Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mr.Kirbycode774 on 2005-08-17 at 20:18:25
QUOTE(Heimdal @ Aug 17 2005, 03:10 PM)
Translation: If Blizzard had announced the real reason they needed to patch EUD triggers, people would have had a 2-week window in which to write and distribute virus maps and everyone would be defenseless against them.
I can understand that, but shouldn't we have info on the REAL reason by now?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-17 at 20:25:14
No, blizzard probably won't say anything. When there is such a critical vulnerability that has existed for 7 years, you try and keep it hush-hush. That's just buisness.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-17 at 21:03:50
good and sneaky buisness tactics if u ask me
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SpaceBoy2000 on 2005-08-17 at 21:48:28
Okay, a few points here:
- EUD Conditions still work. Let's fully expoit, explore, and beat it to death first before we all start whining again.
- Though I disagree with the removal of the EUD Enabler (in my opinion, it should've just had a large amount of warning signs plastered all over it), I can't blame Yoshi for removing it. Mainly because of the controversy of the program.
- Can the "technology" (if it can be labeled as such) of EUDs be used to create a sort of automodder for SC?
Excellent! Map specific cheat codes anyone? Easter eggs, hints, information, heck, it would be perfect for RPGs.
- EUD Conditions still work. Let's fully expoit, explore, and beat it to death first before we all start whining again.
- Though I disagree with the removal of the EUD Enabler (in my opinion, it should've just had a large amount of warning signs plastered all over it), I can't blame Yoshi for removing it. Mainly because of the controversy of the program.
- Can the "technology" (if it can be labeled as such) of EUDs be used to create a sort of automodder for SC?
QUOTE(Voyager7456(MM) @ Aug 17 2005, 03:43 PM)
You can still explore some awesome new concepts with EUD conditions. For example, Deathknight showed me a map where he triggered an action through text!
Deathknight said "Hey", and the trigger executed.
[right][snapback]290935[/snapback][/right]
Deathknight said "Hey", and the trigger executed.
[right][snapback]290935[/snapback][/right]
Excellent! Map specific cheat codes anyone? Easter eggs, hints, information, heck, it would be perfect for RPGs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2005-08-17 at 22:30:14
QUOTE(SpaceBoy2000 @ Aug 17 2005, 09:48 PM)
- Though I disagree with the removal of the EUD Enabler (in my opinion, it should've just had a large amount of warning signs plastered all over it), I can't blame Yoshi for removing it.
[right][snapback]291231[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]291231[/snapback][/right]
You can always put warnings on it. But everyone knows how cool EUD triggers can really be, so they would ignore those warnings.
And there is absolutely no warnings if someone crafts a harmful map. They start playing, boom their computer screws up.
The risks are too great.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Heimdal on 2005-08-18 at 00:34:22
Yoshi is completely right here. The EUDEnabler in its current state should not be used to play maps unless you know the creator. A future version may have more advanced memory range checking, and I hope I can convince Yoshi that it's perfectly safe so everyone can enjoy it without the risks.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2005-08-18 at 00:38:29
The problem is, how can we be reassured that it is truely safe? Vunerabilities are found all the time in different types of software, which is why Blizzard patched it out in the first place.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2005-08-18 at 05:08:38
Blizzard patched it to be on the safe side. I even got into a lengthy discussion with someone on battle.net forums about the software engineering side of things, which partly explained the rationel behind the decision. Better safe than sorry, in a nutshell. I don't there was much else to it.
Anyway, SC is finite. With careful enough research and testing, it should be entirely possible to determine what parts of the EUD's memory access range are safe, and which arn't (code pointers, etc.). From there, it would be a relatively simple matter to restrict those unsafe portions, at least until they become mapped out and determined as safe or not.
I think it's still worth going for. Even if EUDs won't be as widespread because of the patch, it would be great for larger map releases to still be able to do these things. If there are maps made that are worth playing that use EUDs, people will start to use them again. Hell, maybe even I would use them, so long as Blizzard doesn't step in to stamp them out again.
Anyway, SC is finite. With careful enough research and testing, it should be entirely possible to determine what parts of the EUD's memory access range are safe, and which arn't (code pointers, etc.). From there, it would be a relatively simple matter to restrict those unsafe portions, at least until they become mapped out and determined as safe or not.
I think it's still worth going for. Even if EUDs won't be as widespread because of the patch, it would be great for larger map releases to still be able to do these things. If there are maps made that are worth playing that use EUDs, people will start to use them again. Hell, maybe even I would use them, so long as Blizzard doesn't step in to stamp them out again.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2005-08-18 at 11:51:40
I was talking to heimdal last night, and EUDenabler *might* come back. I'm telling him to study and whitelist memory ranges.
FYI:
Blacklisting is when you block out specific things. This is how website filters work and filters work. They input sites or words and they're blocked.
Whitelisting is when you only allow specific things. Meaning, put in everything that is allowed and you are sure its safe, and anything else that doesn't fit in, is considered "blocked". It is much safer than blacklisting - the orginal intention of Heimdal with this program (and what everyone else was suggesting), because its near impossible to find workarounds.
FYI:
Blacklisting is when you block out specific things. This is how website filters work and filters work. They input sites or words and they're blocked.
Whitelisting is when you only allow specific things. Meaning, put in everything that is allowed and you are sure its safe, and anything else that doesn't fit in, is considered "blocked". It is much safer than blacklisting - the orginal intention of Heimdal with this program (and what everyone else was suggesting), because its near impossible to find workarounds.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-18 at 11:56:04
i think the exitement would kill some people...but GO HIEMDAL i hope u do actualy make this work
btw i forgot about whitelisting when i said some 1 will always find a way to exploit a program so this might actualy work
btw i forgot about whitelisting when i said some 1 will always find a way to exploit a program so this might actualy work
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Heimdal on 2005-08-18 at 13:37:49
If you wish to help with the memory searching, join the SCResearch group at http://groups.msn.com/scresearch. You need to know something about memory searching, assembly, c/c++, or hex editing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-19 at 11:47:03
hmmmm nah i wouldnt be of much help + wouldnt have the time with school coming up, animating some stuff, skateboarding, and hangin out
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2005-08-20 at 01:27:47
I really don't know if people want to do this anymore.
I'll still support it, but it'll be listed under a modification and be only for personal use. I don't think we can allow EUD action maps here.
I'll still support it, but it'll be listed under a modification and be only for personal use. I don't think we can allow EUD action maps here.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-20 at 12:10:48
well with that settled i think a mod can close this now
Report, edit, etc...Posted by 8882 on 2005-08-20 at 22:50:03
QUOTE(The_Lead_Factor @ Aug 20 2005, 11:10 AM)
well with that settled i think a mod can close this now
[right][snapback]293997[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293997[/snapback][/right]
I think a mod should ban you
never thought that other people might reply here too?
maybe Ill make a post after Ill read 17pages..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-21 at 14:55:01
for what reson should i be banned
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Hitl1r1 on 2005-08-21 at 19:35:42
QUOTE(8882 @ Aug 20 2005, 07:50 PM)
I think a mod should ban you
never thought that other people might reply here too?
maybe Ill make a post after Ill read 17pages..
[right][snapback]294500[/snapback][/right]
never thought that other people might reply here too?
maybe Ill make a post after Ill read 17pages..
[right][snapback]294500[/snapback][/right]
Uhh why should he banned? I dont get it..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SacredElf on 2005-08-21 at 21:53:00
Spam maybe
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-21 at 23:48:14
QUOTE(SacredElf @ Aug 21 2005, 08:53 PM)
Spam maybe
[right][snapback]295109[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]295109[/snapback][/right]
ironic?
About as much as my post here.
[hypocrite]
Let's just let this thread die.
[/hypocrite]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FaZ- on 2005-08-22 at 16:03:36
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Aug 18 2005, 04:08 AM)
Blizzard patched it to be on the safe side. I even got into a lengthy discussion with someone on battle.net forums about the software engineering side of things, which partly explained the rationel behind the decision. Better safe than sorry, in a nutshell. I don't there was much else to it.
Anyway, SC is finite. With careful enough research and testing, it should be entirely possible to determine what parts of the EUD's memory access range are safe, and which arn't (code pointers, etc.). From there, it would be a relatively simple matter to restrict those unsafe portions, at least until they become mapped out and determined as safe or not.
I think it's still worth going for. Even if EUDs won't be as widespread because of the patch, it would be great for larger map releases to still be able to do these things. If there are maps made that are worth playing that use EUDs, people will start to use them again. Hell, maybe even I would use them, so long as Blizzard doesn't step in to stamp them out again.
[right][snapback]291498[/snapback][/right]
Anyway, SC is finite. With careful enough research and testing, it should be entirely possible to determine what parts of the EUD's memory access range are safe, and which arn't (code pointers, etc.). From there, it would be a relatively simple matter to restrict those unsafe portions, at least until they become mapped out and determined as safe or not.
I think it's still worth going for. Even if EUDs won't be as widespread because of the patch, it would be great for larger map releases to still be able to do these things. If there are maps made that are worth playing that use EUDs, people will start to use them again. Hell, maybe even I would use them, so long as Blizzard doesn't step in to stamp them out again.
[right][snapback]291498[/snapback][/right]
Congrats on post number 1000, Tux.
EUD's were a tool, nothing more. We still have many avenues open, and can always downgrade versions and play via modem or LAN connections if we truly feel a desperate need to play using EUD actions. Or a possible private server could be created which used 1.12...?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Lead_Factor on 2005-08-22 at 18:44:40
i dought the private server thing could be done....unless u DONT mean mean on battle.net
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SuperToast on 2005-08-22 at 22:45:28
He means creating our own server using PvPGN. It's possible to do, I might do it, but yoshi has already said SEN will not support one because blizzard is against them.
The problem is still that EUDs are dangerous, so any server would be open to exploitation and would need some sort of protection.
The problem is still that EUDs are dangerous, so any server would be open to exploitation and would need some sort of protection.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FaZ- on 2005-08-23 at 15:34:15
QUOTE(The_Lead_Factor @ Aug 22 2005, 05:44 PM)
i dought the private server thing could be done....unless u DONT mean mean on battle.net
[right][snapback]295562[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]295562[/snapback][/right]
Yes, that would be what a private server is.
QUOTE(SuperToast @ Aug 22 2005, 09:45 PM)
He means creating our own server using PvPGN. It's possible to do, I might do it, but yoshi has already said SEN will not support one because blizzard is against them.
The problem is still that EUDs are dangerous, so any server would be open to exploitation and would need some sort of protection.
[right][snapback]295818[/snapback][/right]
The problem is still that EUDs are dangerous, so any server would be open to exploitation and would need some sort of protection.
[right][snapback]295818[/snapback][/right]
EUD's are potentially dangerous. Even Heimdal says that he isn't sure that a virus can be sent through them.
Blizzard is "against" most of the things that we do here at SEN... and anyway, Yoshi does not need to support it for it to be successful, though his influence would certainly sway many.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Heimdal on 2005-08-23 at 16:09:37
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure I always stressed the possibility that people could execute code on your computer. I did say it would be rather difficult to do, but it's definitely possible.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FaZ- on 2005-08-23 at 17:58:54
Ah, I thought you had said that it may be possible, not that it definitely was. That certainly justifies a patch eliminating this in my eyes, then.
Why would you make the EUDEnabler if you knew that it could upload viruses?
Why would you make the EUDEnabler if you knew that it could upload viruses?