The Hacker Project - a free online game

Feedback Terminal => Suggestions => Topic started by: Vintermark on July 22, 2008, 04:56:56 AM



Title: Process locking
Post by: Vintermark on July 22, 2008, 04:56:56 AM
The main Idea is to have a app that locks a started process. Also a counter that Unlocks processes. And it should be Version vs. Version.

Examples:

A hacker attacks, and I have a virii laying on my server in plain sight. The hacker jumps on it and tries to install it. Ofcourse i just have to stop it. End of story... or? If the hacker had a Process Lock app, he could lock the install process and unless I have a higher or equal version Process unlocker the install will complete.

A hacker wants to stop my delete process but I have locked it! Haha!

Or an huge d/l thats about to complete, days of downloading... "HACKER ALERT!! CLICK!" ...wasted! There I could have locked the download process.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Nagitof on July 22, 2008, 08:52:14 AM
Thats sounds cool, but in a way viriis are already lock, you need an anti-virus to stop it. So what I'm asking is would you still be abile to lock a virii.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Noseedam on July 22, 2008, 10:12:33 AM
actually, this would be VERY nice counter against the breaker.............


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Araeus on July 22, 2008, 10:34:24 AM
This seems like it would be pretty cheap... a higher player could just lock processes on a newer players machine and the newer player can't do anything about it.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Nagitof on July 22, 2008, 09:16:58 PM
I don't like the breaker so you right the lock would be a good way to stop the breaker.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Noseedam on July 23, 2008, 03:36:16 PM
This seems like it would be pretty cheap... a higher player could just lock processes on a newer players machine and the newer player can't do anything about it.

maybe you can override on your own gateway?


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Nagitof on July 23, 2008, 06:36:40 PM
maybe you can override on your own gateway?

So it the stopper only effects the remote host and not the local hosts?


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: sovietpride on July 23, 2008, 06:38:08 PM
This seems like it would be pretty cheap... a higher player could just lock processes on a newer players machine and the newer player can't do anything about it.


reformat hdd ^.-


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Nagitof on July 23, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
Formatting the HDD is no fun. You lose all files. Thats why the stopper should only effect the remote host.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Vintermark on July 24, 2008, 07:09:02 AM
As i posted before, to balance it a A powerfull player cant use against a newcomer, since the the powerull players "Process Lock" software requires a higher bandwith than the Newbie has.

Attacker
1000 BW
V. 3.12 Process Lock. Requirements: 25 BW

Victim
5 BW
0.1 Process Lock. Requirements: 5 BW
0.1 Process Unlock

Thus The attackers "Process locker" times out against the Victims gateway. (It like trying to play CS:S over the net with a old dial-up connection.) Making him unable to lock the process. So if he decides to use a 0.1 process lock, then the victim can counter with his 0.1 process Unlock. I feel its quite balanced.

On a side note, if you use the software localy (on your own gateway) it should NOT take up bandwidth.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: virus man on July 24, 2008, 03:36:38 PM
Another way is to put the same CAP, since Sir Emi is slowly implementing them, on it as Hide has.    No more than .2 above the version of the software.

That way things like deletes you would only need a .3 unlocker to unlock the process.  Of course if your unlocker were locked that could be bad ;)


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Vintermark on July 25, 2008, 07:05:40 AM
yeh caps could be good.
The idea was not for files just for running processes. Processes that require time to complete.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: Nagitof on July 25, 2008, 11:17:34 PM
i realy do not like the hide cap. We reseach these hide file but now we can only use .2 of there potencial.


Title: Re: Process locking
Post by: virus man on July 26, 2008, 11:55:11 PM
i realy do not like the hide cap. We reseach these hide file but now we can only use .2 of there potencial.


I apologize.  The reason for the cap is because of SGP.  We have 3.0+ hiders and unhiders.  No one else comes close at last check.

However the .2 is .2 above the version of the software being hid.

For example lets take Soviet's 2.0 adware.   If he hides it then the software is hidden with a 2.2 hider.  Now lets take the SGP Cash Cow which is a .4.   If it is hidden it is as if with a .6 hider.

Sir Emi did this along with many of the other changes to try and reign in SGP's success.  I don't have a problem with that although some of his changes are not as well thought out as I would have liked.

It is because SGP has always been ahead with defenses that overload was brought in.  There is no other reason.  As Sir Emi said himself "He does not want us to be invulnerable" which we would be without the overload.  I still personally think the overload is to powerful but at least it is not as bad as it used to be.

I expect him to make some more changes in the next couple of days as we approach 10.0 with protects but we will see.

Now on another note.  I may seem like I am against anything that effects SGP. That is not true.  I asked for CAPs to be put in simply because of the fact that with no CAPs there is no end except boredom for the game.  I am still debating on his recent changes to the Gold FTP Server.  It was suppose to allow us to keep all of our software backed up but it can no longer do that.  If he wants to keep it at 20GB then I suggest he give everyone 24 hours to bring their's down to 20GB before he implements a "cleaning" to drop them down to 20GB.

The game needs a lot of work especially now.  There is really nothing at all to do in the upper end.  It would take implementing a LOT of the suggestions that various SGP members have made to actually make the game playable at the upper end.   Mind you many of those suggestions will hurt us as well.