From 3b90515ded61e5cb1017670c1f178986bf1d63d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: acidvegas Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 21:05:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated README --- README.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 35b97ed..03a0cfe 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ The IRC networks we scanned are PUBLIC networks...any person can freely connect ![](.screens/preview.png) ## Threat Scope -While IRC is an unfavored chat protocol as of 2023 *(roughly 7,000 networks)*, it still has a beating heart **(over 3000,000 users & channels)* with potential for user growth & active development being done on [IRCv3](https://ircv3.net/) protocol implementations. +While IRC is an generally unfavored chat protocol as of 2023 *(roughly 7,000 networks)*, it still has a beating heart **(over 300,000 users & channels)* with potential for user growth & active development being done on [IRCv3](https://ircv3.net/) protocol implementations. -Point is..IRC is not going anywhere. With that being said, every network being on the same port leads way for a lot of potential threats: +Point is..it's is not going anywhere. With that being said, every network being on the same port leads way for a lot of potential threats: * A new RCE is found for a very common IRC bot * A new 0day is found for a certain IRCd version @@ -66,10 +66,10 @@ Point is..IRC is not going anywhere. With that being said, every network being o * Tracing users network/channel whereabouts * Mass spamming attacks on every network -![](.screens/base.png) - Mass scanning *default* ports of services is nothing new & though port 6667 is not a common target, running an IRCd on a **non-standard** port should be the **standard**. If we have learned anything in the last 10 years, using standard ports for *anything* is almost always smells like a bad idea. +![](.screens/base.png) + ## Todo * Built in identd * Checking for IPv6 availability *(SSL= in 005 responses may help verify IPv6)*