So how 'bout those Mets?

[Stormbinder]

What was apparently done was that the turn file was edited to have extra gems. Those gems had to be converted to something else or used in forge commands or turned into gold and used to make troops in that same turn before turning in a 2h. The game does have checks for such things but the variations make for alot of "thinking" needed by the game. The game sent him a turn with XX gems in each Category, and received back a 2h file of commands to do things. To take into account the original amounts, plus new gem income, plus all of the things that can be done with it in order to decide "oops too much" is pretty hairy. Especially when you try to reverse logic the troop queue to the gold to the fire gems made from the astral gems which were made from the death gems just as one example. NOT IMPOSSIBLE before someone jumps my case about it, just hairy and time consuming to get it put in.

Hmmm, frankly I still want to jump you case about it Gandalf, since I don't see the server-side gem tracking to be such a huge problem to implement, but I'll let it pass. Otherwise we would become involved into discussions what constitutes to be "hairy" and what doesn't. And most likely end up agreeing on sciencific terms such as "hairy but with big bald patches", or "balding but still retaining some hair".

[Gandalf Parker]

Hmmm, frankly I still want to jump you case about it Gandalf, since I don't see the server-side gem tracking to be such a huge problem to implement, but I'll let it pass.

My answers are not Johans. He is already looking at it.

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

[Stormbinder]

My answers are not Johans. He is already looking at it.

Good to hear this.

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

Heh. Between hackers and programers, all interested at the same goal, some good security ideas could be developed...

[Heironeous]

Part of the problem is that this is a forum full of programmers to whom nothing is impossible. And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible. But I should stop arguing the points to allow for placebos if nothing else. (insert truly evil smiley here)

Absolute security may not be possible, but, as described above, client hacks can be eliminated by simply passing the client a partial copy of the game state, with the client only returning a list of orders to the server. Then it doesn't matter what you do to the client, the server processes the orders against the true game state. If you screw around with the client or the information passed to the client, then you'll only be hurting yourself as your orders won't map properly to the true game state.

[Stormbinder]

Absolute security may not be possible, but, as described above, client hacks can be eliminated by simply passing the client a partial copy of the game state, with the client only returning a list of orders to the server. Then it doesn't matter what you do to the client, the server processes the orders against the true game state. If you screw around with the client or the information passed to the client, then you'll only be hurting yourself as your orders won't map properly to the true game state.

Yeap, that's what I had in mind as well. I said earlier when I quoted "the client is in the hands of the enemy" mantra, all importent tasks should be performed only by the server, and the server should keep in mind state of the previous turn (or even several turns, for additional security checks). Than, *as long as server is not compromised*, such sustem is practically impossible to hack from the client side, with hex edit or anything else. And I am sure Mose (as well as other people with good technical knowledge who may decide to run public servers for the Dom2 community in the future) can protect well his server from being hacked directly, that would become nesseserly to do in order to hack various Dom2 hosts that are being run on his computer. In any case such hack would be much more complex and difficult to pull of, that the current mostly client-centered system, and IMHO very unlikely to be developed at all. Remeber, after all the probability of new hack being developed is directly proportinal to the size of the players community. And unlike Blizzard's MP games, Dom2 have 1000 times smaller audience, therefore the apperance of very complex server based hacks, that would also require server's security to be breached in order for them to work, IMHO extremely unlikely.

[Leif_-]

And Im more hacker to whom no absolute security is considered possible.

Oh, it's quite possible to make a computer program without any security flaws - the tricky thing is <i>knowing</i> that there aren't any security flaws in it. :-p