| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On August 03 2010 01:02 PhiliBiRD wrote: yup. people are retarded. i say let him hack and get banned Yea I'm sure Blizzard will get RIGHT on it, like today maybe. It's not like they would let hackers get over 100 wins, or even 1000 wins right? It's obvious he hacks so I'm sure this is on the top of their to do list. http://classic.battle.net/war3/ladder/W3XP-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=fantom. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:16 Cofo wrote: I don't understand why someone would spend $60 on a game to do this. Is it really that fun to play 5 second games over and over again? My favorite part is the BNet forum posts he makes where he tries to defend himself. It's hilarious. This is no different in my opinion than people who are addicted to cheat codes for Single Player games. Some people just need the security of knowing they can't fail. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:14 vica wrote: They know he's hacking... they're just trying to find out HOW he is hacking so that they can get rid of that. No point in getting rid of one person if twenty more using the exact same thing pop up. Get rid of the program, and it won't be an issue again. All they need to do is set an example. I don't understand how people are saying "the problem will keep coming up," if Blizzard lays down the banhammer. And how do you even know they know he's hacking? | ||
|
carde
Sweden59 Posts
And I doubt they know he is hacking. Blizzards seems to be uniquely bad at detecting cheating. It's fairly obvious in his case, I mean, 50+ games, all over in less than 30 seconds, all wins due to the opponent disconnecting? Also, since the playtime will probably soon be used up for that guest pass, I guess a new Ownage will show up shortly, who will then be able to use up all the trial time before he is banned, etc, ad. infinitum. Since I lurk around in the lower parts of the platinum league, the dischacks should not affect me all that much, since people using them are bound to end up in upper plat/diamond rather quickly.  | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:26 carde wrote: First, it's a trial account. So banning it is mostly pointless, he can just use a new guest pass to make a new one. And I doubt they know he is hacking. Blizzards seems to be uniquely bad at detecting cheating. It's fairly obvious in his case, I mean, 50+ games, all over in less than 30 seconds, all wins due to the opponent disconnecting? Anyway, since the playtime will probably soon be used up for that guest pass, I guess a new Ownage will show up shortly, who will then be able to use up all the trial time before he is banned, etc, ad. infinitum. Each case may be relatively simple. But the game sold over 1.8 million units not including Korea on their first day. If even one-tenth of one percent of people who bought the game Day 1 have reported just one hacker, that's 1800 hack investigation cases. It's easy to be backlogged in such a system. | ||
|
Spaceninja
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Spaceninja
United States211 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:14 vica wrote: They know he's hacking... they're just trying to find out HOW he is hacking so that they can get rid of that. No point in getting rid of one person if twenty more using the exact same thing pop up. Get rid of the program, and it won't be an issue again. more like thousand more... | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:29 Takkara wrote: Each case may be relatively simple. But the game sold over 1.8 million units not including Korea on their first day. If even one-tenth of one percent of people who bought the game Day 1 have reported just one hacker, that's 1800 hack investigation cases. It's easy to be backlogged in such a system. D: I didn't read the whole statement. If they lay down the banhammer, the hackers have won. It means their hack is successful, which is all they care about. Now it's up to the players to make it less obvious. Instead of banning, they monitor the account and see what happens in their system when the hack is used. Then they go fix it so the problem can't be exploited again. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:38 vica wrote: 10% of 1800000 is 1800? If they lay down the banhammer, the hackers have won. It means their hack is successful, which is all they care about. Now it's up to the players to make it less obvious. Instead of banning, they monitor the account and see what happens in their system when the hack is used. Then they go fix it so the problem can't be exploited again. 1/10th of 1% of 1800000 is 1800. Also, they can both ban hackers and fix the vulnerabilities that lead to the hacks. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 03 2010 03:38 vica wrote: 10% of 1800000 is 1800?  If they lay down the banhammer, the hackers have won. It means their hack is successful, which is all they care about. Now it's up to the players to make it less obvious. Instead of banning, they monitor the account and see what happens in their system when the hack is used. Then they go fix it so the problem can't be exploited again. He doesn't say 10%? He says 0.1%. And then it should be 1800. | ||
|
GreatFall
United States1061 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 03 2010 04:48 GreatFall wrote: Seems like it may be as pointless now to play on B.net as it was back in 1997. You don't think that's being a tad melodramatic in this circumstance? Like I said in another thread, the guy just started hacking August 1st. 24 hours without a ban and B.net is destroyed? | ||
|
alcapowned
Canada25 Posts
edit:small typo | ||
|
zoombini
United States67 Posts
On August 03 2010 05:02 alcapowned wrote: Erm... can anyone explain to me why in the 3rd replay the "Defeat!" is missing whereas in the 2nd replay you can clearly see it? I would hate to join thousands of trolls who yell "SHOOPEEDD" at every screenshot they see but an altered screenshot(I think) and a replay that convieniently isn't there, doesn't help me to believe in this hack. Obviously you haven't read the entire thread. | ||
|
alcapowned
Canada25 Posts
On August 03 2010 05:29 zoombini wrote: Obviously you haven't read the entire thread. I've only scimmed through it  My bad, but thank you for your consideration of not bothering to include what might dissolve my skeptism in a quote. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 03 2010 05:31 alcapowned wrote: I've only scimmed through it My bad, but thank you for your consideration of not bothering to include what might dissolve my skeptism in a quote. Go find the quote yourself but the man has zero losses after like 50 games, all ending in under 1 minute. That's hard to shoop. | ||
|
Lightspeed
130 Posts
On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: You don't think that's being a tad melodramatic in this circumstance? Like I said in another thread, the guy just started hacking August 1st. 24 hours without a ban and B.net is destroyed? The issue is not that he doesn't get banned right away (although the fact that he didn't points to other issues down the road), the issue is that this is possible at all a couple of days after release. It is proof that Blizzards attempt at creating a hack and cheat free environment with Battle.net 2.0, if they were ever serious about it, failed miserably. They went to great lengths to make sure using their servers and passing all client traffic through their infrastructure is mandatory (no LAN play), but apparently fail at doing some basic sanitizing of traffic when it passes their servers. Apparently the creator of the hack is able to do such on a per-client basis if his claim of having drop protection is true. Apparently Blizzards is completely oblivious to the issue and now has the janitor analyzing network dumps of the reported games (oh wait, Blizzard got our ok to monitor everything on battle.net just for the Massive inc deal, they have no network dumps). Apparently Blizzard's anti-hack measure begins and ends with some obscure paragraph in the bnet TOS, telling everyone to be a good boy, mkay. It's 2010, and it is very well possible to create complex IT systems that are inherently secure and manipulation proof to a great extend, as several OSS projects prove. All the theories are out there. The fact that exploits for SC2 appeared so soon just points to many, many more exploits waiting to be discovered down the road. At least I can still import my facebook friends, awesome. Classical case of not getting priorities right, as Activision Blizzard have shown over and over again now. It's just sad | ||
| ||
BSL 21
ProLeague - RO32 Group A
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs OyAji
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
ByuN vs Zoun
TBD vs TriGGeR
Clem vs TBD
IPSL
JDConan vs WIZARD
WolFix vs Cross
BSL 21
spx vs rasowy
HBO vs KameZerg
Cross vs Razz
dxtr13 vs ZZZero
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Korean Royale
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
