The Hacker Project - a free online game

March 28, 2024, 02:10:26 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length











"Subverting tyranny is the highest duty."
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Process masking  (Read 4252 times)
Crlaozwyn
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


View Profile
« on: August 17, 2008, 11:11:58 AM »

To make HJ happy:

Suggestion: A new program type that masks the name/type of a running process
Description: With this new program, people would be able to mask a process, so instead of giving a name/file type, it would read something like "Unknown Process." Actual programs like this do exist. The cpu/mem/hdd/BW would still be displayed. Depending on the following discussion, this could/could not lock the process from being killed (I assume people will veto this because of the power/potential abuse issues). If the process isn't locked, I propose that the version doesn't cap according to level, since it causes no harm. If it DOES lock the process, it should be tied to file version - that way low players only need a low unmasker, while high players would need to research accordingly. See? Balance.


Players most positively affected by this update (Virii Infectors, Newbies, Etc):
Infectors/disinfectors/anyone who runs processes on a remote gateway

List THREE reasons why these types of players would be positively affected by this update:
1: Infectors could mask their virii, making it more difficult to disinfect
2: Disinfectors could mask their processes, potentially fooling infectors from hunting them
3: Anyone downloading/uploading/deleting could ask mask the process to avoid suspicion

Players most negatively affected by this update (Virii Infectors, Newbies, Etc):
Passive players, those who are too broke to research another file

List THREE reasons why these types of players would be negatively affected by this update:
1: Very casual players might be put-off by the fact that they can't instantly see all processes
2: These same players might not want to take the time to get another file-type
3: If players are very poor, another research might not be possible. Easily fixable by generous players

List as many reasons you can as to why this suggestion should be implemented (Minimum of 2):
1: Gives the game more of a real "hackerish" feel
2: Allows players to feel more sneaky-like
3: Generally awesome

List as many reasons you can as to why this suggestion should NOT be implemented:
1: You would have to code it. Sorry!
Logged
virus man
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2008, 11:36:48 AM »

I like the Idea but Sir Emi will shoot it down.

Reason 1>  It affects Virus Breaker.  That is Sir Emi's pet and he doesn't want anything to affect it negatively.
Reason 2>  It was suggested by a SGP member and 2nd'ed by another SGP member which means he won't read past this post, or will he?
Reason 3>  He hasn't even done anything on the Task List in 2-3 weeks now.
Reason 4>  I think Sir Emi is getting burnt out thanks to SGP.  Everytime he does something to "curb" our growth we find ways to circumvent it without bug use.
Reason 5>  It would make IP Change less useful.  Gotta keep God Mode as just that. The ultimate God Mode.
Reason 6>  Did I mention SGP suggested the idea? ;)

PS Most of the above is just meant to be jokes at SGP and/or Sir Emi's cost.  SGP Knows Sir Emi is a very busy man which is why we don't pester him on the Task List all that much even though some items have been there for a month or more.
Logged

SGP is opening their forums for all.  From now on all Tutorials and Help files that SGP releases will be available there.

SGP's Forums.

New World Order
Moen Co.
Full Member
***
Posts: 179


F5!

ragewithmycheese
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2008, 02:52:14 PM »

I like it as well and would welcome a more secretive feel to the game, more so than it is now.

Would the interface for it be like VB/AV, where the program is run on a process to process basis? Or is it like hider/unhider where the parent file would have to be run, then a separate child process is started on the process to be hidden? And should it cost AP? This has the ability to reduce AP costs for constant IP changers, in the risk/reward sense since hiding processes would provide a measure of extra security, but nothing near the godliness of IP change.

I don't think Sir Emi minds the tongue-in-cheek humor, but it's hard to tell context when it's just plain text y'know?  1
Logged

Retired. Best Finish: #4 (Should've been #3)
Crlaozwyn
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2008, 11:57:21 PM »

I like the idea of it being like the hider in that you run the process once and then it doesn't take up additional resources, because it's most convenient and would also make sense in that the location of the memory is changed, confusing the OS. I'd say AP cost is appropriate, although I think it should be minimal (around 5AP) because the process could *probably* still be killed. A higher AP would make sense if it did actually lock the process.
Logged
Theraze
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2008, 01:00:23 AM »

Another question would be if it would be like the hider where it can run on your gateway and then you modify files on other servers, or does it have to run on the server being modified... 1

Both types of programs exist IRL. ;)
Logged
Crlaozwyn
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2008, 10:06:52 AM »

Theraze, you mean whether you'd have to upload the masker before masking files? That would severely limit its usefulness, since people can download much faster than you can delete - that means mask one process and everyone could potentially get your unmasker.
Logged
Theraze
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2008, 02:27:38 PM »

Actually, I was more meaning whether it would spawn a process on the remote server regarding the masking... as if there's nothing tracing it back to your server, after 3 days you basically have a godmode process. 1
Logged
Crlaozwyn
Full Member
***
Posts: 152


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2008, 05:18:41 PM »

yes and no - even now, after 3 days a process is "untraceable" and people running an unmasker would still be able to fully see the file.
Logged
Theraze
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2008, 02:55:25 AM »

If the unmasker runs like the unhider, and you don't actually have to kill a process but just run one to make that people without can see... don't see that it should be any sort of a problem. 1 Depending on how it's done, shouldn't be difficult to code...
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to: