You didn't read it correctly. PB didn't pull the plug on it's self. PB will
continue, and is looking for other software to write code for, BUT it DID
drop HL/CS support.
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 04:25 am, you wrote:
> Obscurity is good. If they can't see what's happening, they can't do a
> thing about it. The problem is making it obscure. The client computer has
> access to all code necessary. OK, it's in assembler, but the code is there.
> And they can intercept any nettrafic they want.
> The only ways to make sure they can't crack it is:
> a) Don't communicate with the client. Don't have any code on the client.
> But that would also mean no cheat detection. b) Make sure they can't access
> your nettrafic and code. But there is always a way arround this. c)
> Infinite possibilities. Have the verification process change each and every
> time. The netcode layout change each and every time. The encryption change
> each and every time. Sure they can hack one method, but it won't do them
> any good, because the next time will be different.
> But creating an infinite ammount of possibilities is kinda hard (or even
> impossible).
>
> I think PunkBuster 'pulled the plug' because of 2 reasons. First of all,
> they really needed Valve to get their product to 100% efficiency.
> The other reason is the hacks. PB got hacked, and they can't do a thing
> about it. Sure, they can release a patch. But that will be hacked again.
> And again, and again, and...
> It's not something I would want to do without getting any reward (other
> then some happy admins and unhappy cheaters).
>
> Jeroen "ShadowLord" Bogers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> GamePoint Half-Life Admin
> http://www.gamepoint.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oscar Olsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:27 AM
> Subject: SV: 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.
> >
> > That's the whole point. Security by oscurity has never been a good idea.
> >
> > //Oscar
--
What, were you expecting something witty?
