Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gamehack #81001

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

After latest BF patch i see often people getting kicked for "Gamehack #81001"
Past weekend i spend some time on UNO and even saw [AGB] member getting kicked
for it.
Here's another 1;
http://www.clanbase.com/news_league...&mid=0&lid=1610

Somebody has more info on the matter?
Thanks apreciated.
--
Best regards, flyace
Thou infectious beetle-headed death-token!

More about : gamehack 81001

Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"flyace" <flyace@pi.be.NO> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c280ed1b417bb9a98a478@news.telenet.be...
> After latest BF patch i see often people getting kicked for "Gamehack
> #81001"
> Past weekend i spend some time on UNO and even saw [AGB] member getting
> kicked

They should use pbweb to update, there is a recent client version, to fix
1.61b issues.

Lorian.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote in message

> They should use pbweb to update, there is a recent client version, to fix
> 1.61b issues.

Actually I'm not so sure 81xxx messages would be caused by the update, so
it's possible it'a genuine hack. Best place to ask is on the forums at
www.punksbusted.com.

Lorian.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 6:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <1103015192.8783.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net>,
nospam@lorian.nod says...
>
> "Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote in message
>
> > They should use pbweb to update, there is a recent client version, to fix
> > 1.61b issues.
>
> Actually I'm not so sure 81xxx messages would be caused by the update, so
> it's possible it'a genuine hack. Best place to ask is on the forums at
> www.punksbusted.com.
>
> Lorian.
>
>
>


it's a hack. just finished reading a cached doc of a forum (the forum
moderator removed the original post, or at the very least, removed the
reference to the code number). i think this forum is used by punkbuster
to catch 0day cheats, but i'm not sure... been watching it for some time
and lots of intricate punkbuster info is removed after a few hours...
many 0day hacks are announced there, then shortly thereafter, punkbuster
starts detecting the hacks....

anyway, Gamehack #81001 is a code for a real hack, not packet-loss, not
admin rights, not an update issue. the person was kicked because of this
and was probably using a hack in some form or fashion. whether it was
for "testing" purposes or actually using it to gain score, i don't know,
but Gamehack #81001 is a real hack warning/reason for kicking.

the name of the hack used was "sparthack" or it was a private hack that
fell into the same code-category as "sparthack". punkbuster recently
updated their scanning methods to include certain areas of code outside
the previously scanned areas, this in turn is catching more and more
private (and evidently public) hacks. good deal.




/CF
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 11:40:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Colonel_Flagg <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:

>punkbuster recently
>updated their scanning methods to include certain areas of code outside
>the previously scanned areas, this in turn is catching more and more
>private (and evidently public) hacks.

Or what Punkbuster CONSIDERS to be hacks. They aren't good in searching
for known hacks to begin with, and this lousy software is about the last
thing (don't forget the EULA) I want roaming around with heuristical
methods. Next time one of these morons botches, it may identify a
running web browser as hack.

>good deal.

Nah.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 1:35:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:geqvr0h980csqf1dv0i0bm2pg87r3nfsbg@4ax.com...
> Or what Punkbuster CONSIDERS to be hacks. They aren't good in searching
> for known hacks to begin with, and this lousy software is about the last
> thing (don't forget the EULA) I want roaming around with heuristical
> methods. Next time one of these morons botches, it may identify a
> running web browser as hack.

I've heard people saying that Punkbuster is no good, but no one ever seems
to elaborate with specifics. What EXACTLY makes it so "lousy"? Most games
that allow mods will have people that say their mod isn't a cheat. Obviously
Punkbuster believes that some of the mods you like are cheats. One good
example exists in MOHAA. There's one server out there that allows you to
install a "no fog" mod. This removes the fog on maps to make everything
clearer. On every other server I've ever been on, this is considered a
cheat. I was even automatically booted from one server by CI because I had
the mod installed, even though it wasn't active.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:59:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>I've heard people saying that Punkbuster is no good, but no one ever seems
>to elaborate with specifics. What EXACTLY makes it so "lousy"?

You haven't been reading this newsgroup for long, right? The discussion
is only about two weeks younger than the introduction of PB.

In a nutshell:

First, read the EULA. This should be well enough to piss you off.

PB requires to run on a highly privileged level, normal user rights
aren't enough. Nobody actually knows what it's doing ("such information
would help the cheaters"), it's rather like having an unpredictable
nutcase with all keys roaming in your house. Updates are slow, PB often
misfires either for false positives (less frequently) or for self-caused
problems like communication errors between client and server, update
timeouts (quite a lot of them). As for me, I don't really fancy being
kicked off my own server frequently because the pretty much useless
"anti-cheat" software hiccups again.

Get hold of a few seasoned Kiddie-Strike server admins and ask them
about Punkbuster. They'll give you some more input about the lack of
reliability.

The PB statistic on my own server, running BG42, in now almost 11 months
is rather poor. PB caught one (1) cheater but issued a solid three-digit
number of kicks for problems it caused all by itself - and BG isn't very
popular. One cheater caught, and I've seen several others at work.
Watched them by not respawning and then "looking over their shoulders".
Always impressive if someone heads straight for hidden people who are
absolutely invisible from his position...or shoots at targets which are
deeply into the fog.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:5hq0s098navsov3itit47bq5feoa8t3fna@4ax.com...
> In a nutshell:
>
> First, read the EULA. This should be well enough to piss you off.

What? Do I have to give up my first born? Pledge allegance to the flag of
Punkbusted.com?

> PB requires to run on a highly privileged level, normal user rights
> aren't enough. Nobody actually knows what it's doing ("such information
> would help the cheaters"), it's rather like having an unpredictable
> nutcase with all keys roaming in your house. Updates are slow, PB often
> misfires either for false positives (less frequently) or for self-caused
> problems like communication errors between client and server, update
> timeouts (quite a lot of them). As for me, I don't really fancy being
> kicked off my own server frequently because the pretty much useless
> "anti-cheat" software hiccups again.

I guess I must be in the minority then. I'm not sure what you mean by PB
requiring a "highly privileged level" and that "normal user rights aren't
enough". I play on my own PC at home so I've got all the "rights" I need.
Are people playing BF1942 on PC's where they don't have complete control
over it, like on their corporate LANs? The only time I've ever been kicked
by PB is during the most recent update and it only happened 2x. I manually
updated and it worked no problem after that. Previous updates were done
without incident and were quick. I suppose if it's such a bad piece of
software for some server admins, they could run their server without it.
Personally, I only play on PunkBuster servers because some protection from
cheaters is better than no protection.

As far as the nutcase roaming my house with the keys... I have some highly
rated anti-spyware programs running along with an excellent firewall, so I
don't think there's anything poking around in my computer that I don't know
about nor is anything accessing the internet without me knowing about it.
The black helicopters hovering over my house is another matter, though. :) 
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <8NudnXkwgYrBEV3cRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> "Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:5hq0s098navsov3itit47bq5feoa8t3fna@4ax.com...
> > In a nutshell:
> >
> > First, read the EULA. This should be well enough to piss you off.
>
> What? Do I have to give up my first born? Pledge allegance to the flag of
> Punkbusted.com?
>
> > PB requires to run on a highly privileged level, normal user rights
> > aren't enough. Nobody actually knows what it's doing ("such information
> > would help the cheaters"), it's rather like having an unpredictable
> > nutcase with all keys roaming in your house. Updates are slow, PB often
> > misfires either for false positives (less frequently) or for self-caused
> > problems like communication errors between client and server, update
> > timeouts (quite a lot of them). As for me, I don't really fancy being
> > kicked off my own server frequently because the pretty much useless
> > "anti-cheat" software hiccups again.
>
> I guess I must be in the minority then. I'm not sure what you mean by PB
> requiring a "highly privileged level" and that "normal user rights aren't
> enough". I play on my own PC at home so I've got all the "rights" I need.
> Are people playing BF1942 on PC's where they don't have complete control
> over it, like on their corporate LANs? The only time I've ever been kicked
> by PB is during the most recent update and it only happened 2x. I manually
> updated and it worked no problem after that. Previous updates were done
> without incident and were quick. I suppose if it's such a bad piece of
> software for some server admins, they could run their server without it.
> Personally, I only play on PunkBuster servers because some protection from
> cheaters is better than no protection.
>
> As far as the nutcase roaming my house with the keys... I have some highly
> rated anti-spyware programs running along with an excellent firewall, so I
> don't think there's anything poking around in my computer that I don't know
> about nor is anything accessing the internet without me knowing about it.
> The black helicopters hovering over my house is another matter, though. :) 
>
>
>



You should never need Administrator access to a computer to run simple
programs, such as Battlefield and Punkbuster. Administrator access gains
full control over the system, allowing it to do _anything_ it wants,
without so much as a pop-up requesting permission from you. This means,
you're "highly rated anti-spyware" could be turned off or circumvented
without your knowledge. This is of course theoretically possible,
however highly unlikely.

For anti-spyware and firewalls to work, there must first be something
that matches their scans or in the case of a firewall, attempts to gain
unauthorized access. If you read the documentation for a program and it
tells you in order to use this program, you must allow it through your
personal firewall, chances are, you're going to allow it. Now imagine if
you will, you've installed this program and it runs with your
permissions. In the background, when you're not playing the game, it's
installed itself in a manner that will allow it to periodically start
and run, scan your system and report something about your computer to
it's masters. You've already "ok'd" the program to pass through your
firewall, it's of no known "spyware", so therefore, it won't be caught
by that either.

Chester Nimitz said it best, way back when, "...you're not paranoid if
they're really out to get you."

Spyware is out to get you, malware is out to get you.

Who are the folks at punkbuster? They're not owned by a "big name
company". They just so happen to offer a popular, if not "good" product
to detect *some* of the cheaters out there. There's no guarantee that
they're not gonna try to start making money off your idle computer time.
In recent years, many types of spyware has done just that, from some
very "big name" corporations.

http://www.cotse.net/privacy/spyware.htm



/CF
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 11:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Wow. Those black helicopters are really starting to fly low.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:44:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>Wow. Those black helicopters are really starting to fly low.

No. The problem is just that you're an absolutely clueless twit.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:65f2s054dp1gl7e4acjbrb2t22oaasr9pc@4ax.com...
> "GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:
>
>>Wow. Those black helicopters are really starting to fly low.
>
> No. The problem is just that you're an absolutely clueless twit.

And you're a Smacktard.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 2:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <aLSdndPlU78qMFzcRVn-rg@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> "Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:65f2s054dp1gl7e4acjbrb2t22oaasr9pc@4ax.com...
> > "GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:
> >
> >>Wow. Those black helicopters are really starting to fly low.
> >
> > No. The problem is just that you're an absolutely clueless twit.
>
> And you're a Smacktard.
>
>


You're a goddamn idiot. Go ahead, live your life online as if no one is
out to get you. At least they'll have an easier target with you than me.




/CF
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 6:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message news:MPG.1c2b7b20b0001b7d989686@nntp.charter.net...
> You're a goddamn idiot. Go ahead, live your life online as if no one is
> out to get you. At least they'll have an easier target with you than me.

And you're a cheat.

Hey! What's that black van with the tinted windows and government plates
doing parked in front of my house? :) 

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 6:13:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

You are truely a sad person to be worrying about Punkbuster and analyzing
the EULA. Perhaps a nice game of checkers would be more your speed.

Hmm.. I think they just touched down in my back yard.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 6:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Thank you for injecting some calm, rational comments, rather than the drivel
of "If you're not afraid of your computer, you're a twit" attitude that has
been presented. You hit it on the head when you say that you don't think we
have anything to worry about with EvenBalance actually doing anything with
the information that could be received. These kids that are freaking out
over this are just fun to play with because their buttons are so easy to
push.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 7:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>And you're a Smacktard.

Hardly so, twit.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:12:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:59:15 +0100, Jan Kannemacher <varros@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>The PB statistic on my own server, running BG42, in now almost 11 months
>is rather poor. PB caught one (1) cheater but issued a solid three-digit
>number of kicks for problems it caused all by itself - and BG isn't very
>popular. One cheater caught, and I've seen several others at work.
>
>JK'04 aka Elkrider


Weird, my BF server with PB enabled caught 12 since Nov 11
and each was a diff IP and hash. Since July a total of 25
were caught so PB is getting better at catching them or
maybe more players are using them ?
[AGB] Sad Sac, The GeMan
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:28:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>I've been using computers since the Apple IIE was on the cutting edge of
>technology kid. What exactly makes YOU a genius? The fact that you've been
>caught cheating by Punkbuster?

My mother has been using computers since Wozniak thought up the first
Apple II. She is no expert, though. "Using" being the keyword here. And
neither are you, as you have proven multiple times by not understanding
very basic things.

>Do you guys honestly think that Punkbuster is snooping around on your hard
>drives, sending your picture of Aunt Gertie to the CIA for analysis. It's
>not like you've got the formula to cold fusion sitting on your C drive. Get
>over the consipiracy theory. It's worn out.

You still haven't read the EULA, right? Because if you did you would
know what you have agreed to. You may want to start using your brain (if
you have one of these in working condition) because it isn't the point
what PB does - and nobody knows that, let alone a dunce like you - it's
what it COULD do WITHIN the far-stretched EULA limits.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:42:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

BlueDevil <bluedevil@NOSPAMlockednloaded.net> wrote:

>But if there was a major issue - say it is discovered that
>every user of a PB enabled EA game had their email address book swiped
>by EvenBalance to sell to spammers - then that would be a major
>controversy.

At first you would have to find out. It's not exactly easy because you
would have to analyze each and every packet transmitted by PB to check
what's in there. And we're not talking only about what Evenbalance might
do, the point is that a vulnerability in PB would open it up to other
people as well.

>EA does care about liability and public image to some extent.

Liability maybe. Public image? Not at all.

>And to a certain extent it doesn't matter what the EULA says as
>there are certain rights that can't be signed away by contract,
>especially the very weak contracts created by software licenses. The
>ability of shrink wrap software licenses to protect companies from gross
>misconduct has been successfully challenged many times in court.

Are you lawyer or prophet enough to know 100% what any given court judge
would decide on the PB EULA?

>Either way I basically agree with you. You takes your chances. Some
>people don't want to take the chance and that is reasonable. Some do
>and that is fine too as long as they know there *is* a chance and an
>opportunity for some very bad things to happen.

There are more reasons why I don't play anymore, PB just being one of
them. What's the point of having "anti-cheat" software which doesn't do
a proper job? Play a game of DC Final and see exactly how much it's
worth.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>Thank you for injecting some calm, rational comments, rather than the drivel
>of "If you're not afraid of your computer, you're a twit" attitude that has
>been presented.

What an amazingly interesting point of view. Of course YOUR attitude of
"computers are perfectly safe with anti-spy and firewall software" is
perfectly right and very clever. You wouldn't know rationality if it
bites your empty head off, proven by your ignoring or simply not
understanding a lot of rational explanations.

>You hit it on the head when you say that you don't think we
>have anything to worry about with EvenBalance actually doing anything with
>the information that could be received.

Whistling in the woods, dunce? Except their own people nobody knows
anything about what Evenbalance actually does with the collected
information. Nobody even knows what information HAS been collected. So
how would could anyone know if there's reason to worry or not?

YOU could, of course. You have no sodding clue whatsoever but shoot your
mouth off like being paid for. Probably you've read your gems of wisdom
in the coffee grounds.

>These kids that are freaking out
>over this are just fun to play with because their buttons are so easy to
>push.

Yes, I'm such a kid, with my 39th b-day closing in on me. You didn't
push any buttons, you only demonstrated several times that you're an
idiot of the worst kind.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:o a25s0p2lt4hq1hd4o9t64ftudpgtdbocm@4ax.com...
> You still haven't read the EULA, right? Because if you did you would
> know what you have agreed to. You may want to start using your brain (if
> you have one of these in working condition) because it isn't the point
> what PB does - and nobody knows that, let alone a dunce like you - it's
> what it COULD do WITHIN the far-stretched EULA limits.

Why should I bother? I'm not going to stop using Punkbuster because of it,
so it would be a waste of my time.

Besides, these guys in the suits and sunglasses with the funny wires coming
out of their ears told me that PB is not a threat.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:0h35s0hfhdlvfsdr982c5lf8dop848f7rh@4ax.com...
> Whistling in the woods, dunce? Except their own people nobody knows
> anything about what Evenbalance actually does with the collected
> information. Nobody even knows what information HAS been collected. So
> how would could anyone know if there's reason to worry or not?

1. This last reply wasn't to you, so go away.
2. Do you REALLY think that EvenBalance is doing anything with the access
they have other than what it's intended for?

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <a7p3s0l4e3ir6gac0suv5d92kqinjb51e4@4ax.com>, varros@gmx.de
says...
> I think sniffing and analyzing PB packets would violate their ridiculous
> EULA too, qualifying as reverse engineering.
>


In this case, it wouldn't be reverse engineering, technically. They
would be using a scare tactic. Reverse engineering would be looking at
their code or their hex code of their code. In the case of sniffing,
that is public domain information, out in the open on clear channels and
couldn't be considered proprietary because they make no attempt at
securing the information. The packets are unencrypted, unlike my
proposed technique, previously published and copyrighted in this
newsgroup of securing the information through encrypted links.



/CF
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:18:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <9ImdnQSnjL9Sd1zcRVn-pw@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> "Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> message news:MPG.1c2b7b20b0001b7d989686@nntp.charter.net...
> > You're a goddamn idiot. Go ahead, live your life online as if no one is
> > out to get you. At least they'll have an easier target with you than me.
>
> And you're a cheat.
>
> Hey! What's that black van with the tinted windows and government plates
> doing parked in front of my house? :) 
>
>


lame. try again when youg get a brain.



/CF
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <oa25s0p2lt4hq1hd4o9t64ftudpgtdbocm@4ax.com>, varros@gmx.de
says...
> You may want to start using your brain (if
> you have one of these in working condition)
>


lol!

my last reply was before reading this.... seems as though there's a
slight consensus that shithead needs to cabbage a brain wave or two.




/CF
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:21:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <aoqdnQnSkZ0acVzcRVn-rw@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> You are truely a sad person to be worrying about Punkbuster and analyzing
> the EULA. Perhaps a nice game of checkers would be more your speed.
>
> Hmm.. I think they just touched down in my back yard.
>
>


and all this time i thought you were pretending to be stupid. i was
wrong, you really are dumb as dirt. your post above PROVES this without
a shadow of doubt.





/CF
December 17, 2004 8:25:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Jan Kannemacher wrote:
> BlueDevil <bluedevil@NOSPAMlockednloaded.net> wrote:
>
> Are you lawyer or prophet enough to know 100% what any given court judge
> would decide on the PB EULA?
>

Not a lawyer, no. A software professional with 20 years experience developing software in highly
regulated environments and a LOT of money paid to lawyers and a lot of time spent studying software
licensing laws and court cases involving software licenses. Not even a lawyer can tell you what a
judge might rule but they could, as I can, tell you what precedents exist. The EvenBalance PB EULA
is overbroad to the point of ridiculousness. Much more rational licenses have been successfully
litigated against. I can say with high certainty (not that you have to believe me) that if PB were
stealing private information not related to its primary function that their EULA would not protect them.

But this is usenet after all so I could be a 12 year old retard for all you know.

BlueDevil
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:12:38 GMT, mondobondo <mondobondo@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:59:15 +0100, Jan Kannemacher <varros@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>The PB statistic on my own server, running BG42, in now almost 11 months
>>is rather poor. PB caught one (1) cheater but issued a solid three-digit
>>number of kicks for problems it caused all by itself - and BG isn't very
>>popular. One cheater caught, and I've seen several others at work.
>>
>>JK'04 aka Elkrider
>
>
>Weird, my BF server with PB enabled caught 12 since Nov 11
>and each was a diff IP and hash. Since July a total of 25
>were caught so PB is getting better at catching them or
>maybe more players are using them ?
>[AGB] Sad Sac, The GeMan
for so few in the time and for the added bandwidth and delays and
false positives just kick/ban the most obvious examples would get the
same effect....
kjh
December 17, 2004 8:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>
> Whistling in the woods, dunce? Except their own people nobody knows
> anything about what Evenbalance actually does with the collected
> information. Nobody even knows what information HAS been collected. So
> how would could anyone know if there's reason to worry or not?
>
> YOU could, of course. You have no sodding clue whatsoever but shoot your
> mouth off like being paid for. Probably you've read your gems of wisdom
> in the coffee grounds.
>

Yes we don't know. But we also don't know what Quicken sends when you enable online account
updating, what my browser send when it connects to a web site, what is in that map pack I just
downloaded, what was in v. 1.61b, what ASE sends when it does its thing, etc.

And the fact that these programs run in user space instead of superuser space doesn't protect you at
all since all the real important stuff (financial records, personal documents, etc.) live in the
same user space as the applications are running.

My point is that any online activity brings risks. To a certain extent we have to depend on the
vendor or provider. There is no way around that other than to NOT GO ONLINE. You really have no
idea what any of your internet enabled apps are doing and firewalls and virus scanners only give
limited protection since by definition you have to open up your firewall to those apps and virus
scanners can only check for known patterns.

I really don't see that PB is that different from any other online enabled app except for their EULA
which supposedly gives them the right to do terrible things. My experience in software licensing
law says that that EULA doesn't matter. If they do terrible things they will be found liable. If
their lawyers have told them they are protected from any and all malfeasance by that license then
they got very bad advice.

BlueDevil
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message news:MPG.1c2d25dfcd8cb8e98968a@nntp.charter.net...
> and all this time i thought you were pretending to be stupid. i was
> wrong, you really are dumb as dirt. your post above PROVES this without
> a shadow of doubt.

Hey, that really hurts, especially since it's coming from such a well
respected CHEATER in the BF1942 community.

Gotta love it.. "I was only testing their cheat protection." yeah yeah...
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <XZOdnZcp-apo9F7cRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> "Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> message news:MPG.1c2d25dfcd8cb8e98968a@nntp.charter.net...
> > and all this time i thought you were pretending to be stupid. i was
> > wrong, you really are dumb as dirt. your post above PROVES this without
> > a shadow of doubt.
>
> Hey, that really hurts, especially since it's coming from such a well
> respected CHEATER in the BF1942 community.
>
> Gotta love it.. "I was only testing their cheat protection." yeah yeah...
>
>
>


I never said anything close to that. Perhaps your reading comprehension
skills would be the cause of your inability to understand the
intricacies of computer problems as they directly relate to the this
particular topic of conversation. Perhaps you have an attention problem.
Whatever the case may be, you're showing definite signs of being a
troll. A very immature troll, but a troll never-the-less.

Your personal attacks, centered around issues unrelated to the topic at
hand or my actual statements as they pertain to this thread, indicates a
below average attempt to troll the topic of conversation (your inability
to grasp the magnitude of privacy intrusions by online grifters) away
from the subject at hand.

You're a simple troll. Easily debunked by reading everything you write.
Perhaps it would be best for your reputation to simply bow out and admit
defeat in this debate before you drop even further into pointing out
spelling and grammatical mistakes, which would be one of the next steps
of a troll. Of course you won't do this. You'll continue your amateurish
attempt to guide the topic of conversation away from subject, or
perhaps, you'll do the complete reverse and attempt to google statements
by others that back up your rather ridiculous "beliefs". Which ever way,
I anxiously await your reply so that I may further toy with your
rudimentary mentality.



/CF
December 17, 2004 11:46:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:25:24 -0700, Jim <rjn@NOSPAMpredict.com> wrote:

>Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>> BlueDevil <bluedevil@NOSPAMlockednloaded.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are you lawyer or prophet enough to know 100% what any given court judge
>> would decide on the PB EULA?
>>
>
>Not a lawyer, no. A software professional with 20 years experience developing software in highly
>regulated environments and a LOT of money paid to lawyers and a lot of time spent studying software
>licensing laws and court cases involving software licenses. Not even a lawyer can tell you what a
>judge might rule but they could, as I can, tell you what precedents exist. The EvenBalance PB EULA
>is overbroad to the point of ridiculousness. Much more rational licenses have been successfully
>litigated against. I can say with high certainty (not that you have to believe me) that if PB were
>stealing private information not related to its primary function that their EULA would not protect them.
>
>But this is usenet after all so I could be a 12 year old retard for all you know.
>
>BlueDevil

I've been following this thread and have a question.... I play games
on the family PC with three users. I am the admin and use my user
name when I play battlefield 1942. Should I set up a separate user
name (ie not the admin) to play battlefield? A second computer would
be nice but I bought this one for that purpose. It would be a hard
sell to the SWMBO if I said I needed a second computer for the
occasional on-line purchase....

thanks Jim!

Merry Christmas!

Rick
[AGB] Duckhunter
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:08:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>Why should I bother?

Because you asked, idiot.

>I'm not going to stop using Punkbuster because of it,
>so it would be a waste of my time.

Then don't ask what's wrong with it.

>Besides, these guys in the suits and sunglasses with the funny wires coming
>out of their ears told me that PB is not a threat.

The only thing worse than this "joke" is that you consider it a clever
remark.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:11:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>No, wasting your time analyzing the EULA when the end result is that you're
>still going to use PB makes you a sad person.

Is that so. Strange, I thought I don't use PB any more. Grow a brain,
would you?

>At least I'm not a low enough lifeform to have to resort to swearing to try
>to make my point.

You're so low a lifeform that your mere existence poses an insult to
evolution itself.

>BTW - It's not that the discussion is over my head, it's
>just that I love to press big shiny red buttons and the one on your forehead
>is so easy to push.

That's usually the last resort of those who hadn't anything to say right
from the start. "I was just pushing buttons"...right.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:13:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Jim <rjn@NOSPAMpredict.com> wrote:

>But this is usenet after all so I could be a 12 year old
>retard for all you know.

No, this position is already taken by the FLOT idiot. You have to apply
for another job. ;^>




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:15:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>1. This last reply wasn't to you, so go away.

Ouch, that cut like a razor.

>2. Do you REALLY think that EvenBalance is doing anything with the access
>they have other than what it's intended for?

Unfortunately I can't ask what you think because you don't have a brain
which is a basic requirement for thought. You may want to read again
what I wrote about vulnerabilities in the code, this time without
skipping the understanding part of it. Have your mommy read it to you if
it helps.




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:up07s0throh4909u1quekucm2jvvn81h8o@4ax.com...

> That's usually the last resort of those who hadn't anything to say right
> from the start. "I was just pushing buttons"...right.

Hey everyone, look a the monkey! Funny monkey! Funny!
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:05:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message news:MPG.1c2d4708c43946a998968e@nntp.charter.net...
> I never said anything close to that. Perhaps your reading comprehension
> skills would be the cause of your inability to understand the
> intricacies of computer problems as they directly relate to the this
> particular topic of conversation. Perhaps you have an attention problem.
> Whatever the case may be, you're showing definite signs of being a
> troll. A very immature troll, but a troll never-the-less.
>
> Your personal attacks, centered around issues unrelated to the topic at
> hand or my actual statements as they pertain to this thread, indicates a
> below average attempt to troll the topic of conversation (your inability
> to grasp the magnitude of privacy intrusions by online grifters) away
> from the subject at hand.
>
> You're a simple troll. Easily debunked by reading everything you write.
> Perhaps it would be best for your reputation to simply bow out and admit
> defeat in this debate before you drop even further into pointing out
> spelling and grammatical mistakes, which would be one of the next steps
> of a troll. Of course you won't do this. You'll continue your amateurish
> attempt to guide the topic of conversation away from subject, or
> perhaps, you'll do the complete reverse and attempt to google statements
> by others that back up your rather ridiculous "beliefs". Which ever way,
> I anxiously await your reply so that I may further toy with your
> rudimentary mentality.

Whatever.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:08:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4317s01pgfkr55gubo2lnufuvcbhtjnf7i@4ax.com...
> Unfortunately I can't ask what you think because you don't have a brain
> which is a basic requirement for thought. You may want to read again
> what I wrote about vulnerabilities in the code, this time without
> skipping the understanding part of it. Have your mommy read it to you if
> it helps.

So, your answer is "No"? You don't believe their actually spying on you, you
just like playing the paranoid anti-government wacko on the newsgroup?
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:02:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>So, your answer is "No"? You don't believe their actually spying on you, you
>just like playing the paranoid anti-government wacko on the newsgroup?

If you ask for my belief: I strongly believe that you're a loser of the
worst kind. You're both stupid and ignorant, excessively so. Probably
you're congratulating yourself for the "clever" injection of
anti-government paranoia, right?




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:02:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:o mnas01oshpv5m3j03dif97ob17p3s7c9g@4ax.com...
> If you ask for my belief: I strongly believe that you're a loser of the
> worst kind. You're both stupid and ignorant, excessively so. Probably
> you're congratulating yourself for the "clever" injection of
> anti-government paranoia, right?

You're still dodging the question. Do you believe that EvenBalance is using
PunkBuster for any illegal purposes. We're all aware of your assertions that
their software has the potential of causing harm.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 66.55.134.103!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 64.237.63.134!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 8:47:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>You're still dodging the question.

I'm dodging a question? That's coming from a world-class idiot who asks
questions and then chooses to dismiss the answers as paranoid rubbish?
You are appallingly stupid, do you know that?

>Do you believe that EvenBalance is using
>PunkBuster for any illegal purposes.

Which of both is the government? Or did you drop the previous point of
anti-government, twit?




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:D 7mcs0914bl860j6ja9e8bpverr8peqqte@4ax.com...
>>Do you believe that EvenBalance is using
>>PunkBuster for any illegal purposes.
>
> Which of both is the government? Or did you drop the previous point of
> anti-government, twit?

You're just afraid to answer, because as soon as you admit that you have no
real fear that EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer, your whole
thread will be revealed as a sham.

So, do you think EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer?

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 66.55.134.103!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 64.237.63.134!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 12:31:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <IKednXHGksqEH1rcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, "GrössKopf FLOT Admin"
<admin AT flotserver DOT net> says...
> "Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:D 7mcs0914bl860j6ja9e8bpverr8peqqte@4ax.com...
> >>Do you believe that EvenBalance is using
> >>PunkBuster for any illegal purposes.
> >
> > Which of both is the government? Or did you drop the previous point of
> > anti-government, twit?
>
> You're just afraid to answer, because as soon as you admit that you have no
> real fear that EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer, your whole
> thread will be revealed as a sham.
>
> So, do you think EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer?
>
>


yes, they are. they're looking at many different aspects of my computer
that i don't know nor do you know, what exactly they're looking at.
their entire intent is to snoop. they're looking for cheats, and what
else? do you know? no. you don't know. why? because punkbuster folks
won't tell us. that's the point. they're snooping and we MUST allow it
in order to play on punkbuster "protected" servers.

as for being a "sham": we're presenting a "what if" situation. there's
no "sham" involved. at no point did we say that punkbuster was getting
private information off of our computers, what we're saying is, we have
no idea what they're taking off our computers. until they spell it out,
we'll never know and those of us with the ability to reason and maintain
abtract thoughts will always be suspicious.



/CF
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:41:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Colonel_Flagg" <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message news:MPG.1c3154e726eb1a90989696@nntp.charter.net...
> yes, they are. they're looking at many different aspects of my computer
> that i don't know nor do you know, what exactly they're looking at.
> their entire intent is to snoop. they're looking for cheats, and what
> else? do you know? no. you don't know. why? because punkbuster folks
> won't tell us. that's the point. they're snooping and we MUST allow it
> in order to play on punkbuster "protected" servers.

So you really think they're doing things they shouldn't with PB, other than
to watch for cheats? Wow.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 66.55.134.103!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 64.237.63.134!
http://www.flotserver.net
December 21, 2004 8:04:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

I haven't finished reading all the posts but I recentlly started recieving
the #81001 hack violation and can assure all readers that I do not have
any type of hack on my computer. I firmly disagree with anyone who would
use such measures destroying the integrity of the game and frustrating
no-cheating players like myself. What I do have is a no-cd crack so that
I do not have to insert my cd every time I play. Does anyone know if this
could possiblly be the reason I'm being kicked? Thanks for your help.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:37:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"GrössKopf FLOT Admin" <admin AT flotserver DOT net> wrote:

>You're just afraid to answer, because as soon as you admit that you have no
>real fear that EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer, your whole
>thread will be revealed as a sham.

Yes, I'm trembling with fear because you are so unbelievably clever.

>So, do you think EvenBalance is using PB to snoop on your computer?

What about the government, twit? First things first. Or are you just
afraid to admit that you still don't understand what the big guys are
talking about?




JK'04 aka Elkrider
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jan Kannemacher" <varros@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bidfs0tf2o979l2s11aonjlh9t4jb6kf1j@4ax.com...
> What about the government, twit? First things first. Or are you just
> afraid to admit that you still don't understand what the big guys are
> talking about?

So, you won't answer. Actually, by your lack of an answer, you have actually
answered. You were never fearful that EvenBalance was using PB to do things
it's not supposed to, you just wanted to stir the kettle.

--
Visit the [FLOT] MOHAA servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded: 66.55.134.103!
16 Player Hell in the Pacific TC: 64.237.63.134!
http://www.flotserver.net
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:38:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Colonel_Flagg <colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org> wrote:

[Explanation]

Hey, you used a lot of complicated words, some of them with even more
than two syllables. Are you sure you didn't put too much stress on the
FLOT idiot?




JK'04 aka Elkrider
!