User panel stuff on forum
  106 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page
NoName Quake League
2007-02-13, 16:24
Member
151 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
You are forced to play on ezQ/FQ/mqwcl because other players want be sure you dont use dirty cheats like glowing backpack's.

Security module is some kind of digital signature. If your client or one of protected resources was modified ('pain sound' for example) other players will be noticed about it.

It's needed due to leagues rules - they dont allow you to play with modified player.mdl, backpack.mdl, damage.wav, etc. If you have a better idea for cheats-protection feel free to describe it here.
kill me now and burn my soul
2007-02-13, 22:31
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
disconnect wrote:
You are forced to play on ezQ/FQ/mqwcl because other players want be sure you dont use dirty cheats like glowing backpack's.

Running Ezquake, Fuhquake or MQWCL does not prevent me from cheating.

disconnect wrote:
Security module is some kind of digital signature. If your client or one of protected resources was modified ('pain sound' for example) other players will be noticed about it.

Digital signatures do not work when you give the secret to everyone.

disconnect wrote:
It's needed due to leagues rules - they dont allow you to play with modified player.mdl, backpack.mdl, damage.wav, etc.

No, technically, most rules don't allow me to play unless I can find the "secret" you give to me. Some further pose the restriction (in theory) that I must use a specific piece of software.

I don't think any rules actually say that I can't modify the Quake models.

disconnect wrote:
If you have a better idea for cheats-protection feel free to describe it here.

If you want to know more about better ideas, feel free to read this thread instead of saying "I got bored and stopped reading at the first page".
2007-02-21, 04:45
Member
116 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
Which files are you not allowed to modify?
2007-02-21, 12:02
Member
9 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Just read all this, not a regular on here, got pasted the link. I know Bigfoot quite well and am sure he doesnt want to cheat or harm the qw community.
I do agree with him+bandog tho, im not so sure that having a security module which doesnt really do anything (from what ive read here), and yet still excludes certain players from entering tourneys because of compatability, isnt such a good idea.

legs
2007-02-21, 12:49
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
bigfoot wrote:
Faustov wrote:
Bigfoot says equake devs can do better.

Yeah, they can. But they refuse to.

That's bullshit.
2007-02-21, 13:47
Member
1754 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I agree on skip the security module blaha stuff
but for some reason I get the feeling that will never happen in the .eu community
and saying shit about the ezquake-developers here is bure bs, there's noone right now doing more for quakeworld than these guys period

bandog wrote:
how about better netcode

a(fkn)greed
2007-02-22, 01:02
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
JohnNy_cz wrote:
bigfoot wrote:
Faustov wrote:
Bigfoot says equake devs can do better.

Yeah, they can. But they refuse to.

That's bullshit.

rm *security*

It's better. But you refuse to do it.
2007-02-22, 11:09
Member
2259 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
whats rm security ?
2007-02-22, 13:58
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
No, bigfoot, you can't use the fact that the current linux security module is poor as an argument for defending your opinion that the basic idea of security modules is wrong. I ask you to stop using such rhetorical methods.
Sassa: rm
2007-02-23, 01:29
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
JohnNy_cz wrote:
No, bigfoot, you can't use the fact that the current linux security module is poor as an argument for defending your opinion that the basic idea of security modules is wrong.

Besides being bullshit, that's also entirely besides the fact.

The current Linux "security" module is poor. The current Windows "security" module is poor.

The Windows "security" module was cracked by someone else (OMG, yes, there's TWO persons out there who can do such a thing! OMG OMG!).

Future Linux and Windows "security" modules will be poor, furthermore they'll also easily be cracked, as I explained to you on IRC.

JohnNy_cz wrote:
I ask you to stop using such rhetorical methods.

I ask you to stop trying to twist facts and spew bullshit.
2007-02-23, 07:51
Member
1099 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
bigfoot wrote:
(OMG, yes, there's TWO persons out there who can do such a thing! OMG OMG!).

You should mate and make a baby.
2007-02-23, 15:00
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
Spirit wrote:
bigfoot wrote:
(OMG, yes, there's TWO persons out there who can do such a thing! OMG OMG!).

You should mate and make a baby.

If I had to have a baby with everyone who could crack the "security" module, Guinness would have to add an entry for most children fathered by the same person.
2007-02-23, 15:03
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Bigfoot: No. That the current implementation is poor doesn't imply that the whole principle is wrong.
2007-02-24, 00:28
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
JohnNy_cz wrote:
Bigfoot: No. That the current implementation is poor doesn't imply that the whole principle is wrong.

It doesn't prove the fact wrong either. Just because a shit smells like shit doesn't mean it doesn't also tastes like shit.

In other words, what the fuck are you trying to say and how does it relate to anything I said? And where the fuck did I "use the fact that the current linux security module is poor as an argument for defending your opinion that the basic idea of security modules is wrong."?

Yes, it's stupidly simple to crack the hard way, it's even simpler to crack the easy way. This doesn't change the fact that what you're trying to do can't be done, though.

It doesn't change the fact either that what you're trying to do has negative sides.

Thus, rm *security* is the best thing you can do. You just refuse to.
2007-02-24, 10:21
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Finally you agreed with what I said.
2007-02-24, 14:12
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
JohnNy_cz wrote:
Finally you agreed with what I said.

... if you say so...

No, I don't agree with what you imply.
  106 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page