Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
I was more thinking of something like this: Secure 1/2/3 (1=off, 2=on kick only, 3=on, kick and ban) [Default 3] Global Reporting on/off (Secure has to been above 1 to get this to work) [Default on aka 1] Global Ban list included on/off [Default on aka 1] Doesn't sound to complicated. And I can't think of many serious server admins out there who can't change a value from 0 to 1 or 2... But hey, you can always use the default values if you're not that good :P /Oscar Elminst wrote: So it would seem the wanted options are; 1. non secure 2. secure with a. option to kick only, no ban b. option to kick and ban, with 1. option to report to global 2. option to use global list. That about cover it? Sounds like it's just getting more complicated... - Original Message - From: Oscar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules Hmm, about 100 new mails from only this list. I should have know better than to say some linux dist is better then someone else. But, who can refuse, muahahaha The simple answer is that no linux dist is better/more secure than someone else, the only thing that matters is the one who press the buttons... Anyway, to the point... I didn't actually read all the mails so I'm sorry if someone allready have came up with this idea. As not everyone seem to agree with each other about the future global ban list, why not make it an option as with everything else...? Then the admins who want to include all bans from the global list can do so, and they who don't want to include it can skip it and still run a secure server who protects against cheaters... And about reporting caught cheaters to the global list, hmm... Don't know really, but I'm sure there can be an option as well... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ?
Okay, so whatcpu and ram do i need to run AT LEAST four servers ? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Udo Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ? Hiho! On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0200, Omer Cohen wrote: how meny 18-20 player servers can i run on a pentume 600mhz machine ? Depending on mods, maps and RAM 1-2 server. If you have stuff like a webserver and stats running calcute with one 1 server. You can try to run 2 servers and figure out how much players are your optimum. Reduce/Increase the number of player slots and try it out yourself. Greetings, Udo Held ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
Check the archives (http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ), I answered this in detail about 3 days ago... Omer Cohen wrote: On that note can you pelase tell me what pigboost 1 and 2 does ??? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Oscar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules I was more thinking of something like this: Secure 1/2/3 (1=off, 2=on kick only, 3=on, kick and ban) [Default 3] Global Reporting on/off (Secure has to been above 1 to get this to work) [Default on aka 1] Global Ban list included on/off [Default on aka 1] Doesn't sound to complicated. And I can't think of many serious server admins out there who can't change a value from 0 to 1 or 2... But hey, you can always use the default values if you're not that good :P /Oscar Elminst wrote: So it would seem the wanted options are; 1. non secure 2. secure with a. option to kick only, no ban b. option to kick and ban, with 1. option to report to global 2. option to use global list. That about cover it? Sounds like it's just getting more complicated... - Original Message - From: Oscar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules Hmm, about 100 new mails from only this list. I should have know better than to say some linux dist is better then someone else. But, who can refuse, muahahaha The simple answer is that no linux dist is better/more secure than someone else, the only thing that matters is the one who press the buttons... Anyway, to the point... I didn't actually read all the mails so I'm sorry if someone allready have came up with this idea. As not everyone seem to agree with each other about the future global ban list, why not make it an option as with everything else...? Then the admins who want to include all bans from the global list can do so, and they who don't want to include it can skip it and still run a secure server who protects against cheaters... And about reporting caught cheaters to the global list, hmm... Don't know really, but I'm sure there can be an option as well... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
It eats CPU as hell and should give your players lower ping and a more distinct feeling... To be more advanced, someone wrote this a while ago: All the pingboot modes attempt to reduce the latency caused by the server. The default implementation adds around 20msec to each players ping (under linux). Mode 1 reduces this by using a different wait method (a select() call). This method reduces the latency to 10msec. Mode 2 uses a similar but slightly different method (and alarm() type call). Again, the result it 10msec worth of latency being added. NOTE that this method has the potential to hang a server in certain (terminal) situations. If anyone has used this mode recently (not the first test we did!) and it hangs please speak up :) Mode 3 minimises the latency to the minimum possible level by processing a frame EVERY time a packet arrives. This causes the lowest possible latency, but can also cause extreme CPU usages (it does a complete frame for every packet, with each player sending lots of packets per second and 30 players this adds up to insane amounts of frames). Use this mode at your own risk, it will consume all available CPU, don't complain that cstrike uses too much CPU if you use this mode :-) In a future release this mode will be tweaked to let the admin balance latencies agains CPU usage (by processing a frame every N packets). There is also an external modules called pingbooster by UDPSoft (or is it UDPSoftware?). They implement something like mode 3. As this is an external module, and was built for an older version of HL (1108) it may not work properly any longer, and future releases may (accidently) break it. Omer Cohen wrote: On that note can you pelase tell me what pigboost 1 and 2 does ??? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Oscar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules I was more thinking of something like this: Secure 1/2/3 (1=off, 2=on kick only, 3=on, kick and ban) [Default 3] Global Reporting on/off (Secure has to been above 1 to get this to work) [Default on aka 1] Global Ban list included on/off [Default on aka 1] Doesn't sound to complicated. And I can't think of many serious server admins out there who can't change a value from 0 to 1 or 2... But hey, you can always use the default values if you're not that good :P /Oscar Elminst wrote: So it would seem the wanted options are; 1. non secure 2. secure with a. option to kick only, no ban b. option to kick and ban, with 1. option to report to global 2. option to use global list. That about cover it? Sounds like it's just getting more complicated... - Original Message - From: Oscar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules Hmm, about 100 new mails from only this list. I should have know better than to say some linux dist is better then someone else. But, who can refuse, muahahaha The simple answer is that no linux dist is better/more secure than someone else, the only thing that matters is the one who press the buttons... Anyway, to the point... I didn't actually read all the mails so I'm sorry if someone allready have came up with this idea. As not everyone seem to agree with each other about the future global ban list, why not make it an option as with everything else...? Then the admins who want to include all bans from the global list can do so, and they who don't want to include it can skip it and still run a secure server who protects against cheaters... And about reporting caught cheaters to the global list, hmm... Don't know really, but I'm sure there can be an option as well... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ?
Hmm, someone should really do some serious testing about this and write a good guide... Don't know how many times this question has come up? To wrap everything up from what has been told on this list... Can start with the RAM since that's the easiest. 128mb for each server under 20 player. And some ram for the OS... CPU, that depend very much on how many players and what maps you are about to run. Also if you have some extra stuff like Adminmod, HLguard, Statsme and so on... But my guessing for a lag free server would be something like dual AMD mp/xp 1600+(maybe faster) and 512+128mb ram... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu Omer Cohen wrote: Okay, so whatcpu and ram do i need to run AT LEAST four servers ? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Udo Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ? Hiho! On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0200, Omer Cohen wrote: how meny 18-20 player servers can i run on a pentume 600mhz machine ? Depending on mods, maps and RAM 1-2 server. If you have stuff like a webserver and stats running calcute with one 1 server. You can try to run 2 servers and figure out how much players are your optimum. Reduce/Increase the number of player slots and try it out yourself. Greetings, Udo Held ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ?
Hmm, someone should really do some serious testing about this and write a good guide... Don't know how many times this question has come up? To wrap everything up from what has been told on this list... Can start with the RAM since that's the easiest. 128mb for each server under 20 player. And some ram for the OS... CPU, that depend very much on how many players and what maps you are about to run. Also if you have some extra stuff like Adminmod, HLguard, Statsme and so on... But my guessing for a lag free server would be something like dual AMD mp/xp 1600+(maybe faster) and 512+128mb ram... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu Omer Cohen wrote: Okay, so whatcpu and ram do i need to run AT LEAST four servers ? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Udo Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ? Hiho! On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0200, Omer Cohen wrote: how meny 18-20 player servers can i run on a pentume 600mhz machine ? Depending on mods, maps and RAM 1-2 server. If you have stuff like a webserver and stats running calcute with one 1 server. You can try to run 2 servers and figure out how much players are your optimum. Reduce/Increase the number of player slots and try it out yourself. Greetings, Udo Held ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Security for dod
Is valve going to support this at all if not what are the best server side options for it Kingsley ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [OT] Pocket your server?
That sounds weird... :P Should we ask ourself what redhat (or any other dist) is first of all. It's no a company/group who writes there own program and sell it... No, instead they take programs which they think would fit in there product and sell it togheter with other programs, pre configured so they will work pretty much out of the box. So if 90% of all linux users out there uses redhat and someone suddenly reports a bug in ssh or apache. Then ofcourse statistics would say that 90% of the bugs under linux are in redhat distributions. But ops, there wasn't a bug in redhat itself, it was in the program ssh or apache the bug existed... Therefor can you not say that some dist is more secure than someone else. Because they are all made of the same kernel, and if you choose to run all the stupid services as default then you are the worst security whole ever :P /Oscar MKiller wrote: Most hacked servers are redhat for the simple reason, theres more redhat servers than any other distro flavour. Some statistics say that 90% of bugs under linux are in red hat distributions xD ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [OT] Daemon Configuration
And why do you think that it is all about the Admins and not about the players? /me hands over a cluepon Allowing administrators to configure daemons to their liking is just good etiquette; particularly if you want those administrators to use your software. In regards to your silly comment, its about everyone. Players need administrators to run servers. Administrators need Valve to provide server software that is easy to use, maintain, and configure. Valve needs players to buy their software. No one is more important; if any of these three groups becomes disgruntled and drops their part, the whole thing collapses. Personally, I could care less about being able to turn off the global ban list. Just because I'm not interested though, doesn't mean I'm going to flame administrators who are. In the end, as usual, Valve can do whatever they like, but I and other admins would like to make it known that we want as much configuration as possible. Regards Nathan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ?
Omer, what mod are you planning to run on the 4 servers? Do you plan to offer stats thru a website also? Are you planning on running admin_mod, or anything else added on to your HLDS servers? We need to know these things in order to give you a rough estimate of what server horsepower you need for 4, 18-20 player HLDS servers on 1 box. If you're wanting to run 4, 18-20 player Counter-Strike servers, you'll need a dual CPU system minimum, and each CPU will probably need to be at least 1400Mhz or better. StanTheMan TheHardwareFreak http://www.hardwarefreak.com rcon admin at: Beer for Breakfast servershttp://bfb.bogleg.org/ 209.41.98.2:27016 (CS multi-map) 209.41.98.2:27015 (DoD) 209.41.98.2:27017 (CS militia/dust2)Dallas, TX -Original Message- From: Omer Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ? Okay, so whatcpu and ram do i need to run AT LEAST four servers ? Regards, Omer Cohen - Original Message - From: Udo Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How meny servers on a p3 600mhz ? Hiho! On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0200, Omer Cohen wrote: how meny 18-20 player servers can i run on a pentume 600mhz machine ? Depending on mods, maps and RAM 1-2 server. If you have stuff like a webserver and stats running calcute with one 1 server. You can try to run 2 servers and figure out how much players are your optimum. Reduce/Increase the number of player slots and try it out yourself. Greetings, Udo Held ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: how will the Valve banlist be hack proof? [was Re:[hlds_linux] New Security Modules]
I was actually thinking this on the way home lastnight, except not so much hacking, more faking the communication between a server and the banlist server. Now sure its not going to be easy, but it would be possible to write code that simulates a CS server using vac, and then sends the same data back to the banlist server that is sent when a user gets caught cheating and added to the list. Therefore making it possible for anyone with this piece of code, to globally ban any wonid they like. Now people are going to come along and say Thats impossible, or cheaters are not smart enough to do that but thats exactly the type of response that turned apache-scalp into such a big issue. Its just a thought anyway. On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 08:40, Buddha-Pest wrote: i have a MUCH bigger concern about the global valve ban list. as with any centralized system it could (and most likely will) be hacked. imagine myg0t populating the global valve ban list with the wonid's of admins and top players (these are easily to collect from stats pages). what is valve doing to prevent this? as with cheater software, it's very very difficult to validate the software someone is running if they are PURPOSELY changing it. i'm sure it wouldn't be impossible to reverse engineer whatever protocol the server uses to report cheaters to the central database and then... pandemonium. perhaps there should be some sort of circle of trust that valve creates, and their database would only accept bans from servers that are in that circle. not sure how the circle would be created but it could start very small, like say with homeLAN and other established isps running hlds. or they could start running background checks and stuff :) (now there's where AA could get REALLY scary) ~jules aka BP ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: how will the Valve banlist be hack proof? [was Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules]
At 10:56 7/18/2002 +1200, you wrote: I was actually thinking this on the way home lastnight, except not so much hacking, more faking the communication between a server and the banlist server. Now sure its not going to be easy, but it would be possible to write code that simulates a CS server using vac, and then sends the same data back to the banlist server that is sent when a user gets caught cheating and added to the list. Why bother simulating anything. Spoof source addresses of real servers. And since its UDP I dont think theres any handshaking involved. And you have the code that will encrypt the WONid locally (the server code), and you can sniff the outbound packets trivially. Why cant you spam the master list? All I can say is please think this one thru guys (But I guess they are, its testing at the moment). Brad -- Brad Gould, Network Engineer Agile Communications Pty Ltd 31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.agile.com.au Phone: +61-8-8232 1234 Fax: +61-8-8232 4567 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart...
From: Angus Macgyver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry to insist Simon and Omer, but I do not have access anymore to the shell nor to the scripts. If I could, I would not have any problem. What I am tryiing to achieve, Simon, by restarting I wish my server could accept people playing again after the last VAC update... Have you tested if any of restart, reload or shutdownserver; map de_dust has the same effect as restarting as far as VAC is concerned? Might be worth a try. Otherwise, what I meant was that even if you don't have shell access to the machine, surely whoever owns it does and could take 2 minutes to make this change to hlds_run for you. On the other hand if it is your own machine then I fail to see why you do not have at least ssh access to it :) The only way I can think of that you could forcibly crash the server would be to switch to an invalid map, i.e. first touch cstrike/maps/de_bogus.bsp then map de_bogus. But since you don't have shell or even ftp access you can't do that... -Simon ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Re: how will the Valve banlist be hack proof? [was Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules]
- Original Message - From: Brad Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: mirror.valve.hlds_linux Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:33 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Re: how will the Valve banlist be hack proof? [was Re: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules] Why bother simulating anything. Spoof source addresses of real servers. And since its UDP I dont think theres any handshaking involved. good point brad (check out the brains on brad! :) since it's UDP even the circle of trust that i suggested in my original post would be useless. this kind of thing should be done via tcp with a handshake requirement. accident and i were talking about building a global ban database system late last year, and it got really complicated really fast. but the basic idea was that only TRUSTED servers would be allowed to add to the global ban list, this trust was verified by ip (over tcp) and a handshake to prevent spoofing, and there were some serious requirements to becoming trusted. ~j aka bp ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart...
From: Kevin J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] if your server will autorestart (best way is to make it as a shell script imho) then just do an rcon quit and it will shut down the server, then your shell script will pop it back up. Read the rest of the thread, kev ;) He's already running it in a loop via the bundled hlds_run script, but that script is 'intelligent' so that if you do a quit or exit command it won't loop (d'oh). I can't really think of any way around that. Honestly, if you do not have anything but rcon access to the server then you're screwed. What will you do when there's a new patch released?! Making the server crash will be the only solution I think. But that's easier said than done. Btw I tried what somebody suggested with alias one one then one, but that simply makes the server stop responding and peg the CPU at 100%. I'd recommend Angus not try that one since without shell access you won't be able to get the server back up :) -Simon ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart...
oh, so you mean he has no way of creating my shell script... yeah, then he is fuct, unless someone knows of a way to crash the server. kev - Original Message - From: Simon Garner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart... | From: Kevin J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | if your server will autorestart (best way is to make it as a shell script | imho) then just do an rcon quit and it will shut down the server, then | your | shell script will pop it back up. | | | Read the rest of the thread, kev ;) | | He's already running it in a loop via the bundled hlds_run script, but that | script is 'intelligent' so that if you do a quit or exit command it won't | loop (d'oh). | | I can't really think of any way around that. Honestly, if you do not have | anything but rcon access to the server then you're screwed. What will you do | when there's a new patch released?! | | Making the server crash will be the only solution I think. But that's easier | said than done. | | Btw I tried what somebody suggested with alias one one then one, but | that simply makes the server stop responding and peg the CPU at 100%. I'd | recommend Angus not try that one since without shell access you won't be | able to get the server back up :) | | -Simon | | ___ | To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: | http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart...
Upload a cs_i386.so or metamod plugin that dereferences a NULL pointer. :) Or equivelently, install one of the many poorly written metamod plugins out there =P (If you're a metamod plugin author, I'm not necessarily complaining about you -- just those out there that make a publicly released metamod module their first work in C. :) -a --- Andrew A. Chen Divo Networks On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Kevin J. Anderson wrote: oh, so you mean he has no way of creating my shell script... yeah, then he is fuct, unless someone knows of a way to crash the server. kev - Original Message - From: Simon Garner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: Re: Again: [hlds_linux] trouble with restart... | From: Kevin J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | if your server will autorestart (best way is to make it as a shell script | imho) then just do an rcon quit and it will shut down the server, then | your | shell script will pop it back up. | | | Read the rest of the thread, kev ;) | | He's already running it in a loop via the bundled hlds_run script, but that | script is 'intelligent' so that if you do a quit or exit command it won't | loop (d'oh). | | I can't really think of any way around that. Honestly, if you do not have | anything but rcon access to the server then you're screwed. What will you do | when there's a new patch released?! | | Making the server crash will be the only solution I think. But that's easier | said than done. | | Btw I tried what somebody suggested with alias one one then one, but | that simply makes the server stop responding and peg the CPU at 100%. I'd | recommend Angus not try that one since without shell access you won't be | able to get the server back up :) | | -Simon | | ___ | To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: | http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Latest Security Updates not working again with WickedGL
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I just received a false cheat detection. I know there are no cheats or hacks on my Voodoo 3000 machines but all of them are being detected as having a cheat. I have no idea what to do except turn off secure mode? Does anyone else notice the problem or know of a fix? It happened sometime tonite after 5:00pm (GMT-7) or so. -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
Depends, on what you would class as 'much' On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 15:09, Eric (Deacon) wrote: I do not believe its fair that someone who has bought your software should have to wait any period of time to connect to a server due to a software bug that could have been avoided. Heh, you don't actually *use* computers much, do you? ;) -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
So it would seem the wanted options are; 1. non secure 2. secure with a. option to kick only, no ban b. option to kick and ban, with 1. option to report to global 2. option to use global list. How about: c. option to wipe ass for me 1. wipe with circular motion 2. wipe in forward to back motion 3. wipe in back to forward motion 4. use quilted 1-ply 5. use quilted 2-ply 6. use unquilted 1-ply 7. use unquilted 2-ply 8. use the obviously uncompleted critical thinking homework assignments from high school 9. use Maureen Dowd's column from the NY Times (recommended) 0. turn off the ass-wiping feature and go commando Heh, seriously...this is just insane. I love options and have often lobbied passionately for there to be option as to how this or that functions. However, this is just crazy. I'd rather have functional software than even further delays due to some sniveling admin. In Tweak-esque voices at a feverish pitch, people manage to get out a sentence during the lull between fits of spazzing out: Well if VAC really worked then they couldn't play anyway since they'd be kicked! That isn't the point. That's merely an added benefit, extra assurance of a mostly cheat-free gaming experience. The POINT is that if they ARE repeat cheaters, they can NOT continue to use their copy of the game on secure servers even if they don't currently have the cheats actively running. Technically, Valve is being very lenient in that they should not even be allowed *that* privilege, according to the EULA they had to agree to before using the software. The point is that a universal ban list will act first as a deterrent against cheaters-to-be even thinking twice about playing with this particular fire. And if that deterrent fails, it acts as a punishment for breaking the EULA. When they break the EULA, they forfeit their opportunity to use the software. Best case scenario: people decide that constantly buying new copies of HL isn't worth whatever juvenile thrill they may get. Worst case scenario: they break their EULA, forfeit any rights to the use of the software--and possibly continue to fun Valve's efforts by buying additional product. Please, this has to be one of the dumbest spamfests I've seen in a long time. Good-natured suggestions and thoughtful discussions on the issue(s) at hand are welcome. Dogmatic, unthinking arguments augmented by fevered, spittle-infused flames are not welcome. If you can't be insightful or intelligent about it, then please keep your crap off the list. Thanks. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
A sane minded non valve ass kissing person would agree. Heh, nice dogma. At least you're taking the intelligent approach and maintaining an open mind there... Oh, wait. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
All this from someone who doesnt even run a server? (or so he has stated recently) Have you read any of the posts? With all the other concerns that have arisen? I want cheat protection, but not at the expence of others. How about: c. option to wipe ass for me 1. wipe with circular motion 2. wipe in forward to back motion 3. wipe in back to forward motion 4. use quilted 1-ply 5. use quilted 2-ply 6. use unquilted 1-ply 7. use unquilted 2-ply 8. use the obviously uncompleted critical thinking homework assignments from high school 9. use Maureen Dowd's column from the NY Times (recommended) 0. turn off the ass-wiping feature and go commando Heh, seriously...this is just insane. I love options and have often lobbied passionately for there to be option as to how this or that functions. However, this is just crazy. I'd rather have functional software than even further delays due to some sniveling admin. In Tweak-esque voices at a feverish pitch, people manage to get out a sentence during the lull between fits of spazzing out: Well if VAC really worked then they couldn't play anyway since they'd be kicked! That isn't the point. That's merely an added benefit, extra assurance of a mostly cheat-free gaming experience. The POINT is that if they ARE repeat cheaters, they can NOT continue to use their copy of the game on secure servers even if they don't currently have the cheats actively running. Technically, Valve is being very lenient in that they should not even be allowed *that* privilege, according to the EULA they had to agree to before using the software. Further delays, acceptable banning innocent users due to bugs, Not acceptable Youd be the first mofo to cry if your wonid was banned due to an error somewhere. The point is that a universal ban list will act first as a deterrent against cheaters-to-be even thinking twice about playing with this particular fire. And if that deterrent fails, it acts as a punishment for breaking the EULA. When they break the EULA, they forfeit their opportunity to use the software. Best case scenario: people decide that constantly buying new copies of HL isn't worth whatever juvenile thrill they may get. Worst case scenario: they break their EULA, forfeit any rights to the use of the software--and possibly continue to fun Valve's efforts by buying additional product. Please, this has to be one of the dumbest spamfests I've seen in a long time. Good-natured suggestions and thoughtful discussions on the issue(s) at hand are welcome. Dogmatic, unthinking arguments augmented by fevered, spittle-infused flames are not welcome. If you can't be insightful or intelligent about it, then please keep your crap off the list. You complain something is dumb and spammy by adding to it? Gee, youre bright. Heres my Clue stick, now go sit in the corner and beat yaself with it. Thanks. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
Hrmm, the first 4 messages I've read on this list (I subscribed about 20 mins ago) and it's nothing but a flamefest .. Why am I suddenly reminded of Fidonet?... and why do I have the urge to write a twit-filter? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Eric (Deacon) Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules Wake up Mr Valve ass kisser. Shouldn't this list have an age requirement for membership? -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
All this from someone who doesnt even run a server? (or so he has stated recently) I am not currently a public internet server owner/operator. Have you read any of the posts? Yes, I have. Many thousands of them, actually. In fact, I've read over two years' worth of posts including all of the ones on this topic. With all the other concerns that have arisen? Concerns are great, and the intelligent discussion thereof is welcome. The concern I have currently is that instead, we have name-calling, derisive comments, dogmatic arguments, etc. I want cheat protection, but not at the expence of others. I'm sincerely interested to hear your proposal of a system that's 100% hack proof with a 0% chance of false positives that works 100% effectively. Life is a series of compromises. The maturing of the VAC and the advent of a centrally controlled permanent banishment for repeat offenders is purely a response to the cries of admins and users the world over. You don't have to participate. Instead you can tend to the expence of cheaters by running an insecure server. Valve is run by thinking individuals. If there is ever a major problem with the VAC or central banlist, don't you think they might react appropriately? Personally, I say a central banlist is a terrible idea. Instead, mark their CD-Key as invalid, blocking any chance of WON Auth, so that they cannot connect to any internet servers. You repeatedly break the EULA, you don't get to run the software as long as Valve can help it. More power to them. And by the way, if you're not new to these lists, you'll know that referring to me as a Valve ass kisser is ludicrous. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
ah! I didn't have to miss Eric ffor too long --- Red Phive http://www.fragmart.com http://www.redphive.org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric (Deacon) Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules So it would seem the wanted options are; 1. non secure 2. secure with a. option to kick only, no ban b. option to kick and ban, with 1. option to report to global 2. option to use global list. How about: c. option to wipe ass for me 1. wipe with circular motion 2. wipe in forward to back motion 3. wipe in back to forward motion 4. use quilted 1-ply 5. use quilted 2-ply 6. use unquilted 1-ply 7. use unquilted 2-ply 8. use the obviously uncompleted critical thinking homework assignments from high school 9. use Maureen Dowd's column from the NY Times (recommended) 0. turn off the ass-wiping feature and go commando Heh, seriously...this is just insane. I love options and have often lobbied passionately for there to be option as to how this or that functions. However, this is just crazy. I'd rather have functional software than even further delays due to some sniveling admin. In Tweak-esque voices at a feverish pitch, people manage to get out a sentence during the lull between fits of spazzing out: Well if VAC really worked then they couldn't play anyway since they'd be kicked! That isn't the point. That's merely an added benefit, extra assurance of a mostly cheat-free gaming experience. The POINT is that if they ARE repeat cheaters, they can NOT continue to use their copy of the game on secure servers even if they don't currently have the cheats actively running. Technically, Valve is being very lenient in that they should not even be allowed *that* privilege, according to the EULA they had to agree to before using the software. The point is that a universal ban list will act first as a deterrent against cheaters-to-be even thinking twice about playing with this particular fire. And if that deterrent fails, it acts as a punishment for breaking the EULA. When they break the EULA, they forfeit their opportunity to use the software. Best case scenario: people decide that constantly buying new copies of HL isn't worth whatever juvenile thrill they may get. Worst case scenario: they break their EULA, forfeit any rights to the use of the software--and possibly continue to fun Valve's efforts by buying additional product. Please, this has to be one of the dumbest spamfests I've seen in a long time. Good-natured suggestions and thoughtful discussions on the issue(s) at hand are welcome. Dogmatic, unthinking arguments augmented by fevered, spittle-infused flames are not welcome. If you can't be insightful or intelligent about it, then please keep your crap off the list. Thanks. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
With all the other concerns that have arisen? Concerns are great, and the intelligent discussion thereof is welcome. The concern I have currently is that instead, we have name-calling, derisive comments, dogmatic arguments, etc. Normally By you. Since signing onto this list there have been far move insults made by you than any other person. I want cheat protection, but not at the expence of others. I'm sincerely interested to hear your proposal of a system that's 100% hack proof with a 0% chance of false positives that works 100% effectively. Life is a series of compromises. The maturing of the VAC and the advent of a centrally controlled permanent banishment for repeat offenders is purely a response to the cries of admins and users the world over. You don't have to participate. Instead you can tend to the expence of cheaters by running an insecure server. There will never be 1. But the fact remains a central list will not stop cheats. It will only stop those who get caught. It will also stop a few other innocents who get caught up in valve bugs. This is why I want the option to use VAC, but not use the banlist. What is wrong with that option? I would rather let a few cheaters past, and let my admins ban them than ban a few innocents. Valve is run by thinking individuals. If there is ever a major problem with the VAC or central banlist, don't you think they might react appropriately? Personally, I say a central banlist is a terrible idea. Instead, mark their CD-Key as invalid, blocking any chance of WON Auth, so that they cannot connect to any internet servers. You repeatedly break the EULA, you don't get to run the software as long as Valve can help it. More power to them. And by the way, if you're not new to these lists, you'll know that referring to me as a Valve ass kisser is ludicrous. Oh, yeah, I was replying to your post right? the comment was directed at you? Wanna borrow that clue stick again? -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules
For the record, RedPhive uses sv_asswipe 0 by default on all his servers ;) -- Eric (the Deacon remix) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] New Security Modules ah! I didn't have to miss Eric ffor too long --- Red Phive http://www.fragmart.com http://www.redphive.org -Original Message- 0. turn off the ass-wiping feature and go commando ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
