Thats not the point. I'm just going on here-say here but I think each
individual cheat is coded into Punkbuster. I'm sure the program has a couple
different ways of finding out if a cheat is installed. Things like checking
for registry changes a cheat makes, looking for the installation files, etc.
Yes, its possible for the coders to find out how PB is detecting them and
make some changes, it happens everyday I'm sure. Why give them the source
though so they can update their cheat 5min after the release?
I understand what you are trying to say with your openSSH example, but I
don't agree. What makes a hacker a hacker is detailed knowledge of how
things work. There are always going to be bugs or exploits in weaker
software that could allow me to replace your SSH server binary with a custom
one of my own, and then gain access via SSH. I've seen it done on customer
machines running old Bind and FTP servers.
I believe in open source but since the game server and client code is not
open source, you will run into the same limitations PB did, and more since
all the cheaters will be studying your source code.
SQL
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 16:27, you wrote:
> that's wrong. that's like saying: knowing how openSSH works means you can
> circumvent it. the best secure software has always been open source
> software because of the amounts of eyes that review it.
>
> besides, the source is just a tool. you don't NEED the source to find out
> how something works. i really believe that a smart open source based team
> can do just as good of a job, and not be such control freaks about it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SQLBoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: PB no more.....
>
> > It makes no sense to go open source. Since PB was basically reacting to
> > cheats, if cheat coders had the source, they would know exactly how to
> > circumvent the software.
> >
> > On Tuesday 25 September 2001 15:27, you wrote:
> > > > There has never been a chance that a "one man army" can get rid of
> > > > cheats that hundreds of cheatcoders work on. Maybe it's time for some
> > > > open source project ...
> > > >
> > > > I personally do NOT miss punkbuster at all.
> > >
> > > LMAO...it's been funny to watch the dark-eyed penguin pushers try to
>
> wrap
>
> > > their minds around the PB team not going public with their source. And
> > > it's been frustrating to watch them get all pissy about it, not because
>
> it
>
> > > doesn't work, but because it's not open source. If it's not
> > > opensource, then fsck you! It's a pretty dense way to live, to cut off
> > > your nose to spite your face. But, regardless, I guess none of you
> > > actually develop software professionally...
> > >
> > > Eric (the Deacon remix)
> > > http://www.firekite.com
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ketchup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:58 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: PB no more.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello Sysop,
> > > >
> > > > Tuesday, September 25, 2001, 6:29:01 PM, you wrote:
> > > > > So what are the chances of getting an official comment by valve on
>
> why
>
> > > > > PB and Valve couldn't work together on a integrated solution? PB
>
> has
>
> > > > > pulled the plug on HL/CS because of (they say) lack of
> > > > > participation
>
> by
>
> > > > > Valve. I would like to hear Valve's side of the story, as to why
> > > > > we are loosing something that could have REALLY improved the
> > > > > quality of the game...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Peter aka Ketchup
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > http://www.pommesbude.org
