0001031: Change "rcon puke" warning to something less inflamatory

Notes
(0004643) Dusk (developer) 2012-09-11 01:36	The warning is biased, calling EVERY rcon user, who pukes a script, a cheater. The message should definitely be made more neutral.

(0004645) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2012-09-11 18:13 edited on: 2012-09-11 18:14	Non-net scripts can't be puked in non-cheat server in ZDoom for a reason. IMHO it was a mistake to allow servers to puke all scripts in the first place. I have seen a wad that included scripts to let RCON users give themselves weapons and other stuff, and this is obviously cheating (and the reason why I added the message and worded it like this). I can only think of very few legitimate reasons to puke a non-net script (for instance if a mod gets into a broken state and you want to restore it). So in the rare occasions where a RCON user really has to puke a script, it should be no problem to explain why it was puked. "The Server host or an RCON user called <puke command>" is not nearly enough. Many players will have no idea what puking a script means and thus they simply can't judge how easily it can be abused to cheat.

(0004658) Llewellyn (reporter) 2012-09-13 06:05 edited on: 2012-09-13 06:54	Just going to put this here, Torr, I can can make a script in about 5 minutes that bypass this easily and allows me to cheat and no one else can use it. If you're really going for anti-cheat theres a lot of things you're going to have to disable IMO, things that people have been using for ages. I really don't get the whole "TAKE EVERY PRECAUTION TO MAKE SURE SOMEONE DOESN'T DO SOMETHING BAD IN A MOD" when obviously if there was a mod someone hosted that let them cheat and be invlunerable etc. then no one would host it, atleast not unmodified. I will admit that it would be pretty easy for a developer of a big mod like AOW with a lot of ACS to slip something like this in and it not be seen after decompiling, but honestly they can already do this with features they are currently utilizing. They do have a "developer mode" of sorts in their mod. Imo, you're encouraging workarounds.

(0004660) Edward-san (developer) 2012-09-13 12:28	Quote Just going to put this here, Torr, I can can make a script in about 5 minutes that bypass this easily and allows me to cheat and no one else can use it. Can you post such example? Just for curiosity ;-)

(0004664) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2012-09-13 17:23	Quote from Llewellyn If you're really going for anti-cheat I have no plans to add any active anti-cheat measures to prevent server hosts from cheating. With the source open this doesn't make any sense. It's just a warning that's printed to discourage puking scripts. Quote from Llewellyn Imo, you're encouraging workarounds. Please explain what kind of workaround you think I'm encouraging.

(0004665) Qent (updater) 2012-09-13 17:44 edited on: 2012-09-13 17:46	I can tell you for a fact that a workaround was developed in direct response to the wording of the warning message, and it prompted the creation of this ticket. That said however, changing the wording as suggested would only be useful to prevent workarounds by RCON users who are not cheating, as actual cheaters would want to suppress any warning whatsoever, lest someone get suspicious and disassemble the script. So I guess you could say the point of this is, given that cheaters can always find some workaround, to reduce the number of such workarounds "in the wild." On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that upstanding administrators ought not to be offended at being called "possible cheaters" once in a blue moon.

(0004667) Llewellyn (reporter) 2012-09-14 00:49	Well the "puke" message is either going to: A:)Discourage a novice ACS user from being able to puke scripts in their mod or B:)Cause someone (like me) who actually knows what they are doing to make a 3 line workaround to the problem. It really isn't difficult. And you said yourself that you wanted to discourage cheating, so that is, by definition, a form of "anti-cheat." "and this is obviously cheating (and the reason why I added the message and worded it like this)"

(0004668) Qent (updater) 2012-09-14 02:02	Discouraging novices from puking non-NET scripts is a good thing. Yes, someone who knows what they're doing could get around it if he really wants to. Quote I have no plans to add any active anti-cheat measures to prevent server hosts from cheating. Quote And you said yourself that you wanted to discourage cheating, so that is, by definition, a form of "anti-cheat." Note that they are not prevented from cheating; clients are just notified of it.

(0004672) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2012-09-15 19:28	Quote from Llewellyn And you said yourself that you wanted to discourage cheating, so that is, by definition, a form of "anti-cheat." I said "active anti-cheat measures". With that I meant any kind of mechanism that actively tries to prevent server side cheating. As Qent already pointed out, the code just prints a warning, it doesn't try to prevent the puking in any way. Quote from Llewellyn Cause someone (like me) who actually knows what they are doing to make a 3 line workaround to the problem. It really isn't difficult. As I already asked above, please explain the workaround. I can't judge this if you don't disclose what exactly you are referring to.

(0014828) Korshun (reporter) 2016-05-06 18:08	What about functionality that is not cheating but should only be available to admins, like saving a map in Sectorcraft? That's not cheating, but if the script is made NET, this means that any random troll can trash the database. The message can be bypassed by making an OPEN script that monitors a serverside cvar and does stuff when that cvar is changed. Though, if your intent is to discourage admins puking scripts that are not intended to be admin-only tools by the creator of the mod, the message is fine.

(0015361) Ru5tK1ng (updater) 2016-07-17 18:29	Apparently the meaning of 'possibly cheating' is lost. The statement is neither a yes or no and is subjective to the players already. This is a non-issue that should have been closed honestly.

This issue is already marked as resolved. If you feel that is not the case, please reopen it and explain why.
Supporters:	Qent Dusk ZzZombo Llewellyn Esum hjalg
Opponents:	Combinebobnt Razgriz Ru5tK1ng

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2012-09-11 01:28	Qent	New Issue
2012-09-11 01:36	Dusk	Note Added: 0004643
2012-09-11 18:13	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0004645
2012-09-11 18:14	Torr Samaho	Note Edited: 0004645	View Revisions
2012-09-11 18:15	Torr Samaho	Note Revision Dropped: 4645: 0002507
2012-09-13 06:05	Llewellyn	Note Added: 0004658
2012-09-13 06:13	Llewellyn	Note Edited: 0004658	View Revisions
2012-09-13 06:54	Llewellyn	Note Edited: 0004658	View Revisions
2012-09-13 12:28	Edward-san	Note Added: 0004660
2012-09-13 17:23	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0004664
2012-09-13 17:44	Qent	Note Added: 0004665
2012-09-13 17:45	Qent	Note Edited: 0004665	View Revisions
2012-09-13 17:46	Qent	Note Edited: 0004665	View Revisions
2012-09-14 00:49	Llewellyn	Note Added: 0004667
2012-09-14 02:02	Qent	Note Added: 0004668
2012-09-15 19:28	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0004672
2014-06-12 20:25	Watermelon	Status	new => feedback
2016-05-06 18:08	Korshun	Note Added: 0014828
2016-07-17 18:29	Ru5tK1ng	Note Added: 0015361
2016-10-15 15:40	Ru5tK1ng	Status	feedback => closed
2016-10-15 15:40	Ru5tK1ng	Resolution	open => no change required

Relationships