client ssl

nospam at nospam at
Thu Sep 29 01:25:40 EDT 2005

I wouldn't link one server in ssl while an other isn't all my servers
are ssl, and the part about rogue administrators .. only counts for the
server of that admin..

and i don't think that there are to many rogue admins out there like i
would want to log someones info.. wtf am i gone do with it.. i use ssl
for shell providers and so forth, internet provider and then yes it is safe

Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko schreef:

> There's always been a huge movement against SSL encapsulated IRC
> sessions and it makes perfect sense, the reasons for and against. 
> Most people think that SSL encrypted IRC sessions means nobody can
> read there conversations but I'd like to believe most of us on this
> list are intelligent enough to know that is untrue.  At best SSL
> encapsulated IRC sessions provide limited exposure of a conversation.
> Which brings me to the point of my email.
> It might be wise to inform people that connect to a IRC daemon with
> SSL enabled, as an SSL client, that avenues of exposure still exist;
> such as a a rogue administrator, unencrypted routes between servers,
> and non-SSL enabled targets.
> Keeping people educated is always a good thing.
> -- 
>  .-------------------------------------.
> ( Biggest security gap -- an open mouth )
>  `-------------------------------------'
> -- 
> Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, nospam at wrote:
>> i finaly see that hybrid supports clientssl now i wonder why they left
>> out channel mode +S where only ssl clients can join this way there is no
>> real use for ssl except for privmsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the hybrid mailing list