Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good

About RipperFox

  • Rank
  1. What has this to do with the fact that every client can just run any action on the server? Pure client side cheats such radar, aimbots, etc. aren't even the main problem. The pure evil is the possibility to run any function on the server itself and on other clients. Seems the server doesn't check any external input at all - why can a client spawn things and make explode at all. I thought custom missions run at the server, why are there absolute no sanity checks about the data a client sends? It's technically no bigger problem to check for speedhacks, rouge teleports, etc. if the server would verify the data from the clients. Comments from the devs like 'security is to be added later' don't make me feel comportable at all - that's the opposite what is teached not only since yesterday.. An other game example - Counter Strike: The folks at Valve even filter the position data of enemies to be sent to a client to protect against radar hacks. Thats because every piece of software at the client can be compromised and is not to be trusted. I really hope the devs start implementing security better now than later. 73, Ripper
  2. By "competition" I ment "other multiplayer games with cheat protection".. I guess the only real way to fight cheats is a fast patch cycle. It has to be so that that offsets change frequently, patterns don't match to easy and multiple guard variables trap a cheater after some time. Guess why Valve's VAC doesn't kickban cheaters immediately - they have to think they're safe, just to be banned some time later. Ahh.. I forgot the whole Player-ID/BE-ID system seems breakable also (from what I hear from "the other side").. Maybe $able could at least bring in some method to check if a debugger is attached and make BE behave different if this is the case. Arma (2, OA, etc) could be one of the most outstanding multiplayer games - But I guess BI's focus lies somewhere else.. (I guess there no cheaters on VBS :) Regards, Ripper
  3. Ok, seems you're right: Looks like the scripting functions can not harm an installation when they work as intended. Doesn't solve the problem what happens when something doesn't work as exprected, right? Maybe BattleEye devs should look at the competition on how it's done without admin rights for the full app?
  4. Um.. can you please put 1 and 1 together yourself? http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1711748&postcount=37 Running an app, which heavily processes user input unnecessarily as Administrator (hey.. why not TrustedInstaller or SYSTEM) is simply wrong. And: If there was an example to exploit anying, the forums would be the last way to share that with bis, right? Also, you seem to be unaware how antivirus programs work :) Have fun anyway..
  5. Um.. ever heard of malformed JPEGs, Bitmaps and such which targeted a flaw in Windows GDI imaging routines to run malicious code? Didn't you get that neat little LNK-dilemma, where a little icon could f*ck your Box without even clicking it? I'm quite sure you would have said "they are just links with icons - how should they do damage?" Do you guarantee that there are no buffer-overflows, etc in Arma? You seem to be a professional - heck.. The Unix, Windows and all other IT guys must be terrible wrong with the user-separation model that exists in all modern OS.. And memory-protection, et. all - totaly useless, right? Running an App as Administrator is NOT the right way.. Regards, Ripper
  6. Umm why the heck didn't you do it "THE RIGHT WAY" then? "Right" would be the way PunkBuster did it (run anticheat as extra service) or take a look at Valve's VAC. The problem ist: Since the game allows scripting, a malicious script exploiting the game engine could not only kill the user's profile but the whole windows installation. (Ever heard of some nice Quake2-mod-viruses?) Also: Running the game under administrator-account makes it using the wrong userprofile, etc. As an IT professional I have to say: You're doing it wrong! Just take a look at the competitors about how it's done better.. Regards, Ripper
  7. RipperFox

    ARMA 2 OA 1.52 :Bugs

    Memory leaks in OA? I hate it that Arma 2 (incl. OA) a) scrubs on the disk like crazy (Filesystem Cache anyone - got 12 GB of RAM - why are Filestream options set to "no cache"??***) b) if it crashes (too often) there's not enough output for debugging (what call tried malloc above?) Greets Ripper *** See thread in Arma2 General which recommends a f***** Ramdisk. That wouldnt be necessary if done right in the first place..
  8. Why the hell does Sprocket use that fake-tool, which is only quite bad working FTP-client for downloading? And another WTF - 50 users are maximun on each FTP? Means no more than 150 people can donwload simultaniously worldwide?? And If I guess: Those three servers are connected to the net with no more than 100 Mbit/s - that makes 2 Mbit/s max-DL speed for anyone, right? But hey, I'm NOT reaching 2Mbit/s anyhow - there's always some slack.. So, dear SprocketiDEA: Ever heard of such a neat thing called "BitTorrent"? I heard, some small company called Blizzard, among some others, use that to spread their content fast and reliable. Download speed here sucks and I don't think the download finishes until the 29th! If I had known this before, I might have bought the game on Steam.. :confused: Greets Ripper PS: Those bad warez monkeys already can pick up a well trojanized version at the specific sites :icon_rolleyes: - I hope BI at least boots their asses out of multiplayer..
  9. Hi there! I'm watching the performance threads and have to note that many people have >4 GB RAM and some 64 bit OS nowadays. I also notice that arma2.exe scratches on my HDD like crayz when loading world elements/textures when moving around.. However: - I know, as a 32-bit process it's not possible to address more than 2 GB (yeh, w/o tricks - actually I'm aware of PAE too..). - I use the " -maxmem=2047" startup-parameter, but I haven't seen arma2.exe using more than ~1,2 GB in total in the taskmanager. (Looks odd - my HDDs scratch like wild loading textures and stuff while I got so much mem free..) So: - Why isn't there a 64bit executable which can actually use more than 2 GB? - Why does the current exe use so little memory? (hell.. firefox.exe and wow.exe make a better use of their 2GB address space here :) Greets RipperFox