Redirect / Fake Server Report Megathread - ALL FAKE SERVERS POSTS GO HERE - Garry's Mod

[QUOTE=Redfiend;52091014]It'd still be more effective than blacklisting ip ranges[/QUOTE] It would take them a little bit longer than spinning up a new VPS but still would not stop them for very long.

[QUOTE=Redfiend;52091002]Could we not just file an abuse report to Vultr and have then refuse business to the customer?[/QUOTE] How are they breaking any rules / laws ? ? ? ? ?

Has nobody thought of automatically blacklisting gamemodes with certain keywords? (Awsomium, rubat, etc)? Seems like the quickest viable solution. [sp]In before AwesomiumRP[/sp]

That would be dumb since they can change the name of the gamemode to any sort of different variation they want so it would be like putting a gate on a sidewalk with no walls

[QUOTE=WizardLizard;52091452]Has nobody thought of automatically blacklisting gamemodes with certain keywords? (Awsomium, rubat, etc)? Seems like the quickest viable solution. [sp]In before AwesomiumRP[/sp][/QUOTE] Already been done and is pointless. [code] "Descripts": [ "awesomium", "server%s-browser", ".-when%s-?" ], "Gamemodes": [ "awesomium", "server%s-browser", ".-when%s-?" ], [/code]

[QUOTE=Kevlon;52089916]Why do you keep reporting the same damn thing...[/QUOTE] Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity? Its doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting things to change. That is crazy. [QUOTE=Kevlon;52089916] Also blacklisting the range is the stupidest thing I've seen posted on this thread so far[/QUOTE] [url]https://hastebin.com/xawefireju.css[/url] All of these servers are running on the same damn ip. Keep blacklisting them til it stops. There's only a finite amount of IPs they will switch to.

Guys it's already patched on prerelease branch. You don't need to do shitty solutions to something that's already mostly fixed.

[QUOTE=Heavy Bob;52093035]Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity? Its doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting things to change. That is crazy. [url]https://hastebin.com/xawefireju.css[/url] All of these servers are running on the same damn ip. Keep blacklisting them til it stops. There's only a finite amount of IPs they will switch to.[/QUOTE] As stated above, there's hundreds of providers like this, the moment said person notices the ban, they'll swap IPs. Now the IP might be allocated to any other Vultr user (which may host a Garry's Mod server) that is completely innocent.

I just want to ask a simple question regarding it; can it even get patched? (the servers redirect problem) And also if superiorservers is exploiting the GMod mechanics then why can't the devs do something to him or to his community without blacklisting but something else

So if it's patched, then is this thread even needed?

[QUOTE=KillerLP;52123224]So if it's patched, then is this thread even needed?[/QUOTE] It's not.

[QUOTE=code_gs;52123266]It's not.[/QUOTE] Must have read it wrong then. Is it the servers made to spam the server list that were patched? If so, I hope this re-direct server is cracked down and hopefully it has already (to its extent.)

[QUOTE=KillerLP;52123291]Must have read it wrong then. Is it the servers made to spam the server list that were patched? If so, I hope this re-direct server is cracked down and hopefully it has already (to its extent.)[/QUOTE] SUP just agreed to take the redirects down, and I believe some measures were put in this update to make it more difficult.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52052957]What exactly is a redirect Just a server ip entry that forwards you to a server?[/QUOTE] you want to go to that specified server but the server says no and sends you to another server or port

Posting here on account of this thread This isn't a "fake server" as the thread implies however it is closely related to this mirror server debacle as they are utilizing anycast to achieve a lower ping in the server browser. You can read my previous linked thread for a comprehensive explanation on the issue but for a basic explanation: GMCHosting is announcing most of Superiorservers' IPs via anycast at their "Points of Presence" in Los Angeles CA, Ashburn VA and London UK. At each of these locations where they announce the server IPs they are intentionally catching source queries to the IP and replying to them directly from the POP instead of the game server itself in Dallas. See the following geographical demonstration This seems to be a kind of morally ambiguous area and I'd like to get some sort of explanation from a staff member as to whether this is OK. Let me know if I can explain this any better or if I made a mistake with any details as networking can be a rather convoluted topic at times.

Understood, as DarkRP was the only gamemode I was checking through SUP were the only server I noticed with a suspiciously low ping. Thank you for the clarification.

I use the same services as everyone else currently for my Rust servers, in the process of including Garry's Mod within a week or so.

I’m interested in getting a green light on this practice, too. This is something in demand in the Australian market so they can compete with the US market - and I don’t want to invest a bunch & have the practice disallowed after the fact.

I still don't really agree with the whole anycast crap since it has the potential to kill smaller servers, especially with responding to the A2S queries at the POP points, but the server remains as a piece of trash that needs fixing.

As far as I'm aware you're looking at ~$500/mo - but it depends on the specific agreement you have.

I'm not sure what you mean by it killing smaller servers - they just need to pay for the same level of service if they want to compete. That's probably what he meant - although I can't imagine this would cost too much.

I think I can get it honestly down to ~£10/mo per server. Right now it's expensive - but that's because it's exclusive. (Eg. 5 people need to cover the operating costs, not ~50-100)

i don't get how extra ddos protection (anycast) can boost your servers' ping when it's hosted in the south (p sure that's where moats' gmc server is located) but when a player (and ya I tested this w/ a friend) from the west has 20 ping rating and east has 20 too but in reality we get the respective ping in-game like normal (50-60).

Gotta say I'm on the other side of the fence on this. I'm not too fond of having a whole pay-to-win scheme with latency. At that point it's just a massive monetary race to the bottom. We may as well have some arbitrary number in the server list that you can lower by paying money to Facepunch. Ping is there for a reason and despite it's glaring flaws I don't think it's something we should be meddling with. Hopefully this situation will allow us to open a serious dialog w/ the devs about the server list addressing everyone's gripes. It's not the DDoS protection nor anycast boosting your ping to the server (Not directly at least). There are strategically placed anycast POPs near major player areas that respond directly to source queries to a given game server. Also in regards to DDoS attacks in gmod: As long as agitated kids still have access to their parent's credit card and the address for hackforums DDoS attacks will not cease to be a thing. A lot of providers now have the capacity to filter big layer 4 attacks upstream but it's going to be impossible to stop all layer 7 stuff (VSE, etc) all the time.

I know it's not "ddos protection" boosting my ping (I was just quoting gmc's page), but I thought anycast was just a single thing that took the ping from your nearest datacenter and said to the master list "hey this is the ping to the closest but let's just say it's the actual ping number you get when ur in the server" basically, idk much about this stuff but it's obvious what's going on when u check actual ping in-game :v

> Ping is there for a reason and despite it's glaring flaws I actually agree. But if a host is doing something which gets their customers more players, other hosts need to compete.

Anycast is a slightly complex networking topic. I'll try to condense. Ping in gmod is not determined via the master list. IIRC when the client wants to check the ping to a server it opens a UDP socket to the server (or what it thinks is the server), waits for a response then measures the time it takes in between. Anycast is a routing method in which you can announce a single IP from multiple points on a network allowing the client to be routed via the lowest cost/least congested path. In GMC's case this is a very good idea as it allows clients to use multiple routes to the server ensuring no single route gets overly congested and it allows them to filter attacks upstream at the POP. In the case of static loads like a DNS server or webserver anycast can be especially useful for load balancing as you can have clients all over the world simply connect to the closest server instead of every single client hitting one server/network point. I'd suggest giving this a read. That is a fair point. I am just not a fan of subverting game mechanics to generate that competition.

The goal is to lower ping. At least it would be for me if this practice is allowed. Anycast does also make mitigating attacks a bit easier - as you'll be able to absorb a globally distributed attack in multiple regions. Also, you're getting 130 ping in the server browser, by them adding on a Aus POP (Which I'm surprised they haven't. Bandwidth costs? :V) that could be dropped to 20-30ms easily.

That's the A2S cache. It's not exactly falsifying ping. That's your real ping - just to the POP, not the endpoint node running the server. While this stuff can reduce the ping in game still - the gain you see from the server list is done by replying to the A2S query at the nearest POP directly through caching. Even though the actual ping is higher when you're on the game server, a lot of people would still stay. The net result is more players, possibly. Increased player bounce rate could be expected, but even if only 30% of the players who joined remain - that's a 30% you wouldn't have otherwise had. No - that's kinda what I'm seeking before investing into this stuff myself.

That's subjective I guess.