Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google Log In with Steam Sign In
  • Create Account
Photo

list of bans

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1
OFFLINE   Dookie

Dookie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts
55
Getting Better
  • LocationCroatia

Hello, i was wondering if possible to make somehow smthing like bans.cfg or smthing like that, basiclly that server is writting a notepad file somewhere in silent folder of the server, which will store banned users, their guids name's and reasons why the got banned, and make that list editable which means if u remove ban from there it will remove that ban when you do !showbans, basiclly this idea is cuz i was thinking maybe we server admins should share people banned from our servers, momentally ive got 150 bans on my server and many of them were aimbotters and such, on this way some other server admin can arrive here and copy list of his bans up in here so we others can add those players on our ban list also, cuz there is very few of active server nowdays and cheaters always wants to play with real players not bots, so its a great chance that after they get banned on server will go hacking on another of similar kind. basiclly this is just idea but i think it might be usefull since there is no other kind of protection nowdays...any comments and suggestions are welcomed.



#2
OFFLINE   clan DIABOLIK

clan DIABOLIK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
36
Getting Better

IMO it's an awesome idea ! Incredible that no-one thought about it before ... much more efficient that an heavy/laggy PB !



#3
OFFLINE   Dookie

Dookie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts
55
Getting Better
  • LocationCroatia

Ok i forgot that all bans are already seenable in shrubbot.cfg, so basiclly what we need now is a maybe a sticky topic somewhere so all server admins can paste their bans, and so others can add them on their server and such.



#4
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction

I still like the idea of splitting the bans out of the shrubbot.cfg file. Right now, it seems it is not clear enough that bans are placed in there. Currently, our shrubbot.cfg file on our server is already pretty big without the bans in it (we have quite a few levels defined and also a bunch of custom commands).

 

Actually, now that I think of it, wouldn't it be better to split all the info out of the file so we have files like levels.cfg, commands.cfg, and bans.cfg?



#5
OFFLINE   Dookie

Dookie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts
55
Getting Better
  • LocationCroatia
I still like the idea of splitting the bans out of the shrubbot.cfg file. Right now, it seems it is not clear enough that bans are placed in there. Currently, our shrubbot.cfg file on our server is already pretty big without the bans in it (we have quite a few levels defined and also a bunch of custom commands).

 

Actually, now that I think of it, wouldn't it be better to split all the info out of the file so we have files like levels.cfg, commands.cfg, and bans.cfg?

i totally agree with you, i think there should be seperate cfg's, it will be much easier to track things and so on.



#6
OFFLINE   BECK

BECK

    Advanced Member

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
61
Getting Better
  • LocationDenver, CO

To play devils advocate here for a minute (although I GREATLY support keeping hackers off the game) - don't some servers have different levels of tollerance for what constitutes a ban?  I mean, some people will ban anyone without evidence, whereas on our server we will never ban unless we have a demo and opinion of multiple people on the demo.   I would be worried that some better players (who are legit) might end up basically being black-listed in the ET community because one server doesn't like them.  PBBANs was like this, where you could incorporate the so-called "master ban list" from punkbuster into your server, but those were guaranteed hacks and not just somones opinion.

 

Now that I've said that (consider it food for thought), I do like the ideas about breaking these files out.  I also generally support the idea of sharing ban data between servers. I'd just like to know that I'm not wrongfully banning a good player, and I'm not sure how that can be acheived.

 

Another thing that could/should be shared here is the MD5 hashes of unsupported client binaries that silEnT now detects.  I've googled a few of them and found them to be related to wallhax, but some of them have no hits.  Sharing this information between admins will be a good thing!


Edited by BECK, 02 January 2013 - 06:13 PM.


#7
OFFLINE   TheSilencerPL

TheSilencerPL

    Advanced Member

  • Management
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3099 posts
216
On the road to fame
  • LocationPoland
I've googled a few of them and found them to be related to wallhax, but some of them have no hits

Could you please share them with us?



#8
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction
Could you please share them with us?

 

 

Caught two different people using the following binary. Google searching that checksum leads to a wallhack.

 

30d13c5e1339f3c80ad89ab4525564ab



#9
OFFLINE   gaoesa

gaoesa

    Advanced Member

  • Management
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4391 posts
341
Will become famous
  • LocationFinland
30d13c5e1339f3c80ad89ab4525564ab

 

 

That is indeed a checksum of a famous and a fairly common wallhack binary.



#10
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction

Not to derail this thread too much, but what are the chances of the other unknown client binaries being safe? We have a few players that report the error message with other checksums that googling doesn't lead to anything with (their playing has not been too suspicious). I agree with Beck that it would be awesome having some sort of database of different checksums so we can look up players to know if they are hacking or known safe (or even ones that are not determined).



#11
OFFLINE   TheSilencerPL

TheSilencerPL

    Advanced Member

  • Management
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3099 posts
216
On the road to fame
  • LocationPoland

It's hard if they are using own made ET:Legacy binaries.



#12
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction
It's hard if they are using own made ET:Legacy binaries.

 

What do you mean by this? Should we assume all unknown client binaries are safe until we see evidence proving otherwise? Or are there legitimate reasons why a players would be using an unknown client binary?



#13
OFFLINE   TheSilencerPL

TheSilencerPL

    Advanced Member

  • Management
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3099 posts
216
On the road to fame
  • LocationPoland
What do you mean by this? Should we assume all unknown client binaries are safe until we see evidence proving otherwise?

Not at all. But it's very likely that it is a manually compiled ET client. You should be suspicious however.

 

 

Or are there legitimate reasons why a players would be using an unknown client binary?

1 good reason that comes to my mind is that the code is compiled for your processor thus it is better optimized for your hardware. That might be the reason to compile it on your own. Other reasons? Hm, library dependencies on linux for instance, if the official version is compiled on different OS version it's sometimes tough to install satisfying dependencies and it's easier to just compile.



#14
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction

Ok, got it! Thanks for the info!



#15
OFFLINE   TheSilencerPL

TheSilencerPL

    Advanced Member

  • Management
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3099 posts
216
On the road to fame
  • LocationPoland

In next version we added more of the ET:L builds that we were able to find, so now more binaries will be detected thus helping you out with solving the mystery of particular player.



#16
OFFLINE   BECK

BECK

    Advanced Member

  • Subscriber
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
61
Getting Better
  • LocationDenver, CO
Could you please share them with us?

 JvIastermind posted it.  Thanks.



#17
OFFLINE   Petbark

Petbark

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts
30
Getting Better

Is there away of incorporating a data base of known bad checksums that will either kick or automatically ban players?

I know this is starting down the road of pb.



#18
OFFLINE   MARZ

MARZ

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
0
Unknown

look nitmod 2.2.1 beta has a client binary checksum in NxAC anticheat system with autokick for unkown builds  .Default et ,etlegacy ,etgold ,trackbase ET are generally  trusted builds admin can check any unknown build to test it then authorise it in the cheksums config

and i think next release will has a global banlist

dunno of this global banlist is nitmod-only feature or no coze nitmod has many cool features like ingame global stats and global awards



#19
OFFLINE   JvIasterMind

JvIasterMind

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
8
A step in the right direction

I like the idea of a checksum config file! However, I think it would be better to allow admins to input checksums that would instantly ban a player connecting with a known malicious binary, instead of disallowing all unknown binaries (since some have legitimate uses as described by TheSilencerPL). By the way, silEnT does allow you to auto kick any unrecognized binaries similar to how you described in NxAC (minus the config file as far as I know).

 

As for a global banlist, I have similar thoughts to Beck and feel that different servers have different tolerances for what is considered enough proof to constitute the ban. I know of quite a few players that were wrongfully banned for hacking, when in reality, they are just good players. I feel it would be terrible if a legitimate player got banned on one server and got onto the global banlist and was unable to play anywhere. If the global banlist was only for binaries that are 100% known to be malicious, than I would be fine with that, but I would want to stay away from as much human error as possible.



#20
OFFLINE   MARZ

MARZ

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
0
Unknown
I like the idea of a checksum config file! However, I think it would be better to allow admins to input checksums that would instantly ban a player connecting with a known malicious binary, instead of disallowing all unknown binaries (since some have legitimate uses as described by TheSilencerPL). By the way, silEnT does allow you to auto kick any unrecognized binaries similar to how you described in NxAC (minus the config file as far as I know).

 

As for a global banlist, I have similar thoughts to Beck and feel that different servers have different tolerances for what is considered enough proof to constitute the ban. I know of quite a few players that were wrongfully banned for hacking, when in reality, they are just good players. I feel it would be terrible if a legitimate player got banned on one server and got onto the global banlist and was unable to play anywhere. If the global banlist was only for binaries that are 100% known to be malicious, than I would be fine with that, but I would want to stay away from as much human error as possible.

the global banlist is like pbans a database of anticheat's bans with known built-in hack's build checksums and cheating scripts not admin's bans






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users