On Tuesday 26 November 2002 03:06 pm, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
> Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 100%
> secure and foolproof.
>
> Oh, you cant, nevermind then.
qmail hasn't had a security patch since 1997 and there is a reward if you find
an exploit so I'm sure people h
At 12:01 PM 11/26/02 -0800, you wrote:
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:56:15 -0500
From: Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caug
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:34, James Clark wrote:
> > > > I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
> > > > 100% accurate
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > > (which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
> > >
> > > I don't agree.
> > >
> >
> > Then im sure youd be
I was going to say any Microsoft product, but you picked the winner :)
-Original Message-
From: James Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2002 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
Windows 95. bwahahha.
> > > I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
> > > 100% accurate
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > (which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
> >
> > I don't agree.
> >
>
> Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 100%
> secure and foolproof.
> How many software products do you use that are 100% accurate and
> stable, not only for you, but for thousands of users on thousands of
> different machines with thousands of different configurations?
Windows 95 =) bwahahhaha
___
To unsubscribe, edit
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 11:42, James Clark wrote:
> > I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
> > 100% accurate
>
> I agree.
>
> > (which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
>
> I don't agree.
>
Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 1
On November 27, 2002, James Clark sent me the following:
>
> "A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caught."
> - UNIX system administration handbook.
>
> > Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
> > until we either purchased a new CD fo
"A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caught."
- UNIX system administration handbook.
> Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
> until we either purchased a new CD for a new CD Key or stole one,
> if we were cheating or if VAC had
How do we join this club then :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Brooking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
> On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 19:27, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
> > > "User has been bann
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 23:37, Guðmundur Ö. Ingvarsson wrote:
> A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
> acceptable
> A second time offender should get a week ban.
> A third time offender is permanantly banned.
Yeah, that sounds, ok, but do my false positives count?
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:56, Chip Marshall wrote:
> So you suggest we permanently ban anyone who VAC detects as cheating?
> Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
> until we either purchased a new CD for a new CD Key or stole one,
> if we were cheating or if VAC had a
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 19:27, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
> > "User has been banned for Eric (Deacon) fan club membership"
>
> Are you kidding? They programmed reserved slots into all public HL
> servers that only members can use. It's sneaky, but not having to type
> "retry" over and over again is a gre
On November 27, 2002, James Clark sent me the following:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:37:41AM +, Gu?mundur ?. Ingvarsson wrote:
> > A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
> > acceptable
> > A second time offender should get a week ban.
> > A third time offender
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:16:22AM -0600, Rusty Zipper wrote:
> Quick question for you ner.. er, guys, about VAC. I have had it running on
> my servers for some time now, and I've NEVER seen it catch anyone. Am I
> doing something wrong or what? I mean, it says "Server is Secure" when it
> start
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:37:41AM +, Guðmundur Ö. Ingvarsson wrote:
>
> Okay, just to get this all straight
>
> A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
> acceptable
> A second time offender should get a week ban.
> A third time offender is permanantly banned.
>
sorry
try a grep -i secure on your logs, you should see peeps getting caught
coming into the server
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rusty
Zipper
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [hlds_linux] VAC - Is
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rusty
Zipper
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [hlds_linux] VAC - Is it even working?
Quick question for you ner.. er, guys, about VAC. I have had it running on
my s
> Quick question for you ner.. er, guys, about VAC. I have had it running
on
> my servers for some time now, and I've NEVER seen it catch anyone. Am I
> doing something wrong or what? I mean, it says "Server is Secure" when it
> starts up, what else should I look for?
That's it. I haven't see
Quick question for you ner.. er, guys, about VAC. I have had it running on
my servers for some time now, and I've NEVER seen it catch anyone. Am I
doing something wrong or what? I mean, it says "Server is Secure" when it
starts up, what else should I look for?
__
Okay, just to get this all straight
A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
acceptable
A second time offender should get a week ban.
A third time offender is permanantly banned.
This would mean the following
If you are not extraordinary dim witted you would compl
21 matches
Mail list logo
