This is a message for Frontier (Hacker in Sothis)

[Cmdr Nemo]

I'm not sure what you mean by Hacking is a game feature, please explain that because I'm confused about how using a third party program to give oneself an unfair advantage in an online multiplayer game is a game feature. Additionally, I don't think one should have to self-banish themselves to Solo mode to avoid people who are cheaters.

"I don't think one should have to self-banish themselves to Solo mode to avoid people who are cheaters."
Though you are correct in your thinking and have every right to think it. However, those that don't think as you do, have the same rights. Hence the ability to utilize SOLO if and when it is apropos.

 

[Morbad]

The existence of hacks in ED shouldn't surprise anyone. Indeed, without them, there would be little basis for hackusations and no one would take them seriously.

That, IMO, is the biggest problem with cheats of all sorts, the chilling effect and paranoia they cause. Most hackusations are almost certainly nonsense, but you never really know for sure, and it becomes a justifiable thing when faced with a situation that doesn't play out as expected, even if there are other reasonable explanations.

Most of this stuff should have been done server side, or at least randomly distributed/offloaded to other clients, and the client itself should have been encrypted from the start so it was harder to tamper with.

However, those that don't think as you do, have the same rights.

No they don't, because hacking is against the rules of the game. Frontier's inability or unwillingness to implement a credible solution should not be taken as license to ignore the rules.

 

[DDastardly00]

"I don't think one should have to self-banish themselves to Solo mode to avoid people who are cheaters."
Though you are correct in your thinking and have every right to think it. However, those that don't think as you do, have the same rights. Hence the ability to utilize SOLO if and when it is apropos.

No, they do not have rights. And where did you get that idea? The Terms of Service are very clear on this:


Cheating
We do not tolerate cheating of any kind in our online multiplayer games. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of automated scripts, programs or services offered outside of the game to generate a player advantage, altering game code or memory, sharing or trading account access with others or using cheat codes.

We do not tolerate the use of any exploits or taking advantage of any bugs in the game to generate a significant player advantage.

Any player caught cheating or exploiting our games or services may be subject to game moderation, the alteration or removal of in-game assets, a gameplay suspension or ban, or the termination of their Frontier account.

https://www.frontierstore.net/code-of-conduct

 

[znôrt]

and the client itself should have been encrypted from the start so it was harder to tamper with.

you cannot encrypt a client. a client is by definition not trustable in any way.

you can encrypt some information on the client, it is possible with very sophisticated protocols and encryption schemes. i worked on one such system for electronic voting which had not only to guarantee security but also privacy. it means you have to certify data without even knowing what that data is. it is astonishing, but indeed possible. in real time, on a multiplayer game? forget it. going p2p was a trap and, even with its advantages, ruled out a whole world of possibilities, no encryption of this era could ever save it.

 

[Morbad]

you cannot encrypt a client. a client is by definition not trustable in any way.

you can encrypt some information on the client, it is possible with very sophisticated protocols and encryption schemes. i worked on one such system for electronic voting which had not only to guarantee security but also privacy. it means you have to certify data without even knowing what that data is. it is astonishing, but indeed possible. in real time, on a multiplayer game? forget it. going p2p was a trap and, even with its advantages, ruled out a whole world of possibilities, no encryption of this era could ever save it.

I was thinking of something like this: https://www.scmagazineuk.com/encrypted-fully-executable-program-code-possible/article/1481359

The whole game wouldn't need to be obfuscated, and there are very few CPUs running Elite: Dangerous that do not have hardware accelerated AES encryption to speed things up.

Also, regarding P2P, I think it would be viable, if it were a distributed consensus based system, with multiple clients (and not necessarily ones in the same instance), doing the same things, and the majority solution being used.

 

[znôrt]

I was thinking of something like this: https://www.scmagazineuk.com/encrypted-fully-executable-program-code-possible/article/1481359

The whole game wouldn't need to be obfuscated, and there are very few CPUs running Elite: Dangerous that do not have hardware accelerated AES encryption to speed things up.

Also, regarding P2P, I think it would be viable, if it were a distributed consensus based system, with multiple clients (and not necessarily ones in the same instance), doing the same things, and the majority solution being used.

well, if there is one recurrent saying in security (apart from 'it's a process') it's that security by obfuscation isn't security at all ;D

yeah, no doubt there is a trend. it all depends on what you have to protect. a bank, a binding national election or some kids cheating in some entertainment thing? for the latter simply moving to consoles helps a great deal. it always depends on what's at stake ...

my point is that the complexity of going that route in a p2p design far outweights the (questionable in this case, imo, but nevertheless) advantages of a p2p design in the first place. it's akin to inventing a pair of robotic appendixes for your boxing gloves so you can eat spaghetti with your gloves on. you absolutely want to go p2p in a competitive multiplayer game (or eat with boxing gloves, for that matter) then don't bother about cheats, there'll be plenty.

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

Killing players without a reason (known to you) is not hacking. PKing is allowed in this game (good) with open and unrestricted pvp and it carries NO obligation to inform you of his reasons.

 

[Morbad]

well, if there is one recurrent saying in security (apart from 'it's a process') it's that security by obfuscation isn't security at all ;D

Isn't that ultimately what all encryption is?

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

I beat Privateer 2 with this. Always close to my heart.

 

[znôrt]

Isn't that ultimately what all encryption is?

it isn't considered secure until it remains so even after the algorithm is know.

the only way to make reasonably sure is to be testable in the open. in any security system the only thing you really need to obsfuscate are some crucial information pieces, like e.g. passwords and private keys, which are meant to be that way. everything else could potentially be leaked in some form, you have to count with this worst case scenario. certifying the security of a system is just making sure that these scenarios are all accounted for (these scenarios are ever changing, hence it's a process), not just hidden from the general public.

there is also a more subtle consideration: making sure is not the same as being able to publicly prove you're making sure.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

What about naming and blaming, T.j.?

\o/
I blame TJ!

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Maybe they could have just made an offline mode as was planned and offer mod support. At this time PVP woud have been set in private servers, balanced, with plenty of modes and glorious.