tim at ngus.net
Tue May 15 15:22:49 EDT 2007
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:38:30 -0500 David wrote:
> I think your response went bad right at "get over it", which is not
> an argument.
I didn't really make an argument to be honest, only stated the facts as
they stand based on my knowledge and experience.
> It's a software engineering problem, which requires innovation and
> "thinking outside of the box". It is entirely possible, but it begs
> the question of whether or not it's worth it.
I'm unconvinced you actually understand the problem. In the
client/server model, there is a client. This client, at some stage,
whether implicitly or explicity, MUST be trusted to do what it was
engineered to do. The trouble is that the malicious user is in
_complete_ control of the client and is thus able to make the client do
whatever he/she pleases. In other words there is conflict which
fundamentally cannot be overcome regardless of your software
engineering prowess. In some cases you may be able to detect the use
of client altering cheats from the server, but the more sophisticated
some become, the less reliable a counter attack this is. Having said
that, this is the most sensible area to address in countering cheats, in
The best you can do on the client is make it more difficult to alter,
but at a fundamental level you can never prevent client altering
cheats as the only tool you really possess is the ability to obfuscate.
In this sense it is very much like DRM.
I don't really understand why you're so insistent that this is a
solvable problem. If it were, surely you're not so naive as to think
it's just that nobody has got around to it yet?
> Stop trying to be insulting.
I wasn't trying to be insulting. However if you go making indignant
statements like "This is untrue, on many levels", you really ought to
expect a terse response and at the very least explain through logical
reasoning why you disagree.
More information about the quake3