Author | Message | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 | Post here information about any records you have broken with hexhub (uptime record, user count, etc). | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 | Biggest flood rate ever seen in opchat of a hexhub: [2007-01-15 02:02] <•-Emperor's Guard-•> Port: 666, flood rate: 1424.25 connections/sec. (85455.00 connections/min.), number of different IPs filtered: 3564, most frequent country: RO=Romania | ||||||||
InfErnuS n00b Posts: 28 | Here's a New record for largest connection rate: [20070226 - 20:25:15] <Emperor's Guard> Port: 666, flood rate: 1843.51 connections/sec. (110610.93 connections/min.), number of different IPs filtered: 74631, most frequent country: CZ=Czech Republic | ||||||||
InfErnuS n00b Posts: 28 | Highest Recorded Usercount: Connections: 25755 accepted, 0 rejected Max. users: 8804, current user limit: 15000 | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
The hub had searches enabled for active and passive unregistered users and a distribution factor of 8. As i have seen in all hubs, the most used command is $UserIP (sent by operators who don't have a client that supports UserIP2). | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | [12:52:52] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats cache [12:52:52] *** Cache information Private buffers: 27 Broadcast buffers: 0 [12:53:34] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats [12:53:34] *** Nome Hub: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-02, 21:17:52 Porta: 415 - 362 utenti (272 attivo, 89 passivo, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): pamfufio Porta: 6666 - 231 utenti (145 attivo, 86 passivo) Porta: 411 - 1920 utenti (1137 attivo, 783 passivo) Porta: 413 - 39 utenti (18 attivo, 21 passivo) IOCP: 20 threads (2 busy) Collegamenti: 139780 accettata, 2041 rifiutata Max. users: 3652, Limite corrente di users: 8000 Comando usato: $Key: 121439 $Supports: 120619 $Version: 72840 $ValidateNick: 121428 $MyPass: 206 $GetNickList: 72097 $MyINFO: 569151 $GetINFO: 24276 $BotINFO: 313 $ConnectToMe: 5260653 $RevConnectToMe: 4566589 $MultiConnectToMe: 1448 $Search: 1798121 $SR: 397683 $MultiSearch: 3 $UserIP: 4451485 $Kick: 0 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 1684 <Mainchat message>: 1475 <Unknown commands>: 457 <Unknown data>: 22 Average transfer rate: Sent: 1085618 bps (1085.618 kbps) Ricevuto: 42782 bps (42.782 kbps) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- my preceding record [command]!stats - [2007-02-26 23:15] *** Nome Hub: «ITA..:: ••• EÚRON‡K§ ••• ::..» «ISS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-00, 04:06:30 Porta: 411 - 0 utenti Porta: 415 - 3395 utenti (2097 attivo, 1298 passivo) Porta: 6666 - 402 utenti (264 attivo, 137 passivo, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): zamborospo IOCP: 20 threads (3 busy) Collegamenti: 21354 accettata, 337 rifiutata Max. users: 4120, Limite corrente di users: 8000 Comando usato: $Key: 15424 $Supports: 15374 $Version: 13907 $ValidateNick: 15416 $MyPass: 30 $GetNickList: 13880 $MyINFO: 74865 $GetINFO: 1673 $BotINFO: 3 $ConnectToMe: 530760 $RevConnectToMe: 350435 $MultiConnectToMe: 0 $Search: 177757 $SR: 728607 $MultiSearch: 0 $UserIP: 2450467 $Kick: 1 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 492 <Mainchat message>: 345 <Unknown commands>: 27 <Unknown data>: 62 Average transfer rate: Sent: 3293196 bps (3293.196 kbps) Ricevuto: 68913 bps (68.913 kbps) :evil: | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | my new record [21:32:54] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats [21:32:54] *** Nome Hub: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-00, 09:48:33 Porta: 415 - 1082 utenti (728 attivo, 354 passivo) Porta: 6666 - 354 utenti (230 attivo, 124 passivo) Porta: 411 - 2466 utenti (1545 attivo, 921 passivo) Porta: 413 - 61 utenti (31 attivo, 30 passivo) IOCP: 20 threads (3 busy) Collegamenti: 40512 accettata, 470 rifiutata Max. users: 4002, Limite corrente di users: 12000 Comando usato: $Key: 32587 $Supports: 32456 $Version: 22254 $ValidateNick: 32579 $MyPass: 50 $GetNickList: 22126 $MyINFO: 148886 $GetINFO: 4424 $BotINFO: 37 $ConnectToMe: 989850 $RevConnectToMe: 741146 $MultiConnectToMe: 950 $Search: 349506 $SR: 106284 $MultiSearch: 0 $UserIP: 1708007 $Kick: 0 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 291 <Mainchat message>: 586 <Unknown commands>: 68 <Unknown data>: 1 Average transfer rate: Sent: 3328947 bps (3328.947 kbps) Ricevuto: 53497 bps (53.497 kbps) [21:33:47] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats cache [21:33:47] *** Cache information Private buffers: 108 Broadcast buffers: 0 Rulessssss :evil: | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | My new record !stats [20:22:01] *** Hub name: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-03, 19:06:55 Port: 411 - 2949 users (1852 active, 1096 passive, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): teekus Port: 415 - 1473 users (910 active, 562 passive, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): [psv]Orko Port: 6666 - 261 users (180 active, 81 passive) Port: 413 - 47 users (26 active, 21 passive) IOCP: 100 threads (1 busy) Connections: 178558 accepted, 32761 rejected Max. users: 4755, current user limit: 12000 Command usage: $Key: 153825 $Supports: 152350 $Version: 112271 $ValidateNick: 153814 $MyPass: 638 $GetNickList: 111523 $MyINFO: 885709 $GetINFO: 79405 $BotINFO: 383 $ConnectToMe: 10256689 $RevConnectToMe: 7265489 $MultiConnectToMe: 0 $Search: 2713477 $SR: 717376 $MultiSearch: 0 $UserIP: 7210056 $Kick: 6 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 1687 <Mainchat message>: 1778 <Unknown commands>: 469 <Unknown data>: 31 Average transfer rate: Sent: 4485648 bps (4485.648 kbps) Received: 84078 bps (84.078 kbps) [20:27:46] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats cache [20:27:46] *** Cache information Private buffers: 125 Broadcast buffers: 1. MainChat/Quit 12 users 2. PassiveSearch 3 users 3. OldverHello 3 users 4. ActiveSearch 0 users 5. MainChat/Quit 1 users 6. MainChat/Quit 2 users 7. MainChat/Quit 3 users 8. OldverHello 3 users 9. MainChat/Quit 0 users 10. MainChat/Quit 5 users 11. MainChat/Quit 15 users 12. OldverHello 401 users 13. MainChat/Quit 2 users 14. MainChat/Quit 4175 users Rulessss :evil: | ||||||||
Methodman n00b Posts: 36 | |||||||||
InfErnuS n00b Posts: 28 |
TO DATE The Largest connection rate recorded in a hexhub | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | a new Personal Record [21:51:37] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats [21:51:38] *** Hub name: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-01, 03:10:00 Port: 411 - 2073 users (1297 active, 775 passive, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): teekus Port: 415 - 2707 users (1576 active, 1129 passive, 2 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): MarlonFulker, [psv]Orko Port: 6666 - 235 users (160 active, 75 passive) Port: 413 - 45 users (25 active, 20 passive) IOCP: 100 threads (0 busy) Connections: 81682 accepted, 9570 rejected Max. users: 5522, current user limit: 12000 Command usage: $Key: 62731 $Supports: 62438 $Version: 46100 $ValidateNick: 62728 $MyPass: 284 $GetNickList: 45838 $MyINFO: 316191 $GetINFO: 11766 $BotINFO: 102 $ConnectToMe: 2975328 $RevConnectToMe: 2025412 $MultiConnectToMe: 0 $Search: 907857 $SR: 205052 $MultiSearch: 0 $UserIP: 5026866 $Kick: 0 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 576 <Mainchat message>: 600 <Unknown commands>: 154 <Unknown data>: 99 Average transfer rate: Sent: 3896407 bps (3896.407 kbps) Received: 71652 bps (71.652 kbps) Rulessssssssssssss :evil: | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
Settings that are different from default ones: Distribution factor: 16 Send cycle: 2 Send timeout: 20 Level timeout: 4 Max. SYN / hub port: 100 / second Max. connections from all: 100 / second Max. logins: disabled | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | my new record hahahahahaha !stats [15:08:29] *** Hub name: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-02, 14:56:08 Port: 411 - 12857 users (7999 active, 4855 passive, 3 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): pamfufio, [RO]aleksadsa, teekus (5 SYN/sec.) Port: 415 - 866 users (463 active, 402 passive, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): [psv]Orko Port: 6666 - 218 users (143 active, 75 passive) Port: 443 - 29 users (18 active, 11 passive) *Port: 413 - 7 users (2 active, 5 passive) Active: [RO][MS][RDS]Atybiker, Gianni-flash Passive: £µÑ姆Rê§§, Lorenzo, [ES][M][maniackchamp], bobu, ille IOCP: 100 threads (0 busy) Connections: 335841 accepted, 91841 rejected Max. users: 13959, current user limit: 15000 Command usage: $Key: 311723 $Supports: 310805 $Version: 196627 $ValidateNick: 311625 $MyPass: 714 $GetNickList: 195977 $MyINFO: 1180305 $GetINFO: 19625 $BotINFO: 289 $ConnectToMe: 42117820 $RevConnectToMe: 14495018 $MultiConnectToMe: 0 $Search: 3725326 $SR: 799302 $MultiSearch: 1 $UserIP: 22351721 $Kick: 0 $OpForceMove: 7 $To:: 6814 <Mainchat message>: 4546 <Unknown commands>: 416 <Unknown data>: 203 Average transfer rate: Sent: 30543240 bps (30543.240 kbps) Received: 309316 bps (309.316 kbps) Hex RULEEEEEEZZZZZZZ :evil: :evil: | ||||||||
InfErnuS n00b Posts: 28 | This is the result of when my pinger pinged euroniks:
| ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | RULEZZZZZZZZZZ :evil: :evil: | ||||||||
ahile n00b Posts: 18 | [command] !stats [19:35:52] *** Nume hub: •• Aron Instal Hub •• -- www.Aron-Instal.Ro, Online: 0000-00-04, 02:57:29 my bigs uptime on hexhub ( 4 the moment ) 04 days , 02:57:29 h / m / s | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 | I wouldn't call that a record. You should post here after you have at least 3 months of runtime with last version. The record i know so far is Moshu having a 3.x version running for 2 months (i hardly convinced him to update to last version). | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | today i've a new record of number of filtered connection loooooooooooooooool HEX RULESSSSSSSSSSSSSS [23:52:15] <•HèXHµß•> DDoS stopped. Found 358 different IPs and filtered 166957346 invalid connections. this is because i've disable hex firewall.. (wrong) well i regard a ddos man...... :x Hex Rulezzz :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | Hello ppl... my up record with 4000/6000 users [00:23:00] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats [00:23:00] *** Hub name: «ITA..:: ••• ÊÚRØÑ‡K§ ••• ::..» «ÏSS™Network», Uptime: 0000-00-16, 02:47:07 Port: 411 - 4115 users (2472 active, 1642 passive, 1 proxy) Proxy (Socks5): cabrillo_1 Port: 415 - 260 users (155 active, 105 passive) Port: 413 - 18 users (6 active, 12 passive) Active: ![SERVER-VIP]tenia078, cipeciop, xavier, ![server-reg]fabry, teO_, Jealcoot IOCP: 100 threads (700 busy) Connections: 1304792 accepted, 26234 rejected Max. users: 8373, current user limit: 15000 Command usage: $Key: 1193577 $Supports: 1188475 $Version: 1068250 $ValidateNick: 1193133 $MyPass: 3310 $GetNickList: 1065951 $MyINFO: 6775828 $GetINFO: 14998262 $BotINFO: 1422 $ConnectToMe: 605295247 $RevConnectToMe: 66840716 $MultiConnectToMe: 933 $Search: 20337096 $SR: 88216138 $MultiSearch: 28 $UserIP: 94507110 $Kick: 9 $OpForceMove: 0 $To:: 23737 <Mainchat message>: 11652 <Unknown commands>: 3682 <Unknown data>: 236 Average transfer rate: Sent: 2904348 bps (2904.348 kbps) Received: 105433 bps (105.433 kbps) [00:23:13] <!Tåkèl®> [command] !stats cache [00:23:13] *** Cache information Private buffers: 203 (~14455 bytes / block) Broadcast buffers: 1. MainChat/Quit 7 users (931 bytes) 2. MainChat/Quit 2 users (486 bytes) 3. PassiveSearch 1111 users (47 bytes) 4. ActiveSearch 2042 users (44 bytes) RULEZZZZZZZZZZZ :evil: :evil: | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Very nice results But: iptables performance with 1518 Byte frame size and <=50 rules: 95.000-96.000 DROP/sec iptables performance with 512 Byte frame size and <=50 rules: 94.000-95.000 DROP/sec iptables performance with 128 Byte frame size and <=50 rules: 83.000-84.000 DROP/sec Tested with very old 2.4.x kernel series and iptables 1.2.x | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 | Rejected connections do not necessarry mean that an attack is in progress. The hub also rejects connections of users banned in firewall (_ban0_). Filtered rate deppends on attackers. The hub cannot filter more than it gets. Btw... iptables... are you joking ? Iptables is written in C++ - this means it uses many asm instructions to traverse a filter with 50 rules. HeXHub's firewall uses only one instruction - repnz scasd to traverse the entire filter (in case of a DDoS attack i have seen more than 1000000 rules in some hubs). Nothing is faster than that. | ||||||||
Meka][Meka Unstopable Posts: 700 | and what does linux and iptables gotta do with hexhub?? :? | ||||||||
Takel n00b Posts: 17 | mystery | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | REJECT and the DROP not identical concepts, the test was made with 2 direct PCs in a contact, from this apparently the 100Mbit logically inferable. The ban and rejecting the packet then only can save the uploading bandwidth from the unnecessary traffic. It is not possible to save the download bandwidth then efficiently if the firewall rejects the contact. As we discussed previously, each time an IRQ is generated some CPU time is taken. If enough IRQ's can be generated, the CPU will have no time to do anything other than serve the interrupts. Inbound packets do not get processed, applications get no CPU time, and your system is effectively dead in the water. This is known as "Live-lock". Your system is still live, in so much that it has not crashed, but it is locked from performing any useful functions. From it that HeXHub assembly on a language been written, does not come next that faster. It was leaning dogma, that assembly or C faster than the C++. Assembly may be slow on a language not optimized, C++ may be an express on a language, to write an optimized application. A little No. filter rule, which you saw, may be very efficient or experienced in no way objective opinion. If we are at the performance already LamaHub with 5000 users 2% average CPU produces a load. Yourself may look at it ZeXx86 on his forum. | ||||||||
Meka][Meka Unstopable Posts: 700 | ive no idea what you jus said, but do u actually know how to program at all, if not, then u cant say anything at all as u dont know what u are talking about... at least i cant understand what u r talking about, | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
Did anybody say it's possible ? As i see you didn't even test the firewall you talk about. HeXHub doesn't send TCP/RST, "rejected" in this case is same as "dropped".
Did you ever succeed with generating those many IRQ's ? Feel free to test that on my system.
Didn't i just say that HeXHub's firewall uses only one asm instruction to traverse the entire filter ? No other language can do that with only one asm instruction. What can be more optimized than that ?
Maybe you should also visit his forum and paste there all the requests you told me (like remote registry detection / port scanning users / etc). Probably he'll implement all those even knowing that you are the only person who requested them and not even you will use them. Before asking for new features for a hubsoft would be better to actually use that hubsoft (you requested many times for features that HeXHub already has). | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Dear Meka][Meka: It is not necessary to be a programmer, it is necessary to know Linux, and you know it immediately what I talk about. Lord_Zero response you are a Linux BSD would be enough ridiculous one on a forum. | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Dear Lord_Zero HeXHub: The person who has to be afraid of something builds up a fortification only. The past: Well-known how you are not angels. "Feel free to test that on my system." - You are good at a dog rather | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
Protection is only a small part of HeXHub. You should try to use it before saying anything about it. Of course we're not angels, we're devils and satans. | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Dear Lord_Zero Not I gave a thought to you personally although everybody owes his own conscience settlement. I believe it in a dog we agree. | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
You're the only dog on this forum. | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Dear Lord_Zero You translated one on my message. I do not claim it HexHub bad you are software not optimized. I claimed it that it iptables your formed opinion not objective. You wrote: "Did anybody say it's possible ? As i see you didn't even test the firewall you talk about. HeXHub doesn't send TCP/RST, "rejected" in this case is same as "dropped". " But: The drop because of this incomplete protection, because what the firewall throws away is the packet, he arrived already. Dared throw it away only may be. That is the packet used a bandwidth. - Back because of this How does a received packet not take away a bandwidth? A starting system administrator knows this yet. It that the firewall throws it away you are irrelevant incompletely. | ||||||||
Ashura Unstopable Posts: 370 | uhm i dont understand these parts with the dog :roll: wtf is "at a dog" and "in a dog", some sorta game or what anyway u'll use less bandw to drop the packets from rejected connections than to accept them | ||||||||
Lord_Zero Ametuar Posts: 122 |
Who said that received packets don't take banwidth ? All firewalls can filter packets, that's one of the reasons people use them. You are probably the only system administrator who does not know that. Speaking of "irrelevant"... there's too much offtopic already. | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | I see it the last one 2 sentences circulating out entailed a success. But your question: "Did anybody say it's possible ? And the answer sended: "The drop because of this incomplete protection, because what the firewall throws away is the packet, he arrived already. Dared throw it away only may be." People: The firewall is not able to protect the download bandwidth perfectly. And this essence. You throw away the packets vainly, takes away some download bandwidth then. | ||||||||
Meka][Meka Unstopable Posts: 700 | i think i understand what he is trying to say 'i used the dumbass to english translator' something like 'a waste of a packet to disregard it, when there is many packets', well if so, thats wrong, it is better to disregard packets if the firewall already knows where they are coming from and what they are, otherwise it would just waste precious CPU time, now what was that about dogs... ? | ||||||||
Ashura Unstopable Posts: 370 | what u suggest to be done with those packets then? send em with the post? | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | Dear Lord_Zero first apology Calmness, there is peace, you are nervous only according to me. Is not needed everything you are for a criticism for an attack to have bought. I acknowledge your programming work, HeXHub greatness. It somebody else question that on the salve of your other activities objectionable. You wrote: "You are probably the only system administrator who does not know that." - Did you not take this statement of yours seriously? | ||||||||
BlackSonar n00b Posts: 42 | You wrote: As i see you didn't even test the firewall you talk about. My answer: Already from the very beginning not HeXHub the topic, you present it as it at the worst. Yes, true, a time of his disused, but I not too HexHub spoken. Principle that the drop does not send back TCP/RST packet, REJECT is a yes. Do not lecture others about it what is known anyway already. HeXHub is not the world's middle only in exchange of you though. |