»freakmonger Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Posted December 20, 2007 d1st, was that the plan for the Biller or the plan to get the src for continuum?
Smong Posted December 20, 2007 Report Posted December 20, 2007 Don't forget the prefixes must start with a disallowed character, such as ~. Otherwise you'll get people spoofing the prefixes.
Resol Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 Prefixes unneeded.How so? How will you know the difference between player names?
Dr Brain Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 Polix is being vague. Probably on purpose. He's proposing the billing equivalent of NAT rather than linking an independent billing system to SSC.
Cancer+ Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 Polix, just explain to us norm people
PoLiX Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 I explained it to cypher, and he agreed it was a good idea, and along the lines of an idea he had. The reason... Others have probably thought of it and not done it thinking it might not be accepted, or haven't thought of it, and if I tell them, they may use the idea and abuse it. You guys we're almost right on. Dr. Brain is right, I'm doing it on purpose, as the less people doing this, the less worries about security, and the more possibility of it being passed by the right people and oked. Brain has probably thought of it, or been told about the idea for it, as cypher had said his plan involved HS, and was along the lines of my idea. It however, is so simple and basic, just keep thinking, your thinking too big of ideas. Think about how ss protocol works, how billers and zones work, and the point of what a biller does. A biller does nothing more essentially then store some data, and p!@#$%^&* data between zones and networks.
Resol Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 LOL. So, the Sub-SubBiller Connects to the real SSC SubBiller as a player? And therefore would not allow double name?
»freakmonger Posted December 21, 2007 Author Report Posted December 21, 2007 no, the non-ssc biller would still have the name prefixes (I *think*).
»freakmonger Posted December 21, 2007 Author Report Posted December 21, 2007 so you can tell non ssc names from ssc names? Or did I miss where you guys figured out how to do that without name prefixes?
Resol Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) Polix said, "Prefixes unneeded." So... The only way that can be is the way I said. If you have a biller, why can't it log in as a player, with other alias's....I don't really know how to explain what I am thinking, I just came from a christmas party LOL. If you have a 'Biller / Player' Logged into SSC to send / receive packets, its not going to let someone log on with a different password on the same name as someone else. I think anyway. I am not a programmer, but it sounds like a harder idea then it really is.Maybe this is just way off, but I am tryin' to explain it better.Say you have a AOL account, and you log into a small AOL Server that sends your info to to a larger server that handles all the names/pws...Its the same thing right? EDIT: LOL i said Poliz and Lag hahaha! Fixed Edited December 22, 2007 by Resol
Dr Brain Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 You'd have to have the same name/password as on SSC. It wouldn't be an independent billing domain.
Hakaku Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 Just get the second biller to act like a zone by following ss protocol, and relay the information such as player authentication to the biller and back towards the player. And if you can make chat clients connect to zones in SubSpace, then the biller should be able to function the same way relaying chat to its zones instead of to a chat client (e.g. subchat or chatnut). Though it's all easier said then done, if you follow a structure similar to ASSS it should be possible to falsify the biller as a zone. It would be more efficient then making the biller connect through an ASSS zone, as Cypher originally suggested. Or am I off?
»jabjabjab Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 You think my SSC SpaceStation could help with this greatly? seriously. *sendto could be edited slightly with the work of ASSS who knows.. because its a server command... implanting this into my project.. might work.... and it could both acheive the goal presented on this topic.. aswell as mine on my poll topic.
Dav Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 i think i may have a vague idea of how this works but i wont say anything, mostly because i'm probably wrong. sounds like a good idea though, TBH if it is what i think it is it wont be a real security risk either.
»Ceiu Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Hrmm...I kind of browsed this thread because of a few people being intentionally ambiguous and a lot of people having the same ideas I had, so if I repeat anything... whatever. Basically, from what I can see, the only thing that's really important to players is their name and the ability to chat with people in other zones. A new biller network isn't going to take over for SSC without either a huge following or being able to maintain those two things. The way I see it you could go about this one of two ways: 1) Create a biller which connects to SSC biller as a zone and relays chat. This would mean you could maintain the chat connection, but names would need to be re-registered.The problems here are two fold: (a) some people would lose their names due to the !@#$%^&* baggary of various players; and ( with a new set of names and interconnected chat, you run the issue of name spoofing. (a) can be solved by simply having a policy in place which allows billing ops on the new network to give players their SSC names within a certain period of time. ( can be solved by prefixing the billing network to incoming and outgoing names. For instance: Players on SSC would see chat messages like "1:(SSx) Cerium> message" from players on external billers, but would still see unmodified messages from other players on SSC. Likewise, players on SSx would see "1:(SSC) Cerium> message" for players on SSC, but would see the standard message for other players on SSx. 2) Create a biller which connects to SSC and attempts to validate names and create names based entirely on the SSC db. This would mean you maintain the chat connection and name permanence. The problem here is you're basically mirroring SSC for the sole purpose of allowing others to control who has access to it (and maybe additional features). I suppose after a while this biller could "break away" from SSC and go solo -- if the biller had enough players/zones, it just might work. In fact, this is likely the only way a new biller is going to succeed against SSC. If there's some security or functionality issue I'm missing, by all means fill me in -- I don't know the biller protocol as well as I'd like to, so... yeah.
PoLiX Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 The 2nd part is pretty much it. The biller could have unique new features, and would secure itself from ssc, as they'd only be gaining access to an empty server since all the data would be stored on another server. Essentially the biller would piggy back ssc for name authentication, network bans, and chats, It'd be no less secure than a client connecting to a zone, there'd really be no more access to ssc than that. I had thrown this idea to the ssc before, of them supporting and running a secondary biller, even if not piggy backing, but BD Vine had this big lecture on why not to do it, but never answered what to do to help new zones. It has proven it takes them A LOT of effort and "illegal" advertising to do so now a days, and yeah. What prospered SS was so many zones, and so much variety, but that is lacking, and part of what is killing us. Nothing new to check out, nothing fun. Any zone that gets a chance on SSC and has some new cool stuff, prospers quickly. Sadly they don't always keep that beginning support, but it does show people still have interest in newer zones, and the current standards are hendering that. My 2 cents +
Arry Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 Wouldn't you have to have SSC support to turn a zone into a sub-biller? In essence it would be giving SSC less control over which zones get connected to the billing server. Would they be able to handle that? And... At any point SSC could turn off the juice so to speak and shutdown the zone/sub-biller. What do you do then?
Cancer+ Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 Polix, When did you propose that to them? Long shot but, think if enough of us proposed this to the SSC, they MAY consider it?
PoLiX Posted January 1, 2008 Report Posted January 1, 2008 Uhhh... I left the Council in like early 04? Was not too long before this. Bout the time we 1st began seeing signs of our game losing m!@#$%^&* population.
Smong Posted January 2, 2008 Report Posted January 2, 2008 Doesn't that still leave the problem of connecting to a non-SSC biller but being forced to use your SSC password, I'd rather not do that.
»CypherJF Posted January 2, 2008 Report Posted January 2, 2008 Yeah, you would need to use your SSC password to login through the 3rd party biller. This does raise some concern about the possibility of malicious intent.
»freakmonger Posted January 2, 2008 Author Report Posted January 2, 2008 ewww..that's not good at all... This really brings into consideration as to who has access to this "biller". This might keep a lot of players from connecting to this "biller" also (and for good reason)
Recommended Posts