We should make a forum especially for these types of posts. So all the little scared shits can go there and piss all over each other as they scare each other to death with horror stories of GMs.
lol ...this thread makes me want to kill halflings....in large quantities.
Karana is a marked server.
Moderator: MacroQuest Developers
LOL! you guys are too f*cking much. I just read this whole goddam thread for the 1st time. Sorry for my potty mouth.
I want to add a few things.
a.) I do know for certain that part of the function of the client issuing a /report is that the last x lines of text are recorded into a queue that only the GMs (VI employees) have access to.
b.) As somebody else said, MQSEQ is incorrect that they need some type of TCP or UDP server. Both the eq client and eq server are free to send requests to each other using the eq protocol (which I am behind on since I haven’t worked on EthernalQuest in years). Therefore, it's theoretically very possible for GMs to request this data, I doubt they would do it without some reason.
c.) From a paranoid standpoint, it's possible for the EQ client to look for crap in it's own memory space that looks like macroquest and create a flag. I could see this being done if VI wanted to spend some money putting yet another anit-hacking piece of code in the works. Because I don't yet know fully enough the scope of MQs usage and how much attention it's gotten from VI, I can't guess accurately at the possibility of this. Doesn't look very strong tho (but maybe %20).
d.) Before Brad bailed, there was as tendency to collect cheating data over a period of time and then do bannings all at once (as with one of the earlier tools that let you run super fast, etc). He's gone and my observation is less paranoia on VI's behalf about cheaters and "overpowering players" (especially since DAoC) while they are still trying to maintain their policies.
e.) I do agree that VI has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the game to prevent devoted players who followed more strict guidelines from leaving. This is the big claim they make about why they don't want anybody to have tools that would create an unfair advantage. They probably know the effect of this better than I if they analyze their trends well enough (subscriber and usage populations relative to the release of new hacking programs) but I seriously doubt there's ever been any meaningful impact on their subscriber base. To the contrary, I suspect that poor customer service has cost them over 100 times the losses than that of some straight player feeling cheated because they raised 3 trade skills to 250 over a 2 years and some MQ bozo did it in 2 days.
f.) Somebody mentioned something about running eq in debug mode… I forget who. I tried this years ago and found that I couldn’t break in because they used a catch all somewhere, i.e.,
Edit: here where I use the catch(...) I literally mean "..." (without the quotes) otherwise known as an elipse.
g.) I’m no lawyer but depending on what the EQ license says, they may actually be in the clear to send data relating to the EQ process. If I remember reading the press release/patch message/whatever on the reversal of the snooping decision the words were “monitoring processes and files” that they promised not to do. So I believe they are legally and ethically in the clear to monitor memory in their own process space. Like a lot of other people have said, implementing stuff like this costs money. Not a great deal, but at least a fairly considerable amount. Then it takes time to analyze the logs, etc. I know that they do this to some degree and have some things automated to the point where they just get a flag and it’s a positive violation, but this is for old cheats I would suspect and new code has to be written for new cheats/hacks, etc.
h.) I would like to see more testing with $gm. It’s theoretically possible for a GM to be “present” in the zone and the eq server not send any entity data for that user (the GM). Now have they done it this way I don’t know. Best way to find out is log packets and claim that your friend is KSing you and have them come observe him. Then have your friend not KS you while the GM/guide watches until the GM claims that he/she hasn’t witnessed him KS you. Then you know that the GM was present. Analyze the logs and I bet we’ll have a solid answer. This assumes of course that you do /who and don’t see the GM in the zone. In other words do you not see them in the /who list because they aren’t in the list or because there’s some flag that tells the client not to show it.
i.) The disconnects described at the beginning of this post could also be related to a bug in MQ (memory leak, buffer over-run, etc) that just caused something to crash and/or otherwise get disconnected. Dunno…
j.) Wrapping your cable modem/dsl modem in tin foil and then grounding the tin foil can actually help you achieve higher connection speeds and prevent disconnects from electrical noise. However, if you do this don’t plug up your air vents or you run the risk of overheating the thing.
k.) I like the idea of not writing to an EQ window object if possible. Can we still issue commands from the EQ terminal and have them get stripped out by MQ I wonder so that they don’t appear in EQ’s normal memory space (it’s normal structs, etc).
l.) ap50: Nice tits!
m.) On to the worry about controlling bots and /tell message being monitored. I do highly recommend that such “commands” be easily configurable and changed regularly. Also that they be weaved into the conversation as others have said. For instance “<<a decaying skeleton>> incoming!!” would be a “command” to assist and run auto attack macro. Any sentence with the word “heal” in it in group chat would be a “command” for the cleric to heal, etc, etc.
n.) Random factor: I think that a simulated human random factor would be a very good thing to implement for the safety of MQ users. It isn’t very hard to do analysis and find that a certain string of actions happens on a perfectly accurate time table. For macros to have some randomness in the delay between the event and reaction and also between sequential commands would IMO be a good thing. If I ever finish this java add on that’s one thing I hope to make a neato class for.
I know it’s funny when noobs are paranoid, but I do think that this is a good conversation to maintain. As somebody else said loosing an account with 4 60+ characters doesn’t sound so appealing.
Sorry for the long post, I had to respond to a lot of things in the 1st 5 pages.
I want to add a few things.
a.) I do know for certain that part of the function of the client issuing a /report is that the last x lines of text are recorded into a queue that only the GMs (VI employees) have access to.
b.) As somebody else said, MQSEQ is incorrect that they need some type of TCP or UDP server. Both the eq client and eq server are free to send requests to each other using the eq protocol (which I am behind on since I haven’t worked on EthernalQuest in years). Therefore, it's theoretically very possible for GMs to request this data, I doubt they would do it without some reason.
c.) From a paranoid standpoint, it's possible for the EQ client to look for crap in it's own memory space that looks like macroquest and create a flag. I could see this being done if VI wanted to spend some money putting yet another anit-hacking piece of code in the works. Because I don't yet know fully enough the scope of MQs usage and how much attention it's gotten from VI, I can't guess accurately at the possibility of this. Doesn't look very strong tho (but maybe %20).
d.) Before Brad bailed, there was as tendency to collect cheating data over a period of time and then do bannings all at once (as with one of the earlier tools that let you run super fast, etc). He's gone and my observation is less paranoia on VI's behalf about cheaters and "overpowering players" (especially since DAoC) while they are still trying to maintain their policies.
e.) I do agree that VI has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the game to prevent devoted players who followed more strict guidelines from leaving. This is the big claim they make about why they don't want anybody to have tools that would create an unfair advantage. They probably know the effect of this better than I if they analyze their trends well enough (subscriber and usage populations relative to the release of new hacking programs) but I seriously doubt there's ever been any meaningful impact on their subscriber base. To the contrary, I suspect that poor customer service has cost them over 100 times the losses than that of some straight player feeling cheated because they raised 3 trade skills to 250 over a 2 years and some MQ bozo did it in 2 days.
f.) Somebody mentioned something about running eq in debug mode… I forget who. I tried this years ago and found that I couldn’t break in because they used a catch all somewhere, i.e.,
Code: Select all
void somewhereNearEntryPoint()
try {
….
// Lots of stuff…
}
catch(…)
{
// assume the game crashed and exit to windows.
}
g.) I’m no lawyer but depending on what the EQ license says, they may actually be in the clear to send data relating to the EQ process. If I remember reading the press release/patch message/whatever on the reversal of the snooping decision the words were “monitoring processes and files” that they promised not to do. So I believe they are legally and ethically in the clear to monitor memory in their own process space. Like a lot of other people have said, implementing stuff like this costs money. Not a great deal, but at least a fairly considerable amount. Then it takes time to analyze the logs, etc. I know that they do this to some degree and have some things automated to the point where they just get a flag and it’s a positive violation, but this is for old cheats I would suspect and new code has to be written for new cheats/hacks, etc.
h.) I would like to see more testing with $gm. It’s theoretically possible for a GM to be “present” in the zone and the eq server not send any entity data for that user (the GM). Now have they done it this way I don’t know. Best way to find out is log packets and claim that your friend is KSing you and have them come observe him. Then have your friend not KS you while the GM/guide watches until the GM claims that he/she hasn’t witnessed him KS you. Then you know that the GM was present. Analyze the logs and I bet we’ll have a solid answer. This assumes of course that you do /who and don’t see the GM in the zone. In other words do you not see them in the /who list because they aren’t in the list or because there’s some flag that tells the client not to show it.
i.) The disconnects described at the beginning of this post could also be related to a bug in MQ (memory leak, buffer over-run, etc) that just caused something to crash and/or otherwise get disconnected. Dunno…
j.) Wrapping your cable modem/dsl modem in tin foil and then grounding the tin foil can actually help you achieve higher connection speeds and prevent disconnects from electrical noise. However, if you do this don’t plug up your air vents or you run the risk of overheating the thing.
k.) I like the idea of not writing to an EQ window object if possible. Can we still issue commands from the EQ terminal and have them get stripped out by MQ I wonder so that they don’t appear in EQ’s normal memory space (it’s normal structs, etc).
l.) ap50: Nice tits!
m.) On to the worry about controlling bots and /tell message being monitored. I do highly recommend that such “commands” be easily configurable and changed regularly. Also that they be weaved into the conversation as others have said. For instance “<<a decaying skeleton>> incoming!!” would be a “command” to assist and run auto attack macro. Any sentence with the word “heal” in it in group chat would be a “command” for the cleric to heal, etc, etc.
n.) Random factor: I think that a simulated human random factor would be a very good thing to implement for the safety of MQ users. It isn’t very hard to do analysis and find that a certain string of actions happens on a perfectly accurate time table. For macros to have some randomness in the delay between the event and reaction and also between sequential commands would IMO be a good thing. If I ever finish this java add on that’s one thing I hope to make a neato class for.
I know it’s funny when noobs are paranoid, but I do think that this is a good conversation to maintain. As somebody else said loosing an account with 4 60+ characters doesn’t sound so appealing.
Sorry for the long post, I had to respond to a lot of things in the 1st 5 pages.
Last edited by Xith on Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Xith
Sorry for bumping an old post, but actually it is...insanitywiz wrote:It's not illegal for them to monitor anything that gets sent to their servers, it is illegal for them to monitor anything not involving their game on your system. They don't do that.
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986:
Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or
electronic communications prohibited
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter
any person who -
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or
procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept,
any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
and finally... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
There's also a civil fine per violation.
On Legal Matters
Wildcat,
Webster's dictionary defines the word intercept when applied to communications as "to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly". Note that information sent to Verant's servers cannot be "intercepted" by Verant as they are the intended reciever. If it were illegal to use the information that people send to your servers then the Internet would cease to exist. If you send the request "GET / HTTP/1.0" to macroquest2.com using TCP on port 80 (i.e., you type "http://macroquest2.com" into your web browser and hit enter), you wouldn't get a response without sourceforge breaking the law. So thus, your response to Insanitywiz is incorrect.
However, IS NOT illegal to monitor activities on another persons machine if they have installed your software on it and agreed to a license that states that this will be done. That is called an EULA. Verant/Sony only makes you agree to the EULA every time you log in to help them with legal CYA IMO. Additionally, the law appears to be kinda sketchy or perhaps even more liberal than this as I don't hear about spyware companies facing many legal problems so for installing components that it doesn't announce on your machine that monitors and analyizes your web activity to throw pop up ads at you that it hopes are relative to your interests (something I would like to see made illegal).
Verant / Sony HAS chosen to not monitor processes and include an authorization to do so in the EULA after it began doing this and there was a considerable EQ community response that told them that their customers didn't like feeling like they were being spied upon so they backed out of the policy.
Webster's dictionary defines the word intercept when applied to communications as "to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly". Note that information sent to Verant's servers cannot be "intercepted" by Verant as they are the intended reciever. If it were illegal to use the information that people send to your servers then the Internet would cease to exist. If you send the request "GET / HTTP/1.0" to macroquest2.com using TCP on port 80 (i.e., you type "http://macroquest2.com" into your web browser and hit enter), you wouldn't get a response without sourceforge breaking the law. So thus, your response to Insanitywiz is incorrect.
However, IS NOT illegal to monitor activities on another persons machine if they have installed your software on it and agreed to a license that states that this will be done. That is called an EULA. Verant/Sony only makes you agree to the EULA every time you log in to help them with legal CYA IMO. Additionally, the law appears to be kinda sketchy or perhaps even more liberal than this as I don't hear about spyware companies facing many legal problems so for installing components that it doesn't announce on your machine that monitors and analyizes your web activity to throw pop up ads at you that it hopes are relative to your interests (something I would like to see made illegal).
Verant / Sony HAS chosen to not monitor processes and include an authorization to do so in the EULA after it began doing this and there was a considerable EQ community response that told them that their customers didn't like feeling like they were being spied upon so they backed out of the policy.
Xith
Re: On Legal Matters
The intended reciver of a /tell is the person on the other end of the /tell not Verant. Verant is merely the carrier. The Law specifically looks at the payload and not the method of delivery. Obviously a cell phone packet has the intended receiver to be the cell phone network but that does not mean they can tap your phone without a court order because they weren't 'intercepting' the packet.Xith wrote:Wildcat,
Webster's dictionary defines the word intercept when applied to communications as "to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly". Note that information sent to Verant's servers cannot be "intercepted" by Verant as they are the intended reciever. If it were illegal to use the information that people send to your servers then the Internet would cease to exist. If you send the request "GET / HTTP/1.0" to macroquest2.com using TCP on port 80 (i.e., you type "http://macroquest2.com" into your web browser and hit enter), you wouldn't get a response without sourceforge breaking the law. So thus, your response to Insanitywiz is incorrect.
Fortunantly the Law not English :) Section 2510 subsection 4:
(4) "intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the
contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through
the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device;
The entire point of the the Electronic Communication Privacy Act is that when you send a private communication from one person to another the carrier is not allowed to snoop on it. Wether the carrier is your ISP, your cell phone company, AOL with their instant messenger, or your game provider. It is designed as an extension of the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968 and is designed to ensure a right to private conversations over a privately owned system.
I posted this a while back, But I use Zonealarm as a firewall, and EQgame.exe and Everquest.exe try to get server internet access, I keep them at a No for server access always, I dont know if this has anything to do with the sending of information to GM's but EQ works fine without the EXE's having server access. So I dont know what the point of it is.