home home

downloads files

forum forum

docs docs

wiki wiki

faq faq

Cube & Cube 2 FORUM


Considering shutting down master server...

by eihrul on 09/18/2006 02:59, 114 messages, last message: 10/21/2006 04:37, 87895 views, last view: 12/06/2022 02:20

Well, today I've seen the biggest display of immaturity I've ever seen. People running around, connecting to servers as soon as they saw someone else connect, crashing other clients, banning them, etc.

If this is what it has come to, we'll just shut down the master server. People only seem to want to abuse the service we're graciously providing for free, and fuck it up for everyone else.

If that's the case, if that's what some of you guys really want, fine, we'll just shut down the service since it's basically unusable to anyone as is.

Go to first 20 messagesGo to previous 20 messages    Board Index   

#111: ..

by Ridiculous on 10/04/2006 22:30

How on this ginormous orbitting rock, we call Earth, can you possibly say that some one hacked code written in an OO language?! If you think you can do any real hacking in OO, then sorry, but you're a blithering idiot. If you change one little thing in a function, any other function which depended on something you changed won't work. That's why real programmers write in C. You can't have problems like that if you can't recycle code, now can you. Changing constants isn't hacking, it's retarded.

In other words: When you choose convenience over functionality, this is what you get.

I appreciate all the work the developers put into the game and I recognize that hard work, but damn. Quit your whining, you have more important things to worry about. In the time you've all spent crying about "hackers" destroying the game, you could've easily written at least a halfway decent physics engine and

Now, if everyone would either stop crying or put forth a reasonable solution, that'd be magnificent!

My suggestion: Stop focusing on higher level stuff and start worrying about memory manipulation. Write code which uses the length and relative location in memory of certain variables to determine if the game has been hacked or not and either use a protected checksum (better idea) or a conditional in connect function (disgusting idea) to enable or disable multiplayer.

reply to this message

#112: ..

by maximillion_x on 10/08/2006 15:03

why not support punkbuster?

reply to this message

#113: ..

by Wolfgang on 10/12/2006 14:01

Because it is commercial and works only for closed source games.

reply to this message

#114: Re: ..

by ADINSX on 10/21/2006 04:37, refers to #111

While changing constants isn\'t hacking in any sense, you should realize that changing a constant isn\'t going to get you a crash hack. When I created the crash hack (which I appoligized for the one day I used it), I had to actually rewrite more code than you probably realize. It isn\'t like I typed in \"bool crashhack = 1;\"

I noticed flaw, and I took advantage of it. Was it wrong? Most definitely. Was it done in 5 minutes? Most deffinitely not.

\"My suggestion: Stop focusing on higher level stuff and start worrying about memory manipulation. Write code which uses the length and relative location in memory of certain variables to determine if the game has been hacked or not and either use a protected checksum (better idea) or a conditional in connect function (disgusting idea) to enable or disable multiplayer.\"

That would be easy to circumvent.

For example, if the code is organized as such:

1: Generate value based on current position in memory.

That is step one, and already there is a problem. If someone obtains the value that is obtained by the current position in memory after the variable had been created, then it does nothing to the integrity of the data. Therefore, all a person has to do is obtain this value, and make it so the variable always equals said value (whichever variable is storing the position in memory of the original variable). After that, a person is free to edit any portion of the game, even before the memory location is obtained.

And because the person is always going to generate the exactly appropriate value, any checksum or hash is not going to make any difference in the verification of the legitimacy of the data.

I know I worded what I said poorly, but I had a hard time putting what I wanted to say to words without making it sound confusing.

Or did I read incorrectly what you said?

reply to this message

Go to first 20 messagesGo to previous 20 messages    Board Index   


Unvalidated accounts can only reply to the 'Permanent Threads' section!


content by Aardappel & eihrul © 2001-2022
website by SleepwalkR © 2001-2022
48298783 visitors requested 65032822 pages
page created in 0.035 seconds using 10 queries
hosted by Boost Digital