2020 22:57:27 GMT
I don't think malicious intent should need to be proven: I don't think there is a legitimate reason for attempting to connect to telnet unless you're a telnet+. It creates a bar that would make it almost impossible to enforce the rule, by making the circumstances in which the rule is engaged unlikely to occur. If Rcon is similar to telnet, then I have no issue with just replacing 'telnet'with 'telnet or rcon' in 1q of the conduct policy. I have no personal issue with this, and it would mean Enderman1 would be eligible for permban under this, however, the issue of malicious intent was brought up in the permban request so I included it in this. I'd like to hear what others think of this before I edit the OP. Unless you can read someone's mind, you can't prove malicious intent. You could ask the offender of course, but they can simply lie. Including that provision would essentially make this a non-rule, because everyone would have their own subjective opinion on what "malicious intent" means. I can't think of any reason anyone that isn't a telnet+ should be attempting to connect to remote tools. I vouch for this change, if the malicious intent provision is removed.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 23:06:01 GMT
Removed the malicious intent part.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 16, 2020 23:12:10 GMT
Changed my vote to a no. This suggestion would mean that if a former admin accidentally connected to Telnet they would be permbanned. This rule should only ever apply if there was a successful authentication.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 23:13:45 GMT
Changed my vote to a no. This suggestion would mean that if a former admin accidentally connected to Telnet they would be permbanned. This rule should only ever apply if there was a successful authentication. As it stands, the rule is in need of a revisitation, if you simply vote no then a former admin who accidentally connects to telnet would be eligible for permban under the current conduct policy.
|
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jun 16, 2020 23:24:05 GMT
I'm going to re-add the malicious intent part, as it only applied when there was an attempt at accessing telnet/rcon. An unauthorized successful attempt would be permbannable regardless of the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 16, 2020 23:28:32 GMT
I'm going to re-add the malicious intent part, as it only applied when there was an attempt at accessing telnet/rcon. An unauthorized successful attempt would be permbannable regardless of the circumstances. I'll vote yes but I don't see the second clause being a common occurrence. Feel like "Telnet or Rcon" should be changed to mean any internal admin service, since we do have other services like a panel.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jun 17, 2020 6:49:11 GMT
I'm going to re-add the malicious intent part, as it only applied when there was an attempt at accessing telnet/rcon. An unauthorized successful attempt would be permbannable regardless of the circumstances. I'll vote yes but I don't see the second clause being a common occurrence. Feel like "Telnet or Rcon" should be changed to mean any internal admin service, since we do have other services like a panel. But then you get a potential overlap with this rule:
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 17, 2020 7:44:02 GMT
I'll vote yes but I don't see the second clause being a common occurrence. Feel like "Telnet or Rcon" should be changed to mean any internal admin service, since we do have other services like a panel. But then you get a potential overlap with this rule: Can't the rules essentially be merged?
|
|
Gommeh
Veteran Member
dammit ryan and rylie
Posts: 2,744
| Likes: 778
|
Post by Gommeh on Jun 18, 2020 3:21:04 GMT
I'm voting yes for Polaris' reason.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jun 18, 2020 8:51:12 GMT
Given it's trivial to conduct a port scan to identify the port and have a punt at connecting, it seems like a bit of a silly rule.
IIRC the rule was originally introduced when people found the port and were spamming connections, making Telnet generally difficult to use. Maybe a re-word to cover that scenario instead makes more sense?
|
|