Thread for Devs and Coders

[windmaker]

maybe no sense for my non-native words, but if u read "tcp" + "decompiler" dont need much imagination for think this : personalizated clients dont need the client open source.

[loftar]

Why would you need to capture network traffic or decompile the client when it's open source to begin with, though? Just read whatever it is you want to know. :)

More importantly, though, how is anything that TeckXKnight wrote in conflict with anything you said?

Oh and by the way, the game doesn't use TCP. ^^

[windmaker]

TCP/UDP any shit. u can capture, if u can manipulate the client commands anyone can

tinkering with their code

[the_pilgrim]

when u know little bit more about TCP / development, IA we can talk bro.. meanwhile u and the mod are talking shits without sense.
or if u want make it more easy.. "decompiler"

As one who has a bit of knowledge about TCP and decompilation, will you please elaborate a bit on what it is you're trying to say?

ofc loftar, u can get any message/package what send between server and client with a simple network sniffer so anyone with teh sufficent time can make own client without using your client, i know exist a lot of tools for that things, in my work we are using under AWS for check the status of clusters and we can see all conections "clean" under https , (im talking about millions of clients not just 1000/200.) the rest is probably redundant. so im no trolling and u know it. with a good tool u can log everything from ur client also... "decompiler" means about decompile the client, edit it, and recompile... aditionally i can bet u are using the 40%/60% of codebase/logic from the actual hnh and probably u do it the same with salem... for finish we cant forget the grat work of oddity making a reverse engineering of your server for build a "emulator", im sure him do it that logging the messages sended by client directly from client binary.

PS. is sweet when u want defend a mod.

Not exactly a polite way to put it, but he does have a point. Some additional effort in both data transmission and client security could certainly slow down any efforts to reverse engineer the program code or work around it. It could even help minimize botters. Off the top of my head, improved encryption and authentication mechanisms, a hardened server and a thinner client could help. Also, instead of exposing code, one could design a suitable API for modders to work with.

No such thing as perfect security, but this would certainly deter all but the most persistent and desperate. Just like what we learned about personal defense in-game.

[loftar]

TCP/UDP any shit. ;) u can capture, if u can manipulate the client commands anyone can

Of course, but noone ever pretended anything else.

tinkering with their code

Clearly, TeckXKnight knows that the client code is open, so he knows that it is open for tinkering for anyone, so it should have been obvious to anyone that it wasn't it, but rather the server code that he referred to. In which case he is, of course right. (As for Oddity's work, writing a Haven server isn't so much about writing an "emulator" since the whole game is indeed on the server; it's rather about reimplementing Haven, which is a different thing.)

[the_pilgrim]

The open source approach is not without its disadvantages, but I'm not about to start that debate here.

If anything anything else, I hope that in Hafen, you guys think about passing less information to the client. For example, you could design it so that a player client can "see" only what should be in view, especially during the night. You could even take the next step and "hide" certain objects if a player isn't close enough to "observe" it. Maybe base that value on a player's Perception?

[windmaker]

@the_pilgrim i really sound agressive? , btw implement more layers of complexity (that is correct word?) just make more complicated the development and more points to break the system

@loftar im imagining about what u say ...is like the bug of inventory 100x100 what can make it from client and not requires intervention from server? and one last ask, u are using the codebase from hnh/salem? (40/60 %? )

[the_pilgrim]

@the_pilgrim i really sound agressive? , btw implement more layers of complexity (that is correct word?) just make more complicated the development and more points to break the system

@loftar im imagining about what u say ...is like the bug of inventory 100x100 what can make it from client and not requires intervention from server? and one last ask, u are using the codebase from hnh/salem? (40/60 %? )

I won't say so far as aggressive. Maybe just a bit blunt, but I do respect that English might not be your first language.

But I certainly agree that an increased number of server checks would certainly minimize abuse from the client side. In fact, it would "fix" quite a lot of broken mechanics in the game.

Also, obfuscating objects that the player client can't "see" shouldn't be that difficult to implement. In fact, it should also give the added benefit of significantly reducing the amount of data sent from the server side and increase the server player capacity quite a bit.

[loftar]

@loftar im imagining about what u say ...is like the bug of inventory 100x100 what can make it from client and not requires intervention from server?

Sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying. You still haven't explained how you thought TeckXKnight was wrong, though. ^^

a thinner client could help.

How could the client possibly be thinner? It's pretty much a dumb terminal as it is. :)

[loftar]

@the_pilgrim i really sound agressive?

Well...

this shit

stop to write bullshit

meanwhile u and the mod are talking shits without sense

PS. is sweet when u want defend a mod.

There just may be a case to be made.