A programme to ensure we are all playing the same game.

[Derrick]

I mean, how do you work around a program that doesn't allow any other program to exist other then its own? (the moment you close it, it stops running and your connection to UOSA wont be valid anymore).

Proxy

Sure you could try and feed it different info, but we can check for alterations and provide live lists of allowed exe's and hash's through remote means and verify them by sending them back to the origin for verification.

But the hashing is done on the client no? I don't really want to get into an extended discussion about cryptography, but I just don't see how it'd be legitimately enforcable.

Its just that, since UOSA is just a free shard; it seems a bit much that someone would go all the way to overcome such a system, no?

I don't know, all the information required to overcome it would be present in the code released to the public. I think if the motivation to create it is there, the motivation to overcome it would be equally present.

I'm not sure if part of the suggestion includes limiting things like ventrillo as well, but if so for example, the player could just run vent on a seperate box at their location.

[testuseraccount]

You can check for altered internet/proxy settings in windows, easy enough (thats the good part about being present on the user's frontend): If someone is using a proxy or vpn or something weird, program gives them a blue screen (or just closes with a message)

I was just thinking just a hashing of exe's for the whilelist for basic comparison (so you can allow different variants of UO.exe to be run) not into cyrptography at all myself! Its much too silly.

Released to the public? No way (is razor open source?). It would have to be this shard specific to keep things unique.

Yes, people can run stuff on a seperate box, but the idea is to let real life variables intervene (if they can) in order to stem that behaviour. It is much too easy to hide bad behaviour in the virtual world...

PS: I don't think my motivation is "normal" (but it sure is fun)

[Derrick]

It's an interesting idea, but I just think it punishes the innocent, while providing only a false sence of security, and a more complex set of scenarios for rule enforcement.

There's no way to prevent another piece of hardware as acting as a provy. A router is a proxy, you just set your gateway to whichever device you want to filter your packets for you. I don't want to dive to deep into the details of why this could be more easily circumvented than implemented, but you can't hide secrets in a client and expect them to remain secret :/

[Alex21]

You can check for altered internet/proxy settings in windows, easy enough (thats the good part about being present on the user's frontend): If someone is using a proxy or vpn or something weird, program gives them a blue screen (or just closes with a message)

I was just thinking just a hashing of exe's for the whilelist for basic comparison (so you can allow different variants of UO.exe to be run) not into cyrptography at all myself! Its much too silly.

Released to the public? No way (is razor open source?). It would have to be this shard specific to keep things unique.

Yes, people can run stuff on a seperate box, but the idea is to let real life variables intervene (if they can) in order to stem that behaviour. It is much too easy to hide bad behaviour in the virtual world...

PS: I don't think my motivation is "normal" (but it sure is fun)

It would honestly take maybe a month for someone with limited experience in the reverse engineering of software to overcome your suggested program.

[testuseraccount]

A month is alot of work, especially when theres no money to be made from your actions.

Most people would just lose interest and move on to another shard (as they always threaten and do) instead of bothering, if they really felt like that (why would it be so important to them?).

By your logic, there is no reason why people dont all use custom made programs to hack runUO itself or to be running fully automated bot clients on UOSA at the moment.

And to be honest, if people saw what the game was like that way and actually played it, they would turn away and report others offering it to them pretty quick (amongst the old players). I know this for a fact, why do you think there is such a hardcore anti-macro culture (its cause they want this deep down). Chumbucket and the like can attest to this!

If anything, we can depend on the community to keep this thing together, and to report most bad behaviour, and even then! With the clamping down on afk actions completely, GM's will have an entirely easier time dealing and identifying people who do because there will be no "grey" area or situations anymore; and if someone doesn't respond to text immediately, you just jail them... Nuff' said.

Wait, what? Why is a proxy server a problem Derrick? If this program is a pre-requisite for being connected to UOSA, it will use the same connection anyways, which means it will be using the proxy as well :S

It will be the same as not having one at all, since you cant set a custom proxy for the UO client anyways (won't be able to split the connections).

[Alex21]

A month is alot of work, especially when theres no money to be made from your actions.

Most people would just lose interest and move on to another shard (as they always threaten and do) instead of bothering, if they really felt like that (why would it be so important to them?).

By your logic, there is no reason why people dont all use custom made programs to hack runUO itself or to be running fully automated bot clients on UOSA at the moment.

And to be honest, if people saw what the game was like that way and actually played it, they would turn away and report others offering it to them pretty quick (amongst the old players). I know this for a fact, why do you think there is such a hardcore anti-macro culture (its cause they want this deep down). Chumbucket and the like can attest to this!

If anything, we can depend on the community to keep this thing together, and to report most bad behaviour, and even then! With the clamping down on afk actions completely, GM's will have an entirely easier time dealing and identifying people who do because there will be no "grey" area or situations anymore; and if someone doesn't respond to text immediately, you just jail them... Nuff' said.

Wait, what? Why is a proxy server a problem Derrick? If this program is a pre-requisite for being connected to UOSA, it will use the same connection anyways, which means it will be using the proxy as well :S

It will be the same as not having one at all, since you cant set a custom proxy for the UO client anyways (won't be able to split the connections).

I could personally probably do it in a week, it would just be a matter of packet sniffing to get a general idea of how it is authenticating the connection with the server, then I would know what I am looking for in the assembly to see the code you use to do the authentication. Then I simply have to make myself a quick little program to emulate your authentication and I am done.

[testuseraccount]

Thats assuming I don't know thats possible already alex...

I have quite a bit of experience reverse engineering stuff myself, so I know what I would do as well.

You are also assuming that this program wont be updated or changed or any other added security measures, which if you want to keep distributing your nice little program; will eventually come to light and be made redundant (the bit about adapting it).

And i doubt it would take a week unless you have *nothing* better to do.

Even still, would only take a day or a few minutes to undo your work, then you will have to go and update it again and so; all this over something which in essence has no bearing or meaning on your life.

Like I said, those kind of people do it for the money, inevitably; and thus would not care nor play on UOSA already if they did not have it fully hacked and controlled at the time of writing this message.

Besides, since windows clamped down on raw sockets, its become really hard to packet sniff without a virtual adapter, like used on wireshark; we can detect for that device as well.

[Alex21]

Thats assuming I don't know thats possible already alex...

I have quite a bit of experience reverse engineering stuff myself, so I know what I would do as well.

You are also assuming that this program wont be updated or changed or any other added security measures, which if you want to keep distributing your nice little program; will eventually come to light and be made redundant (the bit about adapting it).

And i doubt it would take a week unless you have *nothing* better to do.

Even still, would only take a day or a few minutes to undo your work, then you will have to go and update it again and so; all this over something which in essence has no bearing or meaning on your life.

Like I said, those kind of people do it for the money, inevitably; and thus would not care nor play on UOSA already if they did not have it fully hacked and controlled at the time of writing this message.

Razor has been doing that for years, every time client encryption changed they simply updated razor, EA didn't manage to ban it, so neither will this shard or any shard you do this on. It is kind of lame that we are arguing over something that will never happen on this server.

[testuseraccount]

I find it rediculous your comparing main-line UO with UOSA, there was money to be made there, there is no money to be made here, so theres no reason to keep updating it (a program for people to work around the proposed one).

You just don't understand the psychology, the common possibility that would happen here is some "spoilt brat" makes a program and tries to keep it updated, but gets bored after a few months....

Or worst case scenario, we get some russian guy Those are a tough nut to crack, but I have yet to meet a single russian on this server

FYI, I don't think it is a false sense of security at all, if anything its too secure and that why it "punishes" the innocent. But you do understand that people would chose to play this era/shard under such clearly outlined circumstances and by doing so they would be taking responsibility for their own actions. Thus there is no "innocent" or "guilty" the moment they did that, just their choice, whatever side-effects were clearly known from the start (It would be our responsibility to make sure that the side-effects were clearly communicated).

[testuseraccount]

"It is kind of lame that we are arguing over something that will never happen on this server."

Derrick has never once said that it would not make it in, that is you seeing what you want to see. What he is clearly stating is factual situational circumstances which may undo the effort perscribed in this thread.

Situational circumstances which I claim will not occur.

[Kaivan]

"It is kind of lame that we are arguing over something that will never happen on this server."

Derrick has never once said that it would not make it in, that is you seeing what you want to see. What he is clearly stating is factual situational circumstances which may undo the effort perscribed in this thread.

Situational circumstances which I claim will not occur.

He's stated in more than one way that this isn't a practical solution and thus isn't worth implementing. He's also said directly to me that this would never happen. However, just so we're clear on exactly what he's said about implementing this:

It's an interesting idea, but I just think it punishes the innocent, while providing only a false sence of security, and a more complex set of scenarios for rule enforcement.

To address the original proposal: I don't belive this is possible, nor do I believe anyone would volunteer to play on Second Age given these requirements. A lot of effort could go into writing a program like this, but once public it'd take much less effort to write some alternative software to get around these requirements.

These are clear cut statements on the issue that cite the impracticality of its implementation and the fact that it won't happen as a result.

[testuseraccount]

So, is he saying this would never happen due to the lack of practicality of it, outlined by the reasons or because he never would allow it on principle?

The two are completely different.

I know it is practical; I just don't know if this resistance to that point in general is blind and erred in its thinking.

This CAN be done, and be done with a level of satisfaction to match the desired effect, how is that not practical?

[Kaivan]

So, is he saying this would never happen due to the lack of practicality of it, outlined by the reasons or because he never would allow it on principle?

The two are completely different.

I know it is practical; I just don't know if this resistance to that point in general is blind and erred in its thinking.

This CAN be done, and be done with a level of satisfaction to match the desired effect, how is that not practical?

He's said, quite clearly, that it won't happen as a matter of practicality. The principle of the matter is entirely separate but of equal concern, however he has not made a statement on that one way or the other, simply pointed out that it is not practical to do so.

Also, this absolutely is impractical. Just because such a system can be implemented doesn't mean that anyone would accept the conditions of it, hence the impracticality of such a system. In fact, the very idea of the restrictions themselves are what makes this entirely impractical, due to how unreasonable the restrictions are.

[testuseraccount]

Whats more unreasonable? Allowing and justifying cheating because of convienence and non-productive desire, or simple, pure enjoyment?

[Kaivan]

The premise that access to any unapproved application is tantamount to cheating is patently absurd. That premise is the core of your argument, and that unreasonable position is exactly why no one would accept such conditions as the ones expected by this program.