Most other games don't generate anywhere near the dedicated fanbase of Blizzard games.
Regardless, what other games are doing has no bearing on what needs to be done here. Using some vague notions of what some other nameless game may or may not be doing says nothing.
This is true. You can't deny that Blizzard's games are a much bigger target for potential hackers and exploiters than the average game, sheerly due to their level of popularity and success.
What can you really compare them to? Show me another game that is as big as World of Warcraft, or Diablo 2, which uses fully client-side code and is not riddled with hacks and exploits.|||Quote:
Yes, that's some very helpful hearsay. But personally, all of the security experts that I know think that this is a brilliant move by Blizzard. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Whatever you say Mr. Alt Guy.
Quote:
The term "security through security" has become a thought terminating clich� with a lot of people who think they know what they're talking about but don't (eg. Slashdot commenters).
Says the guy linking to wikipedia.
And it's obscurity.Quote:
Security through obscurity fails when it is the only method of security. Good security, combined with obscurity is perfectly reasonable ("defense in depth").
Sure, they could make the system as secure as they can and then give out for everyone to decompile and analyse. Or they could make the system as secure as they can and then keep it hidden away.
Which approach do you think is the most secure?
And remember, being free and open does not make something inherently secure (just as security through obscurity doesn't make it inherently insecure), as the Debian openssl fiasco proved.
The point.
Your head.
Stuff just doesn't stay hidden for long. Trying to rely upon obscurity is a moot point. And Blizzard has said their main motivations revolve around obscurity (not wanting people to figure out how to hack and exploit their infrastructure). Regardless of whether or not it has security methods beyond mere concealment, it ends up a whole lot like DRM - something meant to discourage illegitimate use, but really just impedes legitimate customers, while those meant to be stopped are not in fact stopped.|||Mr. Alt Guy? Just curious, are you accusing me of being someone's alt, or of using an alt? And if so, who do you imagine is my alt?|||Quote:
Mr. Alt Guy? Just curious, are you accusing me of being someone's alt, or of using an alt? And if so, who do you imagine is my alt?
Mr. Changes Accounts Faster Than the Days Change. (and who will be back soon with a new puppet) You're acting just a bit too close to him, and thereby slipping that that is actually you. There are also other things I'm detecting that I will not elaborate on.|||Quote:
Stuff just doesn't stay hidden for long. Trying to rely upon obscurity is a moot point. And Blizzard has said their main motivations revolve around obscurity (not wanting people to figure out how to hack and exploit their infrastructure). Regardless of whether or not it has security methods beyond mere concealment, it ends up a whole lot like DRM - something meant to discourage illegitimate use, but really just impedes legitimate customers, while those meant to be stopped are not in fact stopped.
The main problem with your logic is that in this situation the people it's meant to stop are in-fact stopped. No access to the files means no data manipulation or piracy, period. Keeping every important element server-side isn't your typical ineffective DRM.|||Quote:
Says the guy linking to wikipedia.
Another logical fallacy? Based on Hanlon's razor, I'll assume you're not trolling and simply don't know any better.
Quote:
The point.
Your head.
An average person's level of reading comprehension.
A primary school student's level of reading comprehension.
Your level of reading comprehension.
Quote:
Stuff just doesn't stay hidden for long. Trying to rely upon obscurity is a moot point.
You don't seem to have understood anything I wrote so I'll make it simple for you:
Bad: relying on obscurity.
Not bad: Using obscurity in addition to other security.
Understand now?
Quote:
And Blizzard has said their main motivations revolve around obscurity (not wanting people to figure out how to hack and exploit their infrastructure). Regardless of whether or not it has security methods beyond mere concealment, it ends up a whole lot like DRM - something meant to discourage illegitimate use, but really just impedes legitimate customers, while those meant to be stopped are not in fact stopped.
If Blizzard released the server to allow offline play there would be flawless private servers created very quickly with very little work required.
Without offline play, private servers will never be flawless, will not be created quickly and will require a lot of work to create.
You are right that obscurity does not stop people finding exploits, but neither does transparency. Obscurity, at least, makes it take longer.|||Quote:
Another logical fallacy? Based on Hanlon's razor, I'll assume you're not trolling and simply don't know any better.
I was throwing your own foolishness right back at you.
Quote:
You don't seem to have understood anything I wrote so I'll make it simple for you:
Bad: relying on obscurity.
Not bad: Using obscurity in addition to other security.
Understand now?
I understood just fine. You did not understand what I said.
Obscurity is meaningless, as it will easily be figured out anyways.
The security of the system will stand on its own merits, as said obscurity is not a factor in its safety.
Meanwhile, legitimate users are screwed out of an offline experience, mods, etc. Just like in the analogy I made.
Understand now?
Quote:
If Blizzard released the server to allow offline play there would be flawless private servers created very quickly with very little work required.
You know that the reason why Blizzard hates D2 private servers is because they do not contain the cd key authentication protocol, and therefore people can use it for pirated versions of the game right? That's their objection to them. Now D3, as far as I know does not even use a cd key system. So assuming someone did make a private server, why would that bother them again?|||Quote:
You know that the reason why Blizzard hates D2 private servers is because they do not contain the cd key authentication protocol, and therefore people can use it for pirated versions of the game right? That's their objection to them. Now D3, as far as I know does not even use a cd key system. So assuming someone did make a private server, why would that bother them again?
The keys are bound to your account, and, presumably, checked for consistency when you attempt to connect to Battle.net. It is the same system that, afaik, SC2, and now WoW (?), uses. Even if it is not the keys that are checked, the accounts remain functionally identical--serving to determine who has, or hasn't, purchased the game.
Additionally, I'm not sure I follow the argument. Blizzard doesn't want copies of its game pirated, that's a given. By enforcing the adherence to Battle.net, they prevent private servers from popping up--with or without keys being involved. Or, at the very least, slow their genesis.
This is the line I'm not understanding,
Quote:
So assuming someone did make a private server, why would that bother them again?
It seems to me that would be quite obvious. But maybe I have misunderstood what you meant. The liberal use of pronouns opens it up to a lot of interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment