| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 50 post(s) |
Elysium Foxx
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
10
    |
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:50:00 -
[3151] - Quote
I'm not sure the PI, PA, tracking Titans, or insurance scam really hold any relevance to this event.
None of those had the potential to endlessly print LP that could be used to completely ruin faction warfare and crash entire sections of markets whilst also making anyone who took part in the exploit insanely rich.
This event will be, and should be handled on its own merits, and any abuse of exploits bugs etc. in the past and going into the future should be handled on a case by case basis. That is just the way things are... If you don't understand that you are a fool.
Lets be clear this WAS abusing an exploit. Please stop referring to RL situations and wiki references. If you are going to use a reference use a viable, peer reviewed, professionally respected one, such as this text book i'm using for a University degree - which has a definition of an exploit.
"blah blah.... or, an exploit can be a documented process to take advantage of a vulnerability or exposure, usually in software, that is either inherent in the software or is created by the attacker. .... blah blah."
page 10 chapter 1
Principles of Information Security
by, Michael E. Whitman & Herbert J. Mattord
The so called "faction five" have clearly abused a known vulnerability in the game mechanics, and should be punished accordingly.
Its actually quite amusing that they thought nothing would happen, did they really think they'd get to keep the ISK, LP and assets, really? Oh no thats right, they were helping CCP to make the game better for all of us - lol |
Lord Zim
925
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:50:00 -
[3152] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:May wanna be careful about lying bout this
You're implying some of us are lying, I take it? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
327
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:50:00 -
[3153] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Or that exploiting a bug like the POS exploit with CCP giving permanent bans and destroying POS's wasn't a big enough hint?
The basic fact is they did things that the PI, insurance and all the other alterations showed CCP considered bad, adding to this they exploited a bug like the POS bug to extremes. I've pointed out repeatedly how there's a qualitative difference between ferrogel duping and PI/Insurance Fraud/Pax. You pretend it's exactly the same. Not even CCP agrees with you, as is obvious from the fact that the guys who duped ferrogel got banned and the ones who blew up their ships to collect insurance didn't.
yes there is a difference the POS one was done extensively by a small group of people in a blatent disregard for any form of reason. Kind of like this LP bug.
The insurance PI ect.. were good warning posts, not to be a complete idiot before getting to the level of the POS guys.
The LP guys flew straight past the warnings and off the cliff with the POS guys.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:52:00 -
[3154] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect. A design just lays out what something should do, when it should do what, and how it should react to certain situations. The programmer then sets out to implement that design. It doesn't matter how awesome the req spec, tech spec and design doc is for a feature, if the programmer sucks, just like it doesn't matter how awesome the programmer is, if the req spec, tech spec and design doc's content contain a flawed design. You can have an awesome design and a suckass implementation, or a ****** design but an awesome implementation. It's not an if x is good, then y is good kind of situation. Andrea Roche wrote:If no then "you" obviously dont do design everytime you implemente code, so its viable to bugs/features/run time errors etc. No design document has any impact on programmer mistakes, inability to implement certain features or lack of input parameter checks.
You did not agree with
"Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect."
Bugs/features are part of bad design. Even run time errors are part of bad design.
If the design is correct then we got no errors or bugs.
Design is a continuous thing and not just a one time thing. Everytime you make a change you need to produce a desing.
The desing maybe wrong or the implementation of the design maybe wrong or both.
If the design is wrong then the implementation will aso be wrong!
If the design was good but the implementation of the design by the devloper was wrong then the implemented code is wrong and does not comply with the initial design and therefire the design coded is wrong!
In either case you will get flaws and bugs.
Since you did not agree to the above, we have nothing else to talk about. Just gonna go in circles.
Too stuburn. With no disrect.
You simply cant argue that.
In the end, the owners disagree with you and happens to agree with me.
This is a lost case! Unless all you want is to troll someone to death  ! |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
327
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:53:00 -
[3155] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:
Again, undocumented programming bug != well documented and public game mechanic.
If it was a well documented game mechanic, why was it reported to be a bug? because even though they documented it, it was still a bug.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
925
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:54:00 -
[3156] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:yes there is a difference the POS one
Was done by someone figuring out a programming mistake in the code which wasn't documented anywhere.
Frying Doom wrote:Kind of like this LP bug.
Except that was all done using information which was very public, which means everyone could've (and probably were on their way to doing as well) inferred the same and done it themselves. |
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:54:00 -
[3157] - Quote
So when did buying something from an LP store--which thousands of players do every day, I might add--become an illegal, punishable exploit? I mean, I would be thrilled if we banned all highsec mission runners and lowsec FW frigate-plexers, but I digress. |
Dave stark
Martyr's Vengence
Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:54:00 -
[3158] - Quote
hey guys, want to know the truth of the situation?
until tomorrow, you know nothing. |
Lexmana
Fweddit
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
589
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:59:00 -
[3159] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Except that was all done using information which was very public, which means everyone could've (and probably were on their way to doing as well) inferred the same and done it themselves.
Exploiting known vulnerabilities is still exploiting.
|
Dave stark
Martyr's Vengence
Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 13:59:00 -
[3160] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up. But this has happened before http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=626the result was POS's blown up and accounts permanently banned. As they have stated "As clearly stipulated in our rules and policies, exploiting is strictly prohibited. In our Suspension and Ban Policy there is a special clause about so-called "duping" exploits. Employing this sort of exploit will lead to permanent bans for anyone directly involved as well as possible reprimands for players who benefit from such exploits from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts." So anything less than what has previously occurred would be favoritism, anything more would be unfair. So at least the perpetrators know what to expect. but the "How will this not happen again?" is worth reading  This has been brought up multiple times, and it's not applicable as it was an actual software defect in EVE. It was brought to CCP's attention multiple times over a few years until something made CCP finally actually take notice (presumably, the exploit became so widely used it was actually noticeable in some graph or something). What aryth etc did was not utilize a software defect, everything was legal according to game mechanics. Not according to CCP lol
wrong. ccp haven't made a decision yet. did you not read the thread before you started posting?
|
|
Danfen Fenix
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:00:00 -
[3161] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:So when did buying something from an LP store--which thousands of players do every day, I might add--become an illegal, punishable exploit? I mean, I would be thrilled if we banned all highsec mission runners and lowsec FW frigate-plexers, but I digress.
Problem is, that isn't 'just' what happened here. They found a hole in this system, brought it to the attention of CCP as they knew it could be exploited...
And then proceeded to exploit the system anyway to show CCP how it would work. They have admitted as such. As I said to Lord Zim earlier, due to this, why should they get off scott free? They knew it would class as an exploit, and yet went ahead with it anyway, and so they should have expected consequences. |
Lord Zim
925
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:00:00 -
[3162] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:You did not agree with
"Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect."
Yes, I didn't agree with it because I actually work as a programmer, I know what goes on in these processes. I know what is design and what is implementation, and the design being good doesn't automatically exclude the implementation being bad.
Andrea Roche wrote:Bugs/features are part of bad design. Even run time errors are part of bad design.
No. Bugs are a part of bad implementation, missing features are a result of either the design being too ambitious or the implementer being too bad at his job. Runtime errors are squarely on the implementer's shoulders, the designer has absolutely nothing to do with what fuckups the programmer has made in his code.
Andrea Roche wrote:If the design is correct then we got no errors or bugs.
If the design is good, then we have a chance of ending up with a good product. If the implementation is bad, then the implementation is bad and has errors or bugs, it doesn't mean the design is good or bad, it means the implementation is bad.
Andrea Roche wrote:If the design is wrong then the implementation will aso be wrong!
If the design is wrong, then the end result will be wrong, but that doesn't mean the implementation can't be good. If the implementation does exactly what the design says it should do, then the implementation cannot be faulted for the design being bad, just like the design can't be faulted for the implementation being bad.
Andrea Roche wrote:If the design was good but the implementation of the design by the devloper was wrong then the implemented code is wrong and does not comply with the initial design and therefire the design coded is wrong!
In either case you will get flaws and bugs.
If the design is good and the implementation is bad, then the implementation being bad doesn't negatively reflect on the design, since they're two separate stages. |
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University
Ivy League
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:01:00 -
[3163] - Quote
When has the use of "Jewbal" been acceptable here?
Come on.
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:02:00 -
[3164] - Quote
LoveFromAbove wrote:Manipulating and exploiting are very different terms, you should probably learn the difference.
Take your on advice
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Dave stark
Martyr's Vengence
Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:02:00 -
[3165] - Quote
Vincent VanDamme wrote:When has the use of "Jewbal" been acceptable here?
Come on.
come on what? it's a name for a group of people nothing more. untie your panties. |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1573
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:03:00 -
[3166] - Quote
Sorry i'm late.
Lexmana wrote:Quote:An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw including glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1]
Which shows that an exploit is not a design flaw.
"An exploit ... *is the use* of a bug or design flaw ..."
Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Lord Zim
925
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:03:00 -
[3167] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Except that was all done using information which was very public, which means everyone could've (and probably were on their way to doing as well) inferred the same and done it themselves. Exploiting known vulnerabilities is still exploiting.
Just like it was when people insurance frauded, hoarded tons of PI stuff during the CCP PI fuckup, got 1.8 billion units of nocx (I think it was) out of the PA fiasco, and used tracking titans to help kill an alliance and capture their space. |
|
ISD Stensson
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 14:03:00 -
[3168] - Quote
Many thanks to all participating in this discussion. The attention of developers was successfully involved in the matter. However, at present the thread started to go aside from topic. To avoid a further contamination of a thread, I close it. Once again thanks to all participants for constructive posting.
ISD Stensson
Ensign
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |