EVE Search - BACON: Never be surprised again (relaunch)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

BACON: Never be surprised again (relaunch)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.04.23 09:46:00 - [751] Just in case somebody missed it: MrYellow is a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER! His time is valuable! We should all let him cheat.
Schani Kratnorr x13	Posted - 2008.04.23 09:57:00 - [752] Why is this thread still going? Why has anyone not yet reported the hidden keylogging in the software?
Anub1s Amarr Return of the Anub1s	Posted - 2008.04.23 10:16:00 - [753] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr Why is this thread still going? Why has anyone not yet reported the hidden keylogging in the software? Is it ?
Aclyn Seriy Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.04.23 10:47:00 - [754] I would just like clarification from a Dev or GM regarding the use of of "similar programs" by some of the larger alliances. Since it is well known that CCP staff have toons within these alliances, and that in the past some of these staff have shown a predisposition to unethical behaviour, it does not engender a feeling of fair and equal treatment when it comes to dealing with such matters as these. I would not be alone in wondering wether the alliances would continue to get "special treatment" What reassurances can CCP provide that "similar programs" to bacon used by said alliances will also cease to function?
Lin Haraka Legio Conquistus Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 10:49:00 - [755] Ok after reeading 6 pages of this I just have to say something in my own form (tho its already said but its important for me to emphasize this in order to show how ****ed off I am about all this meat slice nonsense) On with the show Ok BACON yes I installed and analyzed it (so i know what im talking about) and yes i uninstalled it because its an exploit a cheat a piece of code with no good intent. Hokay Voicecomms can NOOOOT (Borat) be compared to Bacon. Humans are known to error and it takes time and resources to actually monitor gates space or what not. Bacon on the other hand does this automatically so if its set up nicely it can even pronounce the names of the targets hostiles etc. I havent analyzed the logs that thoroughly but Im interested in what kind of info does the client receive when you jump in to a system apart that you are in what else? Shiptype velocity fitting??! Where does it end? Do you want some stupid program to just spell it out for you? Even call you Sir maybe pump up your ego a bit, hell make it with a hotline voice thatll get things running. It just doesnt work guys. I wish CCP said NO, detectable or not they better threaten the people and get rid of the whole client side logserv routine. There is upsides to Bacon yes you get advantage but whats next macro miners developing chat bots according to logs pretending they are AT the keyboard instead of AWAY from it ?! CCP I recommend buying a truckload of BANana'z and start handing them out. Because this Bacon bussiness wont be good for anybody. Kisses and hugs to all hardworking oldschool reasonable pilots Lin Haraka supports you! EDIT: Ki An 4 El Prezidente
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2008.04.23 11:33:00 - [756] CCP talk about the local problem for over 3 years now but haven't actually done a thing. Now if this isn't a reason to pull the finger out of the ass and start fixing the problem nothing is.
Maliber TALON'S GRIP Green Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 11:44:00 - [757] Originally by: Aclyn Seriy I would just like clarification from a Dev or GM regarding the use of of "similar programs" by some of the larger alliances. Since it is well known that CCP staff have toons within these alliances, and that in the past some of these staff have shown a predisposition to unethical behaviour, it does not engender a feeling of fair and equal treatment when it comes to dealing with such matters as these. I would not be alone in wondering whether the alliances would continue to get "special treatment" What reassurances can CCP provide that "similar programs" to bacon used by said alliances will also cease to function? I was going to reply on how badly concealed your anti bob slander train was and stuff. containing lines on how old that argument is, how irrelevant and on how good the brainwashing is on these forums. Then concluding with the fact that goons actually used a similar program to bacon. But in the end I thought well what the hell its useless anyway.
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 12:53:00 - [758] Originally by: DigitalCommunist the only reason they don't declare it an exploit and ban everyone who uses it is because they have no way of telling who uses it and enforcing the rules. ^ That's basically it, when it comes to exploits the CCP fix order is, declare exploit if possible to detect, then fix so it can't happen again (because in the long run this is much better then drowning in a sea of petitions). With this they can't detect it, so there's no point in them declaring an exploit that they can't detect since they could take no action on it anyway. Instead they will just fix it whenever they can get the resources on it. It's not a 'cheat' it's an exploit, ie an unintended use of part of the game. There are dozens of exploits used every day, that do get fixed and aren't rated serious enough to ban people for (infact may even be un-intended exploits). The only area they get really tough on exploits right away is when it causes loss to another player.
Reuser Gunfleet Logistics Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:35:00 - [759] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr Why is this thread still going? Why has anyone not yet reported the hidden keylogging in the software? Yeah. Because we're stupid enough to put a keylogger in something we've open sourced. Go back to your bridge, troll.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:46:00 - [760] Originally by: Lord Fitz It's not a 'cheat' it's an exploit, ie an unintended use of part of the game. There are dozens of exploits used every day, that do get fixed and aren't rated serious enough to ban people for (infact may even be un-intended exploits). The only area they get really tough on exploits right away is when it causes loss to another player. This is the phrasing I've been looking for. CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:49:00 - [761] Originally by: Torik Tavitas This is the phrasing I've been looking for. CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit. There you go again, reading what you want instead of what's actually there. This does not fall into any of those cathegories as they are both endorsed by CCP. The program is frowned upon. There is a vast difference. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Tommy TenKreds Animal Mercantile Executive	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:58:00 - [762] Originally by: Torik Tavitas CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit. High sec ganking is not an exploit. Learn to play. Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry )
RebelWithACause Gunfleet Logistics Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:05:00 - [763] Originally by: Maliber Originally by: RebelWithACause 4) BACON does not automate a thing. It presents information already available in a different way (audible vs visible). That's it. Defending CCP by saying that we shouldn't have released it because it uncovered a hole is silly. Security through obscurity never works, and we even specifically ASKED them about it BEFORE we released it. They could have said no then. I must disagree with this statement. It does automate a action: looking at local chat and prosessing the changes in local for you. followed by alerting you when a undesired change occors. Thus requiring LESS mental effort and/or capacity of the user. While the information is present you change it to require less effort. {snip} While you are correct on the fact that security trough obscurity never works. And i must say its good that you guys made it public. BUT this doesnt explain why you seem to be in favour of the use of such a "exploit/security hole". Its clear that it gains ppl already in a system a advantage and this is probably why there is a heated debate about it. Normally I would not respond to this, there are two points I need to address here. You are defining BACON as an exploit. CCP has not. Therefore, it's not. They don't like it (their words), but they have not defined it as an exploit, hack, or macro. Therefore, it is not. See point #1 in my post concerning this. My comment above is more encompassing to the fact that ANY information/hole will be taken advantage of. In this case BACON is taking advantage of already-existing information, albeit in an unexpected way, but has not been classified as an exploit. I fully expect that there is OTHER software that is not as transparent as we have been. You state that it "automate(s) a(n) action" requiring "requiring LESS mental effort". I actually strongly disgaree here. In fact, if you had actually USED the software, you will find that it takes MORE mental work, since now you have to pay attention to both visual clues (ships entering your grid, rats, gate fire, etc) AND aural clues (BACON notification). Originally by: Schani Kratnorr Why is this thread still going? Why has anyone not yet reported the hidden keylogging in the software? If you understood the concept of open source software, you would realize how silly this statement is. I hope everyone sees how trollish this statement is. Open source software, by definition, cannot have any 'hidden' features, because it is available for review.
Ki Anna Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:07:00 - [764] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Torik Tavitas This is the phrasing I've been looking for. CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit. There you go again, reading what you want instead of what's actually there. This does not fall into any of those cathegories as they are both endorsed by CCP. The program is frowned upon. There is a vast difference. So it fits better into the category of insta's, where they don't like it but won't ban it, so they will let people use it until they figure out what they want to do about it. CCP does not tolerate 'cheats'. CCP does not tolerate 'exploits'. CCP does tolerate questionable tactics and tools. CCP has decided that this is a questionable but allowable tool. Anyone claiming that it is an exploit or cheat is the one reading what they want to hear. If this were either a cheat or an exploit, discussion of it would not be permitted on the forums.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:15:00 - [765] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Torik Tavitas This is the phrasing I've been looking for. CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit. There you go again, reading what you want instead of what's actually there. This does not fall into any of those cathegories as they are both endorsed by CCP. The program is frowned upon. There is a vast difference. You keep using terms like 'frowned' and 'endorsed' which have no real authority in them. I prefer to refer to 'allowed' and 'disallowed' which present a clear line of what CPP lets us do and what they won't let us do. I am fairly sure that lofty and suicide ganking were never intended mechanics in the game. However, CPP chose to allow them and as such they are not classified as cheats. I will concede that I should not have used the word 'exploit' since that has a negative connotation. I should have just used 'unintended use of the game'.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:54:00 - [766] Originally by: Torik Tavitas You keep using terms like 'frowned' and 'endorsed' which have no real authority in them. I prefer to refer to 'allowed' and 'disallowed' which present a clear line of what CPP lets us do and what they won't let us do. I am fairly sure that lofty and suicide ganking were never intended mechanics in the game. However, CPP chose to allow them and as such they are not classified as cheats. I will concede that I should not have used the word 'exploit' since that has a negative connotation. I should have just used 'unintended use of the game'. You have been told time and again why they can't just say that they "do not allow it". I am really getting tired of repeating myself. Ki Anna has a better idea. Yes, it's like instas in one aspect. The thing that is not like instas is that it doesn't have widespread use, yet. Another aspect that is not like instas is that there is no possibility for CCP to detect this. If they wanted to ban instas they could have. Instead they introduced warp to zero. So, it's more like instas, but still not quite. This is a program which should not be used, as per CCP's request. If you respect them and your fellow players, you won't use it. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:56:00 - [767] Originally by: RebelWithACause You state that it "automate(s) a(n) action" requiring "requiring LESS mental effort". I actually strongly disgaree here. In fact, if you had actually USED the software, you will find that it takes MORE mental work, since now you have to pay attention to both visual clues (ships entering your grid, rats, gate fire, etc) AND aural clues (BACON notification). This is a pretty interesting statement as it is 1) completely false given known facts about the human senses, and 2) completely illogical as you wouldn't create software that required more work from the user than without the software. Nice spin, but still fail. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Blood Daemon Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:19:00 - [768] wooohoo, after 27 pages, my eyes are only starting to buldge out with the amount of flames/trolling and general ***festing that's going on... epic thread, **e program (no one should be able to use anything that gives an upper hand over the general gamer).. Now time to find my glasses because i'm gunna need em ------------------
Elise Randolph Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:24:00 - [769] Originally by: Aurix Lexico hey Elise, what's up? Haaay Aurix. Sorry it took me 12 pages to respond. How's it goin'?
Soldur Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:32:00 - [770] i have a question im a little ***** and dont know how to fight is bacon right for me
Reuser Gunfleet Logistics Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:01:00 - [771] Originally by: Zurrar wasnt GFL that cult that was raided in texas (yet again) this past month? Yes, and we're out of teenage girls. Can we have yours?
Faife Noctiscion	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:07:00 - [772] Originally by: Soldur i have a question im a little ***** and dont know how to fight is bacon right for me Nah, keep using the one you already have.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:13:00 - [773] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Torik Tavitas You keep using terms like 'frowned' and 'endorsed' which have no real authority in them. I prefer to refer to 'allowed' and 'disallowed' which present a clear line of what CPP lets us do and what they won't let us do. I am fairly sure that lofty and suicide ganking were never intended mechanics in the game. However, CPP chose to allow them and as such they are not classified as cheats. I will concede that I should not have used the word 'exploit' since that has a negative connotation. I should have just used 'unintended use of the game'. You have been told time and again why they can't just say that they "do not allow it". I am really getting tired of repeating myself. Their game, their rules. They 'can' put anything they want in them. In this case they simply do not want to put any such rule in there. Just because tehy can't really enforce a rule does not mean that they can't put it in the rulebook.
Jeltz Remember The Titans	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 - [774] OMG! This cant be legal.
Trathen	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:29:00 - [775] Edited by: Trathen on 23/04/2008 17:30:22 Originally by: Torik Tavitas Their game, their rules. They 'can' put anything they want in them. In this case they simply do not want to put any such rule in there. Just because tehy can't really enforce a rule does not mean that they can't put it in the rulebook. Its not something they "can't really" enforce. It is 100% undetectable. Not 99.99%, not even 99.9999999%. 100% undetectable. That would be like CCP adding a "rule" that you can't pick your nose while you play. The good news is they do have the power to disable it. This is at their attention and we can only wait to see what they do about it.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:49:00 - [776] How difficult would it be to add a 5 minute delay to the log server? Serious question to those of you who would know. If its possible, CCP can keep the benefits of the log server and eliminate the vast majority of programs that abuse it. My apologies to the others who probably suggested the same thing in this thread but I didn't feel like reading all 27 pages. Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew!
Maliber TALON'S GRIP Green Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:51:00 - [777] Originally by: RebelWithACause 4) {snip} Security through obscurity never works, and we even specifically ASKED them about it BEFORE we released it. They could have said no then. Originally by: Maliber {snip} While you are correct on the fact that security trough obscurity never works. And i must say its good that you guys made it public. BUT this doesnt explain why you seem to be in favour of the use of such a "exploit/security hole". Its clear that it gains ppl already in a system a advantage and this is probably why there is a heated debate about it. You are defining BACON as an exploit. CCP has not. Therefore, it's not. They don't like it (their words), but they have not defined it as an exploit, hack, or macro. Therefore, it is not. See point #1 in my post concerning this. My point was that as you see fit to apply the security through obscurity argument. It seemed logical to me to call it a "exploit/security hole". As you can see its between quotation marks signalling unusual use of the words. I added these because there is no consensus about it being a "exploit/security hole". You can call it unintended use, a bug or well whatever. Its fine if you disagree on this point with me, but then its improper to use the security through obscurity argument. Originally by: RebelWithACause You state that it "automate(s) a(n) action" requiring "requiring LESS mental effort". I actually strongly disgaree here. In fact, if you had actually USED the software, you will find that it takes MORE mental work, since now you have to pay attention to both visual clues (ships entering your grid, rats, gate fire, etc) AND aural clues (BACON notification). Hmmm i'm not sure I understand you correctly here surely you don't mean to say that with BACON you don't need 2 persons but can do both with 1? (1 for scouting and 1 ratting vs 1 ratting and paying attention to bacon) If you mean that now there is more sensory input due to the added sound instead of just visual information. Then I must disagree as this visual information is in a seperate window and isn't filtered for you.
Ki Anna Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:56:00 - [778] Originally by: Trent Nichols How difficult would it be to add a 5 minute delay to the log server? Serious question to those of you who would know. It would be a huge massive problem. The purpose of the logserver is to collect data for debugging. This especially applies to cases where Eve might, via driver conflict or other means, cause the entire computer to crash. If the logserver data is not written to the drive in a timely manner, there is a reasonable possiblity that the needed data will be lost in cases were it is most needed.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:19:00 - [779] Originally by: Ki Anna Originally by: Trent Nichols How difficult would it be to add a 5 minute delay to the log server? Serious question to those of you who would know. It would be a huge massive problem. So much for an easy solution. The best I can think of then would be for CCP to make the log server limited access with password distribution partially randomized so most hardware/software configurations are covered. Something needs to be done at any rate. While Bacon looks ripe for exploiting, (someone mentioned a cloaked alt?) that doesn't bother me nearly as much as the thought of full macro programs using the log server. Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew!
Faife Noctiscion	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:32:00 - [780] Originally by: Trent Nichols How difficult would it be to add a 5 minute delay to the log server? Serious question to those of you who would know. If its possible, CCP can keep the benefits of the log server and eliminate the vast majority of programs that abuse it. My apologies to the others who probably suggested the same thing in this thread but I didn't feel like reading all 27 pages. what the hell would be the point? it's still generate reports fine and now would be useless for debugging crashes by malicious hacked clients.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.