am i banned?

[{Lance}]

There is a bunch of people i bet already found out duh. This could be fixed in minutes so don't give me that crap.

This isnt Vegas,  there are no statistics that back up such a dumb claim.  It is not as "obvious" as you think unless you TELL someone and then they will be like 'really? its that easy'?  And if it's SO easy to stop,  then why the FUCK didnt you go ahead and do it so I didnt have to do it for you?  Because I can assure you, its NOT as easy as you claim.  I dont know if iL had told you I was working on fixing that hole or not, but regardless, it's not yet complete,  so until then you needed to keep your trap shut.  iL will tell you the exact same thing.  You can NOT be doing shit like that for known problems.  If it was UNKNOWN,  then telling us in a PM would have been the better option.  But you knew it wasnt unknown and you knew that no one else other than the MAYBE (and thats a pretty big maybe)technical people knew about it.  I know for a fact that Ryu didnt know (even though he says he did as will say every other technical person now thats its known) because he flat out asked me if there was a way to circumvent it,  to which my answer was simply:

"Yes,  but even if someone knew it wouldnt be easy to do".  In an attempt to throw him off of just how simple it really was.  I didnt want ANYONE to know it was that simple.  iL has done well with it to this point,  but its clear he needs help getting it over that hump.  He asked me how I had fixed it and I told him exactly how I had fixed the very same issue with war2.us and then I started to implement the same thing for him with 1 difference.  With RU's version, I am tossing in Packet 17 as an extra check just because it's something I wasnt aware of back when I had done it previously to fix this same issue.

[Delete mine too]

There is a bunch of people i bet already found out duh. This could be fixed in minutes so don't give me that crap.

This isnt Vegas,  there are no statistics that back up such a dumb claim.  It is not as "obvious" as you think unless you TELL someone and then they will be like 'really? its that easy'?  And if it's SO easy to stop,  then why the FUCK didnt you go ahead and do it so I didnt have to do it for you?  Because I can assure you, its NOT as easy as you claim.  I dont know if iL had told you I was working on fixing that hole or not, but regardless, it's not yet complete,  so until then you needed to keep your trap shut.  iL will tell you the exact same thing.  You can NOT be doing shit like that for known problems.  If it was UNKNOWN,  then telling us in a PM would have been the better option.  But you knew it wasnt unknown and you knew that no one else other than the MAYBE (and thats a pretty big maybe)technical people knew about it.  I know for a fact that Ryu didnt know (even though he says he did as will say every other technical person now thats its known) because he flat out asked me if there was a way to circumvent it,  to which my answer was simply:

"Yes,  but even if someone knew it wouldnt be easy to do".  In an attempt to throw him off of just how simple it really was.  I didnt want ANYONE to know it was that simple.  iL has done well with it to this point,  but its clear he needs help getting it over that hump.  He asked me how I had fixed it and I told him exactly how I had fixed the very same issue with war2.us and then I started to implement the same thing for him with 1 difference.  With RU's version, I am tossing in Packet 17 as an extra check just because it's something I wasnt aware of back when I had done it previously to fix this same issue.

I'm not going to let him spend his time on this for archer to bash it in minutes when we both know how easily it can be fixed. It doesn't have to be a hardware at all that's just the idea you know how to do.... He could of done it many different ways. Add another check or what ever Ok this anti is on this IP and account... not just ip.... Anyways i was trashed when i posted that i'm glad that's all i said.

[{Lance}]

Well isnt that ironic.  You bashed it for him,  BEFORE Archer did.  Way to go.  Lets just be the fire and call the woodstove hot some more.  It's not your job to inform the masses before Archer has a chance to do it.  This isnt a race.  You were just as smashed when you posted that as I was when I edited a SS.  Why did you feel it necessary to point out the not so obvious to those that didnt need to know.  You already knew that we were working to close that particular security hole,  so I'm mystified,  what the F Tupac.  So,  how does YOUR version fix this particular hole.  And the first time you say "simple it does it with accounts -> IP" is the first time I slap you with the Bonehead wand, because thats not the answer.  It's just as easily circumvented for reasons which you should be aware.  I'd actually wager that your version DOESNT address this particular security hole at all or you would have already given it to iL like you had other things.

There are 2 ways to fix this issue (not "many" as you seem to elude to).  None of which you've done yourself.  I can assure you of that much.  Packet 17 is one way (and not in the way you are thinking,  I can already hear you thinking, and trust me, its not being used for what you think),  the other way is with hardware identification.  Any other method is doomed to fail for obvious reasons (or maybe not so obvious if you seem to think another method would work?).  RU will use BOTH methods because it's better to have as many ways to close it as possible regardless of how well one method over the other does it.

[Delete mine too]

Well isnt that ironic.  You bashed it for him,  BEFORE Archer did.  Way to go.  Lets just be the fire and call the woodstove hot some more.  It's not your job to inform the masses before Archer has a chance to do it.  This isnt a race.  You were just as smashed when you posted that as I was when I edited a SS.  Why did you feel it necessary to point out the not so obvious to those that didnt need to know.  You already knew that we were working to close that particular security hole,  so I'm mystified,  what the F Tupac.  So,  how does YOUR version fix this particular hole.  And the first time you say "simple it does it with accounts -> IP" is the first time I slap you with the Bonehead wand, because thats not the answer.  It's just as easily circumvented for reasons which you should be aware.  I'd actually wager that your version DOESNT address this particular security hole at all or you would have already given it to iL like you had other things.

There are 2 ways to fix this issue (not "many" as you seem to elude to).  None of which you've done yourself.  I can assure you of that much.  Packet 17 is one way (and not in the way you are thinking,  I can already hear you thinking, and trust me, its not being used for what you think),  the other way is with hardware identification.  Any other method is doomed to fail for obvious reasons (or maybe not so obvious if you seem to think another method would work?).  RU will use BOTH methods because it's better to have as many ways to close it as possible regardless of how well one method over the other does it.

Well your just doing what you have done before like i said. There is many different ways to go about this. You don't have to be stuck with packet "17". Look at the bigger picture for once? PVPGN is open source, The Anti Hack he coded, and you have war2... Anything is possible.

I didn't send anything server related to iL he wanted to keep that with him which i agreed and posted a very defensive anti hack code. There is no need for any of that because it would only matter to the hoster. Each host would mostly have his own methods and tweaks when it comes to anti cheating. This is a simple flaw that can be fixed easily.



You want to go nuts over the anti hack that's not even enforced yet? We both know why it's not required. HWID, OS SERIAL, ETC what ever... ROFL AT MY PAINT SKILLS

[{Lance}]

So,  what language are lines used in?  I could draw a bunch of lines too and call it a day.  That doesnt mean it actually does/means/proves understanding of anything.  How exactly would you solve the issue?  And dont tell me "simple,  account -> ip".  Or I'll have to hit you with the bonehead cane.  But I see what you did there,  you drew lines instead of words so I couldnt slap u with the bonehead stick!

So, what exactly do the Green lines on PC2 represent.  Since it's not running the anti-hack,  then it's quite obvious that those are just there to make it look cool   Just how do you propose to secure PC2 if it's not even running your app and you have no possible means of differentiating it from PC1.  You'll soon realize why Packet 17 and Hardware ID's are the only 2 possible solutions once you actually sit down and think about it enough.

I've given you 2 solid solutions (solid enough that making them public is not a problem),  but so far you've offered nothing other than "it's easy",  and a really bad paint drawing of pretty much nothing.  If you genuinely have solutions that you think are viable,  then lets hear them in case they might actually have merit (although I'm skeptical at this point).  If they are good enough,  I'd toss it in as a 3rd mechanism.

[Delete mine too]

So,  what language are lines used in?  I could draw a bunch of lines too and call it a day.  That doesnt mean it actually does/means/proves understanding of anything.  How exactly would you solve the issue?  And dont tell me "simple,  account -> ip".  Or I'll have to hit you with the bonehead cane.  But I see what you did there,  you drew lines instead of words so I couldnt slap u with the bonehead stick!

So, what exactly do the Green lines on PC2 represent.  Since it's not running the anti-hack,  then it's quite obvious that those are just there to make it look cool   Just how do you propose to secure PC2 if it's not even running your app and you have no possible means of differentiating it from PC1.  You'll soon realize why Packet 17 and Hardware ID's are the only 2 possible solutions once you actually sit down and think about it enough.

I've given you 2 solid solutions (solid enough that making them public is not a problem),  but so far you've offered nothing other than "it's easy",  and a really bad paint drawing of pretty much nothing.  If you genuinely have solutions that you think are viable,  then lets hear them in case they might actually have merit (although I'm skeptical at this point).  If they are good enough,  I'd toss it in as a 3rd mechanism.

This could be any language you design it in of course silly. You know what that green line is "IP CHECK". Yellow could be any method applied to determine a different machine even though its from the same connection. Not that hard, iL will have the best anti hack ever made for this game. Once again i apologize for my drunken ramble that's why i'm trying to avoid here until i'm well again.

[{Lance}]

I see.  So basically you're just clueless about how to actually fix the issue.  Thats fine,  but dont say 'its easy' unless you can provide an actual method (such as the 2 I discussed).  If you have a method thats viable,  lets hear it.  The more the better.  If you dont have a method,  just say so.  Theres no shame in not knowing how to fix something.  Its not an easy problem to solve,  it just sounds like it is,  but its really not once you sit down and think about how to get around the obvious 'easy' methods which would be try to distinguish 1 machine from another by way of username and/or internal IP's  (neither of those are viable yet they are the 'easy' methods).  The reason is because accounts do nothing and internal IPs can easily be changed/modified/nat'd/spoofed and a zillion other things.

This leaves only 2 possible methods, neither of which are 'easy' by any stretch of the imagination.  Hardware identification and packet 17.  There simply is no other method that would work since all other methods would be vulnerable.  Combining these 2 methods makes both even stronger so thats the plan as soon as I can get some time to put into it.  Been busy with work the last few weeks.

[Delete mine too]

I see.  So basically you're just clueless about how to actually fix the issue.  Thats fine,  but dont say 'its easy' unless you can provide an actual method (such as the 2 I discussed).  If you have a method thats viable,  lets hear it.  The more the better.  If you dont have a method,  just say so.  Theres no shame in not knowing how to fix something.  Its not an easy problem to solve,  it just sounds like it is,  but its really not once you sit down and think about how to get around the obvious 'easy' methods which would be try to distinguish 1 machine from another by way of username and/or internal IP's  (neither of those are viable yet they are the 'easy' methods).  The reason is because accounts do nothing and internal IPs can easily be changed/modified/nat'd/spoofed and a zillion other things.

This leaves only 2 possible methods, neither of which are 'easy' by any stretch of the imagination.  Hardware identification and packet 17.  There simply is no other method that would work since all other methods would be vulnerable.  Combining these 2 methods makes both even stronger so thats the plan as soon as I can get some time to put into it.  Been busy with work the last few weeks.

You just sounded stupid. DUDE WTF DO YOU NOT GET!!!

Anything is possible and they can spoof / ghost what ever it will not stop the anti hack from reporting back to the server LOL if it does then they show up as NO ANTI HACK...... in this case problem solved. You don't want to start a fire that can't be put out. Packet 17 or what ever or some cool code. Only thing we agree on is more then one layer of detection. There is too much to determine a different machine from hardware, software, users names, serials, etc. Add them all! Make some benchmark software to record ram, CPU, HD. iL already knows a lot with the antihack i done explored it the day it was released its capable of harvesting users names from the OS NOT WAR2. 1 step of comparable info.

[{Lance}]

Its ok tupac,  its obvious that the issue is above your pay grade,  not a big deal.  I just thought maybe you knew a little more about the actual issue,  I guess I was wrong in that assumption.  Anyway,  I was just curious to see if maybe you had something substantially different but you dont so thats really all I wanted to find out.  It just confirms that the methods that are planned are indeed still the best 2 options which is a good thing.  If you come up with a better method or something just as good,  I'd be willing to hear it.  As for the AH and what its capable,  its capable of anything.  Its just a matter of developing it.  There is no need to explore what its capable of because it can do anything.  Its not limited at all.  But the issue isnt what the AH is capable of or not.  The issue is,  what to do if the AH isnt even running.  Something you havent fully considered yet with all of the possible ways to use that to a hackers advantage.  Communication is key,  I think you know that much,  but just what to communicate,  thats the part you are not yet up to speed on.  Otherwise you'd realize why packet 17 or hardware identification is so vitally important (which you dont seem to understand yet,  but I have faith,  you will see it sooner or later).

[Delete mine too]

Its ok tupac,  its obvious that the issue is above your pay grade,  not a big deal.  I just thought maybe you knew a little more about the actual issue,  I guess I was wrong in that assumption.  Anyway,  I was just curious to see if maybe you had something substantially different but you dont so thats really all I wanted to find out.  It just confirms that the methods that are planned are indeed still the best 2 options which is a good thing.  If you come up with a better method or something just as good,  I'd be willing to hear it.  As for the AH and what its capable,  its capable of anything.  Its just a matter of developing it.  There is no need to explore what its capable of because it can do anything.  Its not limited at all.  But the issue isnt what the AH is capable of or not.  The issue is,  what to do if the AH isnt even running.  Something you havent fully considered yet.

There now it seems like you are catching on. Server gets no reply from anti because its no being run then we both know whats next kill the connection or flag as bot like i said before.

EDIT: I think that was your words years ago your banned unless u prove legit.