Great devblog, great bug fixes. Encouraging news on keys and buildings.
Oh man. Possibly the most huge thing in the blog isn't even completely about experimental:
[QUOTE]We all know the problem, crazy russians making fake full looking servers that redirect to another server. It’s been an issue for a while. This is now fixed, we have an updatable list of servers that take part in this behaviour. We ban both the fake server IP and the server they’re redirecting to. If they pop up with a slightly changed IP we ban the whole subnet. GSPS that allow their customers do take part in this behaviour should be worried – because the IP bans won’t be lifted.
[B]This code will be rolled out to Legacy too over the next week and we’ll ban the fakers there too.[/B][/QUOTE]
There goes one more long-time complaint around here. Bit by bit, things are getting better.
Also, yay:
[QUOTE]The elusive wakeup bug should be fixed now. Prove me wrong – if you still get it after reading this please let me know.
The wakeup bug was compounded by the fact that you couldn’t press escape and get back to the menu screen. I’ve fixed that too – you should be able to get to the menu screen by pressing escape at any of the other screens.[/QUOTE]
And garry's hoping to implement another tier of key system this week, to add to the physical keys everyone on the planet seems to hate.
Garry, don't touch the mirror, and the crazy Russians will come up with something worse =)
Sorry all,
I have a real concern about the comment in [url]http://playrust.com/devblog-31/#more-1931[/url] about GSP's who allow their customers to take part in this behavior. That's like telling General Motors or Ford that you're holding them responsible for someone buying their cars and doing a burn out in it.
I know we host hundreds of Rust servers and we cannot simply login to every one of them, run across the entire map and look for this sort of behavior - how is what is listed a suitable solution?
Truth be told I don't know a better way to do it but the notes say it has been an issue and now fixed so is there still any point to banning IP's? I of course do not condone any of what has happened and I'm simply stating as a concerned owner/GSP hoping none of these twits had a server with us.
Kind Regards
Sean,
FPSplayers.com
[QUOTE=DJSean00;46331720]Sorry all,
I have a real concern about the comment in [url]http://playrust.com/devblog-31/#more-1931[/url] about GSP's who allow their customers to take part in this behavior. That's like telling General Motors or Ford that you're holding them responsible for someone buying their cars and doing a burn out in it.
I know we host hundreds of Rust servers and we cannot simply login to every one of them, run across the entire map and look for this sort of behavior - how is what is listed a suitable solution?
Truth be told I don't know a better way to do it but the notes say it has been an issue and now fixed so is there still any point to banning IP's? I of course do not condone any of what has happened and I'm simply stating as a concerned owner/GSP hoping none of these twits had a server with us.
Kind Regards
Sean,
FPSplayers.com[/QUOTE]
i appreciate what you are saying, but at the same time, it's bad business to host people doing this. it's actually in your best interests to check them out, and have implementations in place to prevent this kind of forwarding crap. and it is your responsibility to drop anyone who is doing the wrong thing, or people (and apparently game developers) will have no interest in using your services.
it's more like holding GM/Ford responsible for one of their Branded Stores selling stolen/rebuilt cars as new ones. it's still the main companies responsibility because they are represented by the store.
anyway, i doubt it's a "one strike you're out" deal. it's just a warning that if you are found to be actively hosting/ignoring the problem on your GSP you might lose the ability to host this game.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;46331955]i appreciate what you are saying, but at the same time, it's bad business to host people doing this. it's actually in your best interests to check them out, and have implementations in place to prevent this kind of forwarding crap. and it is your responsibility to drop anyone who is doing the wrong thing, or people (and apparently game developers) will have no interest in using your services.
it's more like holding GM/Ford responsible for one of their Branded Stores selling stolen/rebuilt cars as new ones. it's still the main companies responsibility because they are represented by the store.
anyway, i doubt it's a "one strike you're out" deal. it's just a warning that if you are found to be actively hosting/ignoring the problem on your GSP you might lose the ability to host this game.[/QUOTE]
Easy to say. Not really realistic to prevent... You can not be looking at every server one by one.
GSP's sometimes have 100's of Rust servers, along with other games that they support also.... do you really expect them to have to individually watch every game server? Sounds a big ridiculous to me.
i agree with both of you. it would be hard. its not practical, or easily prevented. but it doesn't shift the responsibility away from the GSPs hosting the servers that are doing this. they are still [I]facilitating [/I]the assholes doing this. the fact that it would be hard to prevent isn't reason enough to not hold them accountable for the people they accept as clients.
Yea, no. The net would breakdown with your logic. Being said, if Garry and Co. made a database that could be viewed online that was updated automatically, the GHP could then just have a script to watch that page to see if one of their servers was being naughty.
so facepunch should watch all of the GSPs servers for them, and then tell them which ones are being bad? that's just silly oxy mate. it's like the public having a list of criminals for the police to go arrest. or someone selling weed out of my basement, and me being confused when i get in trouble for hosting their "business".
ethically speaking it's the server hosts responsibility to have in place measures to avoid their services causing harm to other people. if they can't ensure the appropriate use of their servers, they need to look at reducing the number of servers they host.
it would be the same if those servers were kiddy p*rn repositories. they would still be held accountable for allowing illegal activities to occur via their hosting service.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;46333458]so facepunch should watch all of the GSPs servers for them, and then tell them which ones are being bad? that's just silly oxy mate. it's like the public having a list of criminals fok=r the pk=olice to go arrest. or someone selling weed out of my basement, and me being confused when i get in trouble for hosting their "business".
ethically speaking it's the server hosts responsibility to have in place measures to avoid their services causing harm to other people. if they can't ensure the appropriate use of their servers, they need to look at reducing the number of servers they host.
it would be the same if those servers were kiddy p*rn repositories. they would still be held accountable for allowing illegal activities to occur via their hosting service.[/QUOTE]
Isp would get a notification something illegal was hapening. Not just pulling the plug like here. So yea, no.
Also I think you misunderstand, this page just would list the ip of all naughty servers. Nothing else. So a gsp could use a script to watch for any subnet that was in theirs. This way Facepunch would be offering something to at least show whose naughty, the gsp would have to watch it themselves. If Facepunch wants to block a entire subnet, they should meet halfway.
[QUOTE=oXYnary;46333977]Isp would get a notification something illegal was hapening. Not just pulling the plug like here. So yea, no.
Also I think you misunderstand, this page just would list the ip of all naughty servers. Nothing else. So a gsp could use a script to watch for any subnet that was in theirs. This way Facepunch would be offering something to at least show whose naughty, the gsp would have to watch it themselves. If Facepunch wants to block a entire subnet, they should meet halfway.[/QUOTE]
yeah, i can see that helping:) that said, it's more work for them, and not really their responsibility. It's also their right to restrict access to anyone they please.
and to be clear, it's not me stating that they are doing something illegal (regardless of either viewpoint). i'm saying that the provider of server space is accountable for who they allow to use their service; they should already have systems in place to monitor what people are doing with their service, and not rely on the ISP to notice it for them. it's a cop out saying "we don't have time/staff" to check that all our users are doing the right thing.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;46334309] they should already have systems in place to monitor what people are doing with their service, and not rely on the ISP to notice it for them. it's a cop out saying "we don't have time/staff" to check that all our users are doing the right thing.[/QUOTE]
You're being unrealistic. My day job is at a hosting provider. It would be impossible and very likely illegal (except for the NSA :P ) to monitor all our customers traffic. We do however take any notification we get about spam or other illegal activity seriously and shutdown said site.
unrealistic or not, whose responsibility is it to ensure "your" safe provision of a service if not "your" own?
are you really trying to tell me that you would be legally pursued for ensuring that the clients who use "your" service don't breach any laws with it? for dropping clients who are found to be forwarding traffic, or making fake servers using "your" service? in the most basic sense, surely "you" have some system in place to determine if servers are redirecting traffic.
(just to be clear, the "your" is because this is not directed personally at yourself, but since you have given yourself up as a host for the sake of brevity, "you" become a good target for what i am saying)
[QUOTE=mrknifey;46338037]
are you really trying to tell me that you would be legally pursued for ensuring that the clients who use "your" service don't breach any laws with it? for dropping clients who are found to be forwarding traffic, or making fake servers using "your" service? in the most basic sense, surely "you" have some system in place to determine if servers are redirecting traffic.
(just to be clear, the "your" is because this is not directed personally at yourself, but since you have given yourself up as a host for the sake of brevity, "you" become a good target for what i am saying)[/QUOTE]
Laws are different here. Lets just say I wouldn't want a client to find out I was snooping through their traffic without cause.
Example agreement from random host provider.
" In case of suspected unauthorized use, or complaint, Provider can, but must not, inspect Client data and traffic for compliance check purposes, prior to his decision to take measures."
Suspected is the important part. You can't treat every client as guilty and snoop through their traffic without loosing your reputation and trust.
Facepunch can do what they want, but if there is something that causes them to ban GHP providers who wouldn't have known otherwise.. Were going to see less reliable servers and more the kid at home using his limited upload to host servers.
So, I started up Rust, and saw this (dunno if you guys can see this small image or not)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tPPQVsp.png[/IMG]
Says rust was updated 139 days ago? :P
[QUOTE=oXYnary;46338550]Laws are different here. Lets just say I wouldn't want a client to find out I was snooping through their traffic without cause.
Example agreement from random host provider.
" In case of suspected unauthorized use, or complaint, Provider can, but must not, inspect Client data and traffic for compliance check purposes, prior to his decision to take measures."
Suspected is the important part. You can't treat every client as guilty and snoop through their traffic without loosing your reputation and trust.
Facepunch can do what they want, but if there is something that causes them to ban GHP providers who wouldn't have known otherwise.. Were going to see less reliable servers and more the kid at home using his limited upload to host servers.[/QUOTE]
hmm, well i can respect that even if i don't agree with it. but i'm coming from a nursing background where we are accountable for everything we do, so i suppose i can't expect it to translate directly:) i will say though, "can, but must not" is a terrifying redaction in a TOS.
[QUOTE=Farmer Maggot;46339150]Says rust was updated 139 days ago? :P[/QUOTE]
your version was:)
[QUOTE=oXYnary;46338550]Laws are different here. Lets just say I wouldn't want a client to find out I was snooping through their traffic without cause.
Example agreement from random host provider.
" In case of suspected unauthorized use, or complaint, Provider can, but must not, inspect Client data and traffic for compliance check purposes, prior to his decision to take measures."
Suspected is the important part. You can't treat every client as guilty and snoop through their traffic without loosing your reputation and trust.
Facepunch can do what they want, but if there is something that causes them to ban GHP providers who wouldn't have known otherwise.. Were going to see less reliable servers and more the kid at home using his limited upload to host servers.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you would have to really do much snooping. I don't think it would be very hard to have an approved plugins list and then run scripts to verify no malicious or unknowns mods have been installed.
[quote]
There was a bug that meant that if you had a low framerate you would harvest or attack at a much lower rate than someone with a decent framerate. I tweaked this code – and it should now be fixed.
[/quote]
This is the best part of the update for me.
[QUOTE=utilitron;46342389]I don't think you would have to really do much snooping. I don't think it would be very hard to have an approved plugins list and then run scripts to verify no malicious or unknowns mods have been installed.[/QUOTE]
How would a provider keep abreast of what was good or bad? They would have to have a team of dedicated admins just to police the Rust servers. It simply wouldnt be cost effective, so better to drop support for Rust then deal with. I know you mentioned being a web programmer, but policing/security of the web is a whole nother beast then making apps for it.
[QUOTE=oXYnary;46343838]How would a provider keep abreast of what was good or bad? They would have to have a team of dedicated admins just to police the Rust servers. It simply wouldnt be cost effective, so better to drop support for Rust then deal with. I know you mentioned being a web programmer, but policing/security of the web is a whole nother beast then making apps for it.[/QUOTE]
My initial idea would be a request system to add new "good" mods. All others are bad.
But your right, running servers is a bit outside the scope of what I do. Just spit balling here.
Hopefully now there is an actual API for modding Rust, GPS's can just stop things from hooking into the server dll's.
Blocking these servers will lead to an increase in unlicensed servers, not more.
[QUOTE=mizantrop;46346356]Blocking these servers will lead to an increase in unlicensed servers, not more.[/QUOTE]
What are the devs supposed to do about that? Air strikes?
This will have a definite improvement to the experience for people trying to test Rust, and people playing on legacy. There is basically no reason not to do it.
[QUOTE=mrknifey;46341372] your version was:)[/QUOTE]
No lol, after I downloaded the new update, it said 23 hours. Each time I start up rust, it adds a "Day" to the update. No I didn't open Rust 139 times just in case you were wondering lol. It was just like that the last time I opened it up :P
i still think there should be a an addition to this system Garry is doing, that will allow GSP's to log in to see if any of their IPs have fallen victim to it. If the GSP doesn't respond to the issue within a certain time frame, then ban the IP, but not before...
Mrknifey, I understand taking it from a Nursing Background, as I'm a Paramedic. But now put it into terms of say the Company Glock. Should they be responsible for every person that kills another person with their gun? Or Chevy being held responsible for every truck load of drugs brought into the USA with a Chevy Van? I understand that this crap with the "russians" needs to stop, but punishing the GSP's isn't the way to do it. Garry should work side by side with them, not just put them into a corner, and kick them in the face.
[QUOTE=Mack7n;46349087]i still think there should be a an addition to this system Garry is doing, that will allow GSP's to log in to see if any of their IPs have fallen victim to it. If the GSP doesn't respond to the issue within a certain time frame, then ban the IP, but not before...
Mrknifey, I understand taking it from a Nursing Background, as I'm a Paramedic. But now put it into terms of say the Company Glock. Should they be responsible for every person that kills another person with their gun? Or Chevy being held responsible for every truck load of drugs brought into the USA with a Chevy Van? I understand that this crap with the "russians" needs to stop, but punishing the GSP's isn't the way to do it. Garry should work side by side with them, not just put them into a corner, and kick them in the face.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with something like that being implemented, and to be honest that's what I meant by not a "one strike you're out" thing; there is likely to be a right of reply, it's just a warning that ignoring the problem may risk having your entire subnet banned. I think I mostly take issue at the "not my responsibility" position I'm reading.
Rather than viewing it from the point of view of Glock, I view it from the point of view of a store that sells Glocks. They represent the greater company with their own behavior. Yes, the dipshits who use the Glocks inappropriately should be held accountable for their own behavior, but shouldn't the store have some systems in place to filter out high risk cases? like background checks, and not selling to minors?
I'm just saying that (IMO) the GSPs have to be responsible for who uses their services and in the case of a continuous service like server hosting, how. (apparently the law disagrees with me, which I acknowledge, but don't necessarily agree with)
Garry could support GSPs to sort it out (and I think that would be a better way to deal with it all), but how many actually take responsibility for what is done on servers they host? Personally, I would be more interested in helping people who started trying to do something about it, than those who wash their hands of it and say "that's not a reasonable business model". As harsh as it sounds, I feel that if you cannot ensure all the servers you host are ethically/legally sound, then you have too many servers.
love love the first comment ran through Google translate: )
Whore of shit, her breakage testicles has all the community it is when that you move your big bottom mess(brothel). You whore bug of connections to the waiter(server) prevent the team of played together, but sir without bottom really the testicles of bug, sir want some creation but tone games become has to shit, more that goes more people stop RUST opens eyes shit and listens to what we say to you. I am on you is going to rerelease us an old trick(thing) of shit
Community Update by saying Youpi everybody is satisfied everybody likes(loves) rust, certainly everybody likes(loves) rust but can sound satisfied to see that he(it) become one games completely Bug of connections waiter(server) in the bug in games.
Is happy that I take time to translate all his(her,its) so that you can read
Vo
Putain de merde , sa casse les couilles a toute la communauté c'est quand que tu bouge ton gros cul bordel. Ton putain bug de connections au serveur empêche les team de joué ensemble, mais monsieur sans bas réellement les couilles des bug, monsieur veux de la création mais ton jeux deviens a chier, plus ça va plus les gens stop RUST ouvre les yeux merde et écoute ce qu'on te dit. je suis sur tu va nous ressortir un vieux truc de merde Community Update en disant Youpi tout le monde est content tout le monde aime rust , certes tout le monde aime rust mais peux son content de voir ce qu'il deviens un jeux complètement Bug de la connections serveur au bug dans le jeux.
Soit heureux que je prenne le temps de traduire tous sa pour que tu puisse lire
[QUOTE=mihai_pruna;46350836]Community Update by saying Youpi everybody is [B]satisfied[/B] everybody likes(loves) rust, certainly everybody likes(loves) rust but can sound [B]satisfied[/B] to see that he(it) become one games completely Bug of connections waiter(server) in the bug in games.[/QUOTE]
Oh crap... I really hope [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1431704&p=46316469&viewfull=1#post46316469"]billy79[/URL] and [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1431704&p=46316494&viewfull=1#post46316494"]intrepidenigm[/URL] don't know french.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
