Interesting read.

[mitic]

Originally Posted by soup [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You seem like quite the literate & articulate individual.

whats so hard to understand? u keep pointing out that fraud can occur due to the current files stored on our computers. just stop posting things like this even if you dont think nilbog and staff would do that. you are just feeding the trolls in here with statements like this

[soup]

Originally Posted by mitic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

whats so hard to understand? u keep pointing out that fraud can occur due to the current files stored on our computers. just stop posting things like this even if you dont think nilbog and staff would do that. you are just feeding the trolls in here with statements like this

You are correct to an extent.

At the same time though, it's not my place to tell people who they should trust.

In any case, my original post wasn't supposed to be conspiracy theory shit. It was supposed to be taken the same way as something like, I don't know. Say you loan your friend your car so he can run to the store and pick up beer, and winds up taking a little longer than expected because he runs into a friend at the store and they chat. Meanwhile, back at home, you're sitting there joking with something like "Damnit, I knew that bastard was going to steal my car and skip town."

[Davardo]

To not be suspicious of someone over the internet having access to personal informationis being a moron. They should tell us what exactly the file can do. If they don't make some kind of statment, stickied, and on the front page, I will stop playing here.

[Arrisard]

Originally Posted by Davardo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To not be suspicious of someone over the internet having access to personal informationis being a moron. They should tell us what exactly the file can do. If they don't make some kind of statment, stickied, and on the front page, I will stop playing here.

Again, not a statement if the files are actually malicious or not, however ...

You're gonna wait for (edit; actually continue to use) the files until the people who made the file to say it's ok first? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You people crack me up.

[Ravhin]

Originally Posted by Davardo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To not be suspicious of someone over the internet having access to personal informationis being a moron. They should tell us what exactly the file can do. If they don't make some kind of statment, stickied, and on the front page, I will stop playing here.

I have to agree with this and with jetviper. From my past experience the server admins are reasonable people, conscientious of internet and security privacy concerns.

With the addition of custom, client-side code, I believe the only reasonable option is to release all client-side modifications as open-source, giving users the option to verify their contents as non-malicious, and compile themselves if desired. This is, after all, the guiding principle behind all security-oriented open source software (be it SSL libraries, crypto software, etc).

I have no problem playing with a client-side anti-cheat mechanism. However, to release code that conducts unknown data gathering on player's PCs and sends that information to a remote server, without announcing this change or the details of the information collected, is dangerous and unreasonable (and I suspect the server admins will agree with me here).

To catch these cheaters unawares I see why it wasn't announced in the first place. This will surely have gotten some people worried about the implications. However, correcting that 2-week gap with full disclosure will in large part remedy the problem.

I don't have the technical skills to look into the compiled code, and it would be ridiculous that we would have to. It's easy enough to dump strings though, and for all I know these could just be all the functions in the USER32/KERNEL32 libraries - but that's just the point, I don't know, I have no idea what they're being used for, and an announcement should be made clarifying this business.

Strings from wsock32.dll and eqgame.dll:

[[ Project 1999 :: Classic Everquest ]]
09:11:49
Sep  7 2007
10:33:37
Oct 31 2005
eqgame
\eqgame.ini
/rogean
list<T> too long
Please restart your client before playing a different server after Project 1999.
EQEmulator

GetProcessWindowStation
GetUserObjectInformationW
GetLastActivePopup
GetActiveWindow
MessageBoxW
USER32.DLL
KERNEL32.DLL
FlsFree
FlsSetValue
FlsGetValue
FlsAlloc
CorExitProcess
mscoree.dll
GetProcessWindowStation
GetUserObjectInformationW
GetLastActivePopup
GetActiveWindow
MessageBoxW
USER32.DLL
\WSOCK32.dll
eqgame.dll
AcceptEx
EnumProtocolsA
EnumProtocolsW
GetAcceptExSockaddrs
GetAddressByNameA
GetAddressByNameW
GetNameByTypeA
GetNameByTypeW
GetServiceA
GetServiceW
GetTypeByNameA
GetTypeByNameW
MigrateWinsockConfiguration
NPLoadNameSpaces
SetServiceA
SetServiceW
TransmitFile
GetSystemDirectoryA
GetProcAddress
LoadLibraryA
KERNEL32.dll
GetCurrentThreadId
DecodePointer
GetCommandLineA
TerminateProcess
GetCurrentProcess
GetFileType
GetStartupInfoW
GetTickCount
GetCurrentProcessId
GetSystemTimeAsFileTime
GetCPInfo
GetACP
GetOEMCP
WriteFile
GetModuleFileNameW

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by Ravhin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I believe the only reasonable option is to [B]release all client-side modifications as open-source, giving users the option to verify their contents as non-malicious, and compile themselves if desired.

Ravhin, we might as well send out an email to all the EverQuest cheaters and say "come right in and hack me!"

Also, most users won't know what a single of those commands you listed is, and can only infer by the name. All of the ones I recognize are necessary for EverQuest to run, with or without added code by P1999.