I just want to drop 1 quick note and will discuss anything privately....
If its open source and a client/server app, then anyone can modify the
client to not detect the cheat.. I don't think this falls into the
normal.. I would be all for a server side open source project but I
wouldn't be able to support a client side open source project.
-----Original Message-----
From: Buddha-Pest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PB no more.....
i don't want to continue this argument on the list. it's the same
argument that all closed/open source pundits have all the time. i
believe open source is the way to go, you don't. i would like to be a
part of an open source project as an alternative to the closed source
PunkBuster.
that's all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "SQLBoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: PB no more.....
>
>
> 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
>
>
