SLAC busts...
•
10 Sep 2010, 12:02
•
Journals
Ok.. I assume we should trust chaplaj when he posts names of who got busted etc.. But imo he should post some more "proof" as in screenshots, reasons what they exactly did.. Now he justs posts some names and we've to accept it as proof, doesn't make sense tbh
xx
xx
:D
afaik it stands for "it possibly can be a hack, but it's not for sure"
...? :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic#Computer_science
xx
It's not much asked to provide some more specific proof. If he wants to gain the full trust of the community, then he'll have to do better then what he's doing right now.
makes sense....he just wants money....
afaik he did nexus and a year later or something he did eth, and that is it.
so yeah, he's been coding cheats for years
and obviously you need someone who can code cheats to make the anticheat if not he wouldn't know what he was doing.
nice comparison my friend
besides lets say, not pb but pbb, yet another organisation you also most likely believe(d) in telling the truth, even though they could have posted anything in their banlist :)
well tbh, I hadn't given slac any thought, if it wasn't for foxdie. I am pretty sure you could do the same and just trust an ex-pbb admin as far as that :)
taken from i am sure there is more in there about a screenshot section some where if you have time to read it all...
Old spiROZE
dubble cash (anticheatcontract + cheats) monopoly!
Triple Cash $$$
Quad Chash $$$$
Quint Cash $$$$$
Bill Gates Mode On $$$$over9k$$$$$$$$
he still post just a list, which he can edit before release.
there is not an automatically refreshing public list like on punkbuster.
also read http://www.crossfire.nu/?x=journal&mode=item&id=110473#comment2445609
But now this wont happen cuz you got the knowledge :(
99% of those busts on the first list are simply attempts to trick slac.
and as for those polish and never-heard-of-guys you actually dont really need more proof than their names, since you dont give a crap about them anyways.
i didnt download it yet since i dont play for cb or esl,
but isnt there like a trojan in there or smthin?
Its like you play games and you dont know shit about computer or programming. Used computers over 13 years and just for playing and still know something.
Its like "isint it trojan"? Answer is no it is no. If you donwnload crack to the game or crack to windows you will get same errors and alarms about trojan and viruses. You can check the program with other antivirus programs.
Can we trust chaplja... its like what a question is that? If speedlink is involved and chaplja gets payd. He has contract etc.. how stupid can you be to do something wrong and loose everything?
Another question is why chaplja? Well because he knows what he is doing. Coding is not an easy shit to do. I understand something about coding when I see it, but I cant write anything. Even program to say "HELLO WORLD" :D (well that i can do).
My thoughts about this. I'm happy that someone is doing something for this game. Only that persone does not get thank you. Good that he gets paid. Otherwise he would stop this years ago.
2) Dont download games.. It's the only industry thats worth paying for.
3) Not every1 knows everything about chaplja or slac.
The journal isn't stupid. It's quite valid actually. All we hear and see is "word of mouth" talk.
1. Chaplja has a contract with Speedlink. Fine, but we haven't seen it and most likely never will, so basically we have to trust that he has one.
2. There is a bust list (with random no-names I might add). However, we will not get to see any kind of proof, or even hear the name of the bot the cheater was using. So I guess we have to trust that the list has actual cheaters on it.
3. There is no EULA. So if anything goes wrong with your computer due to the use of SLAC, you have no legal backing to do anything about it. So we simply have to trust that everything will be fine and using SLAC will not somehow fuck your system up and/or cause any kind of dataloss.
See the pattern here? It's all based on trust and to be honest, that's quite a lot to ask when this regards an anti-cheat being coded by someone who codes cheats. And don't come with this bullshit about "you have to be a cheatcoder to be able to code an anti-cheat" cuz that's UTTER bullshit.
As far as it concerns me - I stick to foxdie(gosh...this really starts sounding like propaganda^^). At least I trust him by far more than I trust chapljia. I think it's pretty clear, that that programm is no trojan what so ever (even though i can't be arsed to check the traffic it generates over and over again, with each new version, let avira&co do that, did they already?)
What quiki meant to imply is, that most people are not exactly being very appreciative, concerning the slac. And he does know at least a bit more about coding than 'Hello world', just exaggerating^^
(probably just wanted to point out, that there are not many willing to code such(slac) - even if one gets paid for it - which can't be a rather 'reasonable' payment imo, since otherwise they could simply have gotten someone...without meaning to be offensive - professional.)
But indeed, I'm pretty sure everyone here would be eager to see an EULA being released (which afaik doesn't happen for many beta programms, not the ones I've tested sofar (except, that you have no claims whatsoever^^)
It's like;
- You are busted and banned for a year.
- eeh what? For what?
- For cheating.
- "ok", and what exactly proofs that I cheat?
- That's classified info. Now gtfo.
Even courtrooms in any third world country is at least a little more transparent regarding evidence than this ;-)
And it troubles me that the likes of Killerboy etc are simply taking it for granted.
well, we also took what pbb listed for granted no? (well but some sort of violation trigger/or any other indication would be good indeed).
and you're totally right about not liking CB forcing to use an omnious BETA programm on their users. either shouldn't be forced untill the end of the beta (which imo would be a bit too far in the future) or untill there is indeed some kind of EULA, if SLAC isn't about to reach a final stage anytime soon (which seems more likely).
But about CB using the busts (at least in this point I'm fairly confident, that slac has been tested towards chance of failure concerning introducing cheat code)
As Killerboy stated the other day, pb didnt tell you either. it just showed multihack, etc.
That being said, I doubt there are people on that list that are innocent (see the sa7z case) so there isnt a point in saying this.
and why would you want to let cheatcoders know slac busts their bots and what to improve so it wont get busted?
hello
http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=d9c074ad0a94b5850a2136bd3ddddbdf611a1fcfddc1b017576c3a2c8ca98aaf-1284054824
http://virusscan.jotti.org/de/scanresult/bfd06561fe18b160d17cd9ee5b2c70b98b7be8f9
i have seen a thread in some "hacking forum" where a guy claimed to have cracked SLAC.. he also said it was backdoored. Thread got deleted and there wasnt any reall proof.. except that this guy seemed trustable to the community there.
The only thing i wonder is, why doesnt he just crypt that .exe file in a way to get rid of all the AV warnings?
@edit: i got alot to hide ! and on a side note, i would be happy if SLAC is the AC that the ET-Community has been waiting for.. but currently i dont belive that :S
if he'd encrypt the .exe in a way it wouldn't be listed anymore, he could also just not encrypt it in the first place.
edit: and if he plans to update the files after they've been whitelisted, those have to be aproved by the AV companies again.
i dont know how long it will take to whitelist a file, but i dont think it will be done from one day to the next one.. and that with every update? k :P
(quite alot of companies rely on it anyway, so it's no problem to have 'every update" checked :D)
and it's not about the encrypter being "aweful", it's because it works :P
if he is smart enough go code cheats, an anti cheat software and make his own crypter, then he should also easily be able to make that encryption without having any false positives on AV´s.. having no alarms on AV´s is getting harder if this alarms arent false positives (and even then it shouldnt be that hard for him).
nothing but assumptions though
"If the football player scores a goal against good enemies, then he must be one of the worst players ever"
You made no sense there, at all. A good encryption is one that can't be decrypted easily, period.
ye a good encryption is one that cant be decrypted.. but the securest encryption isnt the best encryption aslong as every AV trys to delete it.
Es gibt viele Argumente gegen SLAC denen ich schweren Herzens zustimmen muss, aber deins macht keinen Sinn.
Stell dir vor jedes programm hätte so eine verschlüsselung wie SLAC, die von jedem AV als virus entdeckt wird..
Ganz anders sieht es natürlich aus, wenn SLAC.exe tatsächlich ein virus ist. Abgesehen davon ist normalerweise eine verschlüsselung die es einem AV nicht möglich macht das programm zu durchsuchen, undedected (es wird also nicht von einem AV als virus bezeichnet). SLAC wird allerdings als virus bezeichnet -> schlechte verschlüsselung oder/und tatsächlich ein virus
So ungefähr stand es jedenfalls in einem unterkapitel in nem buch das ich eigtl. noch irgendwo hier haben sollte und einscannen könnte :o
Ich seh definitiv, dass du nicht den blassesten Schimmer hast, wovon du eigentlich da quasselst. Für mich ist dieses "Gespräch" definitiv vorbei :)