|
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 conveniently isn't there, doesn't help me to believe in this hack. edit:small typo 
I would say it's likely that the second picture has the "Defeat" message because it was actually a game that EllenPage played, whereas, the third picture was of two different characters that played, so EllenPage had not lost that game.
|
its a private dishack
u can get for 200$.
it works pretty easy ...
after he build his first drone/scv/probe
he share control with u --> this leads to a fatal
crash ^^. ppl who watch the replays of this hack intus
will be punished:D -;> comp freeze and crash.
27 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 159 159
26 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 170 170
25 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 155 155
24 2 Minutes 3 2 1 66.70 % 345 115
23 12 Minutes 2 2 0 100.00 % 313 157
21 9 Minutes 1 0 1 0.00 % -10 -10
19 3 Minutes 3 1 2 33.30 % 97 32
17 2 Minutes 2 2 0 100.00 % 349 175
14 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 178 178
12 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 160 160
11 1 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 164 164
3 0 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 176 176
1 2 Minutes 2 2 0 100.00 % 371 186
-2 0 Minutes 1 1 0 100.00 % 161 161
|
On August 01 2010 23:58 AmstAff wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2010 23:28 carde wrote:On August 01 2010 23:21 AmstAff wrote:
would be funny if they would just lock/ban/remove sc2 on his battle.net account Personally I think the account should simply be closed. yeah but blizzard cant close a battle.net account, because the user has other games on that account too. it wouldnt be okay anyway, i mea you hack in sc2 and you get your sc1 and wc3 and wow accounts removed/locked? that cant be right. blizzard should just remove his sc2 license on his b.net iD and GG NO RE!
Pretty sure hacking is a violation of Battle.Net Terms of Service, so that they can close his account also.
|
Seems the link supplied ealier in the thread for 'ownage' 's profile no longer works... banned? 
|
On August 03 2010 05:48 Lightspeed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: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? 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
Hacks are lamentable, sure, but they're not the end of the world. Critical bugs and errors get into software all the time. They get patched once they're found. As soon as they have a patch that can solve this particular hack, expect it to be applied. The presence of launch issues isn't telling, the longer-term response to these issues IS telling. I don't think Blizzard EVER suggested that the software would be hack and cheat free 100%. That's just silly. But with the notion that getting banned from BNet would make you have to buy another copy of the game that lowers the incidence of cheating by greatly increasing the cost of getting caught.
For some, there is no great enough deterrent to stop them from cheating. Cheaters will always exist. It's been 24 hours since this guy jumped onto everyone's radars. Blizzard has been at work for 4-6 hours of that 24 hours. People are already abandoning ship over this. Slow down a little bit, in a system with millions of players it takes a little longer than 4-6 hours to get almost anything done.
|
On August 02 2010 01:23 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2010 01:20 ]Grey[ wrote:
Can anyone perhaps shine some light on the mentality of people who hack? I just can't get why someone would do this kind of thing. It's fun. Drophacking is as much fun to do as is to read about and watch people go crazy about it, also throwing extra work to admins and in a way helping them in pointing out weak spots, - iCC thrives on that (and become popular because of that). Maphacking is a lot of fun, not only you actually train your timings and minimap awareness (big time), but also because you have that map security, - that you're in control at any point in time.
This guy is cruising for a ban here
|
On August 02 2010 03:23 Necrosjef wrote:
Sad to see this kinda thing happening so early into release.
Only Blizzard to blame though, if they spent more time making battlenet 2.0 better and less time integrating it with facebook we wouldn't be in this situation.
Oh yeah, the cheating assholes aren't to blame, just Blizzard
Dealing with hacks is always reactionary. Just too many people looking for exploits for you to effectively ever prevent all of them =\
|
On August 03 2010 05:51 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +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 conveniently isn't there, doesn't help me to believe in this hack. edit:small typo I would say it's likely that the second picture has the "Defeat" message because it was actually a game that EllenPage played, whereas, the third picture was of two different characters that played, so EllenPage had not lost that game.
Ah that was actually good and I'm assuming to be honestly said. I just checked up on it however and it would seem that when you see someone elses post-game info, it lists which "team" won even if there was no team. Ie If you checked my profile(somehow) it would say "Team 1 won!" or etc
 so... my question still stands
|
On August 03 2010 05:47 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 05:31 alcapowned wrote:On August 03 2010 05:29 zoombini wrote: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. 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.
I'm sorry but, a SCREENSHOT (image file) is going to be hard to "shoop"? I'm not good at photoshop whatsoever, only used it like twice in my life for terrible terrible editing, but the screenshot(the last one he did) I could edit by using paint, using the crop tool to move around the "times" and delete the rest of the build order. Even a moderately good (i'm assuming) photoshopper could easily edit the time in.
edit: fuck fail sorry for double post
|
On August 02 2010 05:44 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2010 02:25 LittleeD wrote:
Now the SC2 community gets a touch of what the WC3 community has been forced to live with (And even actually developted their OWN protection against because blizzard refuses to act) for several years already.
As long as there is people there will be hacks and unfair methods, its precisely the same no matter what sport your executing. Get over it already You say that like you've never used ICCup Launcher or BWHF for Brood War. Show nested quote +On August 02 2010 05:41 TLOBrian wrote:
I don't agree at all.
I do agree that facebook integration wasn't needed.
I do agree that blizzard could have spent funds for FB in balancing, server issues, and real community issues.
And yes, 50 people DO need to say this.
Maybe if they spent less time on facebook this would have been stopped, the races would be balanced, and zerg wouldn't be so boring to play.
51. Firing the 2 guys who worked on Facebook integration doesn't magically create 2 more guys to work on security and balance. FB integration was probably the product of 2 guys who work on the WoW Armory who didn't have anything better to do for a few days--and don't have the expertise for any of those other tasks.
Most of the "BAWW FACEBOOK" idiots don't realize how simple it is to link Facebook API to something. It probably took them like, 2 days.
|
On August 03 2010 06:06 alcapowned wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 05:51 hinnolinn wrote: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 conveniently isn't there, doesn't help me to believe in this hack. edit:small typo I would say it's likely that the second picture has the "Defeat" message because it was actually a game that EllenPage played, whereas, the third picture was of two different characters that played, so EllenPage had not lost that game. Ah that was actually good and I'm assuming to be honestly said. I just checked up on it however and it would seem that when you see someone elses post-game info, it lists which "team" won even if there was no team. Ie If you checked my profile(somehow) it would say "Team 1 won!" or etc so... my question still stands
Perhaps you were looking at a custom game they played as those seem to display a "team # won" message, and not a 1v1 ladder game, as I just went into battle.net and checked a game I played against somebody, and then a game they played against another person, and there was not a "defeat", "victory" or "team # won" message on their game, while there was a message on the game I played.
edit: added some.
|
On August 03 2010 06:00 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 05:48 Lightspeed wrote:On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: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? [...] 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. [...] [...]Critical bugs and errors get into software all the time. They get patched once they're found. As soon as they have a patch that can solve this particular hack, expect it to be applied.[...]
PanzerDragoon wrote:
Dealing with hacks is always reactionary. Just too many people looking for exploits for you to effectively ever prevent all of them =\
And this is, imho, the misconception right there. The Starcraft 2 game client is vulnerable to an apparently very simple exploit. If it took someone who first had to reverse engineer everything (the network communication protocol and memory layout of the game data / functions at least) only a couple of days/weeks/months to find this exploit, it should have taken someone with full access to the source and description of the protocol a couple of hours/days at worst. It just shows that no rigorous testing was done during development. One would think that after the hackfests that previous b.net titles were, Blizzard would be a bit more aware. Apparently not 
|
|
|
On August 03 2010 06:23 Lightspeed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 06:00 Takkara wrote:On August 03 2010 05:48 Lightspeed wrote:On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: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? [...] 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. [...] [...]Critical bugs and errors get into software all the time. They get patched once they're found. As soon as they have a patch that can solve this particular hack, expect it to be applied.[...] Show nested quote +PanzerDragoon wrote:
Dealing with hacks is always reactionary. Just too many people looking for exploits for you to effectively ever prevent all of them =\
And this is, imho, the misconception right there. The Starcraft 2 game client is vulnerable to an apparently very simple exploit. If it took someone who first had to reverse engineer everything (the network communication protocol and memory layout of the game data / functions at least) only a couple of days/weeks/months to find this exploit, it should have taken someone with full access to the source and description of the protocol a couple of hours/days at worst. It just shows that no rigorous testing was done during development. One would think that after the hackfests that previous b.net titles were, Blizzard would be a bit more aware. Apparently not
well hackers had beta to work on and practice so that they would get it right on release. Many hackers i believe even made the hacks and then didnt use them until release so that blizzard wouldnt be able to stop them until later. Its completely normal for hacks to be in a game, and blizz will try to prevent them the best they can.
|
On August 03 2010 06:23 Lightspeed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 06:00 Takkara wrote:On August 03 2010 05:48 Lightspeed wrote:On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: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? [...] 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. [...] [...]Critical bugs and errors get into software all the time. They get patched once they're found. As soon as they have a patch that can solve this particular hack, expect it to be applied.[...] Show nested quote +PanzerDragoon wrote:
Dealing with hacks is always reactionary. Just too many people looking for exploits for you to effectively ever prevent all of them =\
And this is, imho, the misconception right there. The Starcraft 2 game client is vulnerable to an apparently very simple exploit. If it took someone who first had to reverse engineer everything (the network communication protocol and memory layout of the game data / functions at least) only a couple of days/weeks/months to find this exploit, it should have taken someone with full access to the source and description of the protocol a couple of hours/days at worst. It just shows that no rigorous testing was done during development. One would think that after the hackfests that previous b.net titles were, Blizzard would be a bit more aware. Apparently not
If that's what you really think then you have a drastically naive sense about software development. Large, complex systems will often have critical errors that make it through rigorous testing. It just has to do with complex interactions between systems when one or more are used in ways way outside the intended limits. Sometimes, critical errors show up out of nowhere in software due to a completely "unrelated" bugfix elsewhere. Large systems are weird that way. I'm not even talking about Blizzard here, I'm talking as a software tester myself. In a system as large as Starcraft, it's impossible to comb through EVERY case possible. Hacks will get in. This won't be the last one. It's definitely understandable that such a thing appears right after release.
Just because you've had bugs in your software before doesn't make you less likely to have bugs in the future, no matter how much every software developer in the world wishes that were the case.
|
On August 03 2010 06:30 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 06:23 Lightspeed wrote:On August 03 2010 06:00 Takkara wrote:On August 03 2010 05:48 Lightspeed wrote:On August 03 2010 04:53 Takkara wrote: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? [...] 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. [...] [...]Critical bugs and errors get into software all the time. They get patched once they're found. As soon as they have a patch that can solve this particular hack, expect it to be applied.[...] PanzerDragoon wrote:
Dealing with hacks is always reactionary. Just too many people looking for exploits for you to effectively ever prevent all of them =\
And this is, imho, the misconception right there. The Starcraft 2 game client is vulnerable to an apparently very simple exploit. If it took someone who first had to reverse engineer everything (the network communication protocol and memory layout of the game data / functions at least) only a couple of days/weeks/months to find this exploit, it should have taken someone with full access to the source and description of the protocol a couple of hours/days at worst. It just shows that no rigorous testing was done during development. One would think that after the hackfests that previous b.net titles were, Blizzard would be a bit more aware. Apparently not well hackers had beta to work on and practice so that they would get it right on release. Many hackers i believe even made the hacks and then didnt use them until release so that blizzard wouldnt be able to stop them until later. Its completely normal for hacks to be in a game, and blizz will try to prevent them the best they can.
Ok, I am sorry for sounding like a broken record but again: Blizzard had access to the game, the game code and all the theoretical design behind it for years. The hackers had a magnitude less time, resources and only ida pro/ollydbg/wireshark. Just because most of us have come to accept that software we use is bug-ridden and exploitable doesn't mean that this necessarily needs to be the case. It's just a matter of development priorities as projects such as OpenBSD / OpenSSH show.
|
Anyway, some poor photoshopped thing i made using paint(i'm really bad at photoshopping, i used crop and that color filler + paint bucket tool) so if you zoom in you'll notice the bars for the build order vary in color(paint i guess has bad color shading)
Anyay... enjoy, it at least is better than the 3rd screenshot in regards to it says "Team 1 won!" or "Team 2 won!" instead of nothing being there :o
|
On August 03 2010 06:46 alcapowned wrote:Anyway, some poor photoshopped thing i made using paint(i'm really bad at photoshopping, i used crop and that color filler + paint bucket tool) so if you zoom in you'll notice the bars for the build order vary in color(paint i guess has bad color shading) Anyay... enjoy, it at least is better than the 3rd screenshot in regards to it says "Team 1 won!" or "Team 2 won!" instead of nothing being there :o ![[image loading]](http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4671/diablohacks.png) Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You still trying to argue that he didn't hack or just trying to prove that pictures can be altered? Either way you are arguing a pointless topic, he hacks, the pictures are not altered. Read the thread and don't come barging into a 16 page thread demanding that the last 14 pages be summarized for you in a quote for your convenience because you are too lazy to read the entire thread.
|
On August 03 2010 06:50 Jinsin5 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 06:46 alcapowned wrote:Anyway, some poor photoshopped thing i made using paint(i'm really bad at photoshopping, i used crop and that color filler + paint bucket tool) so if you zoom in you'll notice the bars for the build order vary in color(paint i guess has bad color shading) Anyay... enjoy, it at least is better than the 3rd screenshot in regards to it says "Team 1 won!" or "Team 2 won!" instead of nothing being there :o Uploaded with ImageShack.us You still trying to argue that he didn't hack or just trying to prove that pictures can be altered? Either way you are arguing a pointless topic, he hacks, the pictures are not altered. Read the thread and don't come barging into a 16 page thread demanding that the last 14 pages be summarized for your in a quote for your convenience because you are too lazy to read the entire thread.
What the blooodyyyy I read through it, i'll read through it again, I don't see why someone doesn't just quote it, or even just TYPE why the defeat is missing, anyway, i'll read each page again
(to be fairly honest, i scimmed across again to avoid a lot of pointless bickering and arguements pertaining to technical terms i don't know)
|
On August 03 2010 06:46 alcapowned wrote:
Anyway, some poor photoshopped thing i made using paint(i'm really bad at photoshopping, i used crop and that color filler + paint bucket tool) so if you zoom in you'll notice the bars for the build order vary in color(paint i guess has bad color shading)
Anyay... enjoy, it at least is better than the 3rd screenshot in regards to it says "Team 1 won!" or "Team 2 won!" instead of nothing being there :o
]
As I posted a little bit ago, I believe you accidentally opened a custom game, rather than a ladder game when you said that the game say "team 1 won", as ladder games do not do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img818.imageshack.us/i/diablohacks.png/)
