Wiki: Community Security System

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:42 pm

This is the discussion topic for the wiki article: Community Security System

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:44 pm

I have made a page! XD

Please add any information you know.

Probably want to include motivation for doing this - development cycle not being held up by the one individual with the code going afk.

Also probably want some FAQs like "But if the community has access to th source code how can it be secure?"

I'm not in a particuarly eloquent mood so I haven't put much in because the good words aren't coming to me, I thnik I need to have breakfast...

Post by **TheBored** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:49 pm

If you have any questions regarding the project, I can fill in the gaps. The project isn't dead, BackTrak is currently working on it (and doing some excellent work). There was a month or two segment at the end of 2009 where nothing was done, but BT has been steadily adding to the web tools (the current iteration). This is one of the larger iterations, so it doesn't move by quickly.

There haven't been many public updates because we haven't finished the iteration. As seen here:

TheBored wrote:QUOTE (TheBored @ Sep 15 2009, 06:07 PM) -And to add, I will be posting after the completion of each milestone. Just keep an eye out for new posts here

I only update after each one is finished.

If there are ever specific questions, people are free to PM me (as people have been).

TB

theTroy · Post by **theTroy** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:14 pm

What is the reasoning behind using the .net? Especially it will require the user to install additional packages (.net or mono) with the game = more hassle.

Its very similar to having to install java runtime to be able to play the game from my POV.

Post by **TheBored** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:31 pm

Ease of development & pre-existing requirement for .NET installation. When we started last summer, C++ (the logical other choice) would have been a deal breaker. We didn't have the number of developers required to get off the ground. Moving to C#/.NET allowed everything to work. The choice was:

-Unfriendly to Linux but potentially fixable since it will go open source (yay Mono).
-Nothing

Because option 1 only affects a small percentage of the community, it was seen as an acceptable compromise.

TB

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:43 pm

TheBored wrote:QUOTE (TheBored @ Mar 21 2010, 04:31 PM) Ease of development & pre-existing requirement for .NET installation. When we started last summer, C++ (the logical other choice) would have been a deal breaker. We didn't have the number of developers required to get off the ground. Moving to C#/.NET allowed everything to work. The choice was:

-Unfriendly to Linux but potentially fixable since it will go open source (yay Mono).
-Nothing

Because option 1 only affects a small percentage of the community, it was seen as an acceptable compromise.

TB

TB

Can I read this as Linux users will not to be able to use the coming authentication system to play (same story as currently in a nutshell)? There are a few people dinking early stages with this and that (from marketing to compatible testing) saying, "When the new system goes live we can have Linux users too." I want to be crystal clear on this one so I don't spread disinformation either way.

Thanks
MrChaos

Post by **TheBored** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:54 pm

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Mar 23 2010, 05:43 PM) TB

Can I read this as Linux users will not to be able to use the coming authentication system to play (same story as currently in a nutshell)? There are a few people dinking early stages with this and that (from marketing to compatible testing) saying, "When the new system goes live we can have Linux users too." I want to be crystal clear on this one so I don't spread disinformation either way.

Thanks
MrChaos

Currently there is no attempt at linux compatibility. When the project is at initial release, we are free to see just how compatible the project is with Mono. At that point, we will know how far we are. Since I don't have experience with using Mono, I don't know how this will go.

So, it isn't planned for initial release. It may be added in with a subsequent release, depending on ease of "translation".

theTroy · Post by **theTroy** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:33 pm

What is the reason to develop just another #net security system if we already have one? Especially since so many parts of it are "ifs" and "promises", which, are likely to steer in any direction by the time the project (if ever) finishes?

If the current developers have no experience with mono it is unlikely that there will ever be linux port.
If the source will be open, only the outer shell will be open, not the core of the program, preventing anyone else from porting it to linux.

And, flame me for this or not, the authentication server will have to be run on windows, again, forcing the donation money to be spent on higher grade hardware, forcing downtimes due to HW incompatibilities/etc.

From the information I have and I could read on the wiki, the community security system is no different from ASGS, besides the point that the authors are different (and ASGS was already reversed once if not more).

I also realise that I should have addressed these points when the project has started, but at least some clarity in wiki on the points above would be really nice, since, in the current state, the ONLY thing that prevents running allegiance on linux is ASGS.

Post by **TheBored** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:34 pm

Because this system will be ours. It will be open for modification, available for modification if something breaks. I don't know why you think the "outer shell" will be the only open part... there's only one part of the system that I can see staying closed, and its one section that is only run on the server. The most important part (the client) would be completely free to modification.

Regarding server OS, I'm not terribly concerned about it. You're free to jump in the fanboy discussion here.

I'm not sure why you keep promoting reverse engineering ASGS. We won't be doing something legally questionable just to make modifications to a system that needs to be COMPLETELY redesigned.

TB

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:28 am

TheBored wrote:QUOTE (TheBored @ Mar 23 2010, 04:54 PM) Currently there is no attempt at linux compatibility. When the project is at initial release, we are free to see just how compatible the project is with Mono. At that point, we will know how far we are. Since I don't have experience with using Mono, I don't know how this will go.

So, it isn't planned for initial release. It may be added in with a subsequent release, depending on ease of "translation".

Got it, thanks, and sorry for the unintended pot stirring