Right, this thread is for telling folk that the 'proper' ILX is down again, so if you see this above the "ILX is back up" thread it means ILX is back down

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (475 of them)

I don't want this to get into people accusing me of seeking attention or whatever.

good luck with that

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Um.. If you all know the code is bad & full of security holes, and are already in process of moving to the new secure code.. What is the problem? It seems like the "ILX is down" message should say that ILX goes back up when the board is secure, period, not when the board is secured from JW.. Can a backup be done quickly just for safety's sake and then the board be put it back up now with the notice that the code isn't fixed yet but nobody using the board is to do that again or risk being banned. After all the admin log did show immediately what happened and I presume it would show it again.

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:35 (seventeen years ago) link

board is secure, period, not when the board is secured from JW..
These are pretty much the same thing!

Yes, the message should be a bit better, but I'm at work and can only access the server from my phone! Otherwise I would get cracking on backups etc, aye.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:41 (seventeen years ago) link

But, no, the admin log need not show what happened. He can alter the DB at will.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:41 (seventeen years ago) link

ah well, at least we have a sandbox. ca va

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:49 (seventeen years ago) link

but nobody using the board is to do that again or risk being banned.

that is hardly going to deter jon, the only registered user who bothers to exploit security issues with ILX code. banning doesn't work on savvy enough regulars who repeat offend.

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:49 (seventeen years ago) link

So what happens if PEW becomes computer literate?

― pfunkboy (Kerr), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:53 (seventeen years ago) link

mushroomcloud.jpg

― The PEW Research Center for Panty-Twisting (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:55 (seventeen years ago) link

So what happens if PEW becomes ~~computer~~ literate?

― acrobat (acrobat), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:55 (seventeen years ago) link

armegeddon, ILX style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqT2COHG4uI

― Eisbär (Eisbär), Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:59 (seventeen years ago) link

LESS QQ, MORE PEW PEW

― aidsy (aidsy), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

if the board were to continue running with code that's that flawed, eventually sooner or later somebody would hack in & cause some serious problems, i mean, what happens the day that some random kid on the internets decides to delete the whole board?

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Q(^.^Q)

― amon (amon), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

So the argument is that JW exploited a hole in the code, and so now you're shutting the whole thing down on principle? Why wouldn't you have shut the whole thing down on principle years ago? Why is this different?

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:17 (seventeen years ago) link

thanks heavens we have jon to speed the whole process up by forcing new code through, by demonstrating practically the flaws of the board that most people don't understand nor give a shit about, ignorant fools that they are. without his unannounced intervention, commandeering of admin rights, useful testing of locking privileges and whatnot these things could've been done TOMORROW by somebody we neither know nor like!

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Yes. I figured it was an OK risk given that it hadn't happened in all the preceding years, and the code would only be up for a few months till the switchover. Ah well.

No, the argument is that the risk above is now too big to take. If Jon's going to be such a loose cannon that he can't restrain himself from hacking what we know to be insecure code, I'm not going to run around trying to stop him.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:20 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.lakecofb.com/0-No-Trespassing-Sign_Spanish.jpg

― remy bean (bean), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.brandonstone.com/photos_generated/no_trespassing_sign_2-750x600.jpg

― remy bean (bean), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

http://howlingpoint.net/images/IMG_0162crop.jpg

― remy bean (bean), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:23 (seventeen years ago) link

http://homepage.mac.com/icbp90pink1/iblog/B2014309987/C1832726962/E20060514160909/Media/NO%20TRESPASSING.jpg

― remy bean (bean), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I think the point is, Jon found a HUGE security hole, exploited it, and the admins are not sure how he did it. Jon would probably not nuke ILE, but the hole is severe enough that if someone else found it, the consequences could be dire. Most importantly, there is currently no backup of ILX, so the entire history could be lost if someone exploited the hole.

So a combo of factors in play here. Can't say I blame the admins. It'd be one thing if there were backups but in absence of them, it's probably best to leave the site down.

― Nu-Edward III (edward iii), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

neverforget.jpg

― Nu-Edward III (edward iii), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Point well taken.

This is still kinda funny, though.

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link

This is different because years ago, nobody actually had hacked their way into getting database access. The board is not being shut down permanently, only 'till it can be put up with the new code.

I guess the point is that in the first place it's not OK for Jon, or anyone else to hack into the database, and more urgently, now that Jon has shown it can be done, it's extremely likely that someone else will do it. Like the CSS flooding thing referred to upthread, Jon didn't CSS flood the shimura curves thread, someone else did, but w/o Jon's example of showing it could be done in the first place, it likely wouldn't have happened.

(x-posts, in which everyone explains it better than I can :( )

― Norman Phay (Pashmina), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/x-ray_shoes.jpg

― PPlains (PPlains), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link

jon, martyr that he is, doesn't mind taking some stick for being the one to do the sabotage, in order to demonstrate the catastrophic effects of sabotage, were it to ever happen. better for it to be demonstrated by a guy popular and cherished enough on ILX than for it happen without provocation by some random schmoe. just because it never happened before doesn't it mean it couldn't happen TOMORROW, maybe even while you sleep. at night. are you afraid? not nearly enough.

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:42 (seventeen years ago) link

meanwhile here's an exclusive look at the new code/presentation format

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

I wonder what Jon used his admin privs for...?

― Laurel (Laurel), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:46 (seventeen years ago) link

lololo

― amon (amon), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:47 (seventeen years ago) link

SHOULDNT YOU DO BACKUP BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IF THERES NO BACKUP WHAT IF THE HARD DRIVE JUST GOES AT ANY TIME IT DONT MAKE SENSE. WHY SPEND ALL THE TIME AND MONEY DOING PROGRTAMS AND SEND THE COMPUTERS AROUND THE WORLD IF YOU DONT HAVED TIME TO DO COMPUTER HARDRIVE BACKUP.

― TIM@KFC.EDU (TIM@KFC.EDU), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:51 (seventeen years ago) link

The hosts were supposed to be doing it. They haven't (along with a shitload of other stuff). I was going to start doing my own this week, ironically.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 19:54 (seventeen years ago) link

so could one do the same thing to the sandbox?

― grady (grady), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Yes, naturally. Should I take it down too?

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

that seems unnecessary!

― dar1a g (dar1a g), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Doesn't stet own thehold? I think if he thinks Jon can fuck that up, preventing that is kind of up to stet.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

DOES NOT PARSE

― hoo got it for steen, vol 3 (hoosteen), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm only joshing about taking it down, rly. Please don't fuck it though Jon, eh?

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, but you're quite within your rights to do so if you want to, or have to. Just saying, like.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

Because me v everyone else counts in terms of opinions, obv.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

well god forbid all our precious sandbox posts get deleted by JW in a fit of pique over kate st.c

― TOMB07 (trm), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh good for you and your not giving a shit. I kind of hate two people's shite impacting on lots of other people, but hey you're bigger and better than this board so well done you.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

fuck this defense of jon, he's acting like a spoilt child whether his intentions were 'good' or not.

― the table is the table (trees), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

tombot otm. everyone else hysterical.

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

OTFM. Cosign. Whatever the cool kids say these days.

erm, xpost.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

what do you think should be done kenan?

― sede vacante (blueski), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

RELAX

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

SAVE THE CHEERLEADER SAVE THE WORLD SAVE ILX AND TEH SANDBOX.

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost And you know, fix stuff, and maybe shut the main board down for a while. Protect the database, sure. God knows I have countless jewels of wisdom stored there.

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Jon's getting tarred with his own brush from previous temper tantrums, but I don't know that this one is particularly egregious...how long did he have admin privs before anyone noticed?

― Laurel (Laurel), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Not giving a shit vs thinking your post was dumb, TS.

I don't think Jon's intentions were good at all. I do think that making a point to state openly it was Jon instead of dealing with that some other way is just causing a tremendous amount more problems than there might've been otherwise though (though I can understand stet writing something like what is on the main ilx pg in anger).

― Allyzay P. Boxcars (trm), Sunday, 11 February 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 375 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.