UL/DL Ratios in tag
Moderator: Moderators
UL/DL Ratios in tag
Hello !
Also included tag: UL/DL ratios
I now it is quite simple to cheat it but at least it's a problem for the average user (aprox. 40%) where are also cheaters....
It's also quite simple to implement it.
Also included tag: UL/DL ratios
I now it is quite simple to cheat it but at least it's a problem for the average user (aprox. 40%) where are also cheaters....
It's also quite simple to implement it.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
Well then let's disable completly the tags... then we will save some bytes and have also no HUB/Slots ratios and others...GargoyleMT wrote:Tell me, do any of the cheaters you're referring to cheat on their tag?
If so, what's the upshot of doing all of this, other than adding a few more bytes for a hub to broadcast?
I don't say that it's a perfect protection (if it exist !) but at least it's one more payne for cheaters who don't now (yet) to fake their tags...
There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
drama++;Anticheat wrote:Well then let's disable completly the tags... then we will save some bytes and have also no HUB/Slots ratios and others...
This is not an argument in favor of including ratios in the tag.Anticheat wrote:I don't say that it's a perfect protection (if it exist !) but at least it's one more payne for cheaters who don't now (yet) to fake their tags...
Discussion stopped, so the thread remains where it is at.Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.
Yes, I agree. Tags should be removed.Anticheat wrote:Well then let's disable completly the tags...
I participated in that thread; it's not dumb. Your idea, by quite stark contrast, is very dumb.Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.
Cool down ))cologic wrote:I participated in that thread; it's not dumb. Your idea, by quite stark contrast, is very dumb.Anticheat wrote:There was in the past a thread about a ratings server (protocol alley).... it's seem to be abandonated.
If the idea with the rating server is so bright why is not yet implemented in the latest version of DC++ ?
Erm, what gave you the impression of excitement or such from which one might cool down?
Anyway.
It hasn't been implemented because people never fully agreed it'd be desireable (it's not impervious to being gamed, it disproportionaly promotes shares dominated by popular files where one might argue DC benefits more with more eclectic ones, and there are the inevitable privacy issues), people never sufficiently fleshed out its details, and because, well, no one to my knowledge has bothered writing the code for it.
Anyway.
It hasn't been implemented because people never fully agreed it'd be desireable (it's not impervious to being gamed, it disproportionaly promotes shares dominated by popular files where one might argue DC benefits more with more eclectic ones, and there are the inevitable privacy issues), people never sufficiently fleshed out its details, and because, well, no one to my knowledge has bothered writing the code for it.
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 2003-12-12 14:28
- Location: FL,USA
- Contact:
people who fake there tag make me sick.. hmm.
i think adding this would be foolish for resons previusly mentioned. but i think that the suggestion isnt bad.. i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea. the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.
let me restate that in a better way because i dont mean to offend.. the tag idea wasnt bad if its origional purpose was to see how many people where using DC++(no one would fake, why would they) , but if the idea was for upholding server rules that aspect was a bad idea. Not that i dont feel hub owners should be able to pick and choose users as the service they render i feel gives them that option. In a perfect world "Tags" would be awsome but as long as Americans(we are bastards[well most]<maybee just me >) can they will.
Please note the names in this message have not been changed to protect the guilty, none of the above is to imply that i condone or participate in the faking of tags.
Ok yes i do. and yes anyone(thats about 3 people... ok 2) who uses idc has "Fake" tags.. but i would like to mention that they are 'faked' up to par as what the current version of DC++ did at the time(when it was made).. ie if it says 3 hubs the user is on 3 hubs and so on.. this though means little being uploads dont work lol. but thats not the point.. the point is im getting sick of reading this message, and yes its 5 am an im dilutional(if you correct my spelling there will be repercutions)
HOF here we come. booya.
Tim-
i think adding this would be foolish for resons previusly mentioned. but i think that the suggestion isnt bad.. i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea. the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.
let me restate that in a better way because i dont mean to offend.. the tag idea wasnt bad if its origional purpose was to see how many people where using DC++(no one would fake, why would they) , but if the idea was for upholding server rules that aspect was a bad idea. Not that i dont feel hub owners should be able to pick and choose users as the service they render i feel gives them that option. In a perfect world "Tags" would be awsome but as long as Americans(we are bastards[well most]<maybee just me >) can they will.
Please note the names in this message have not been changed to protect the guilty, none of the above is to imply that i condone or participate in the faking of tags.
Ok yes i do. and yes anyone(thats about 3 people... ok 2) who uses idc has "Fake" tags.. but i would like to mention that they are 'faked' up to par as what the current version of DC++ did at the time(when it was made).. ie if it says 3 hubs the user is on 3 hubs and so on.. this though means little being uploads dont work lol. but thats not the point.. the point is im getting sick of reading this message, and yes its 5 am an im dilutional(if you correct my spelling there will be repercutions)
HOF here we come. booya.
Tim-
I agree, but see my comment about the original tag idea.IntraDream wrote:i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea.
You should know better than this, having written a client.IntraDream wrote:the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.
NMDC was closed source.
$Lock and $Pk were failed attempts at client-authentication from a closed-source client.
It's been tried.
It failed.
Miserably.
Can people finally stop pretending this has any chance of working?
It will fail.
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 2003-12-12 14:28
- Location: FL,USA
- Contact:
even if noone ever broke the lock/key system it would have been faked because before i knew of any better clients i used to make dc connect through a homemade proxy and mess with the un'encrypted' messages.cologic wrote:I agree, but see my comment about the original tag idea.IntraDream wrote:i think its about as bad as the origional "tag" idea.You should know better than this, having written a client.IntraDream wrote:the fact is unless arnet makes his own network closed source with some crazy ass encrypted protocol people will fake no matter what information is sent.
NMDC was closed source.
$Lock and $Pk were failed attempts at client-authentication from a closed-source client.
It's been tried.
It failed.
Miserably.
Can people finally stop pretending this has any chance of working?
It will fail.
Yes i think this could work. the latest kazaa(im sick from mentioning it) protocol i beleave is encrypted and you know how many kazaa clients there are.. to my knowledge 1 (i dont count K-Lite because its just hexedit tricks) . am i saying that this is necisarly all you need for a system of non fakers.. nope look at kazza's user ratings that was hacked in a day. my point is i was not refering to some lame lock/key system . and you could write a network that wasnt cracked.. and if you made your clientside app secure enough you could have a network of non-fake users.. anything is posible.
Tim-
Yes, DC's being largely unencrypted probably made such faking-proxies easier. It didn't neccessarily help much in decoding the Lock/Pk algorithm though, which was still necessary to produce an independent client.IntraDream wrote:even if noone ever broke the lock/key system it would have been faked because before i knew of any better clients i used to make dc connect through a homemade proxy and mess with the un'encrypted' messages.
There's also MLdonkey, giFT-FastTrack, and Poisoned.IntraDream wrote:Yes i think this could work. the latest kazaa(im sick from mentioning it) protocol i beleave is encrypted and you know how many kazaa clients there are.. to my knowledge 1 (i dont count K-Lite because its just hexedit tricks) .
Another good example of my point.IntraDream wrote:nope look at kazza's user ratings that was hacked in a day.
You've not demonstrated this.IntraDream wrote:my point is i was not refering to some lame lock/key system . and you could write a network that wasnt cracked.. and if you made your clientside app secure enough you could have a network of non-fake users.. anything is posible.