15:16 < bridge> [teeworlds] Can maps contain extra data that can be retrieved by the server? 15:17 < bridge> [teeworlds] arbitrary data 15:21 < bridge> [teeworlds] like some string contained in the map. 15:41 < bridge> [teeworlds] yes, maps have envelopes where you can store author and comments 15:41 < bridge> [teeworlds] technically you can store anything in a map 15:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] cookie authentication 15:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] or jwt token 15:49 < bridge> [teeworlds] not authentication, but more of authorization 19:00 < bridge> [teeworlds] @jxsl13 the client does not send anything about the map back to the server, except for whether it needs to download it 19:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] you cannot set a string or so that the client will play back to you 19:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] so, the only data that's retrievable is tue existance of a map, that can be used to encode data. https://github.com/jxsl13/zcatch/issues/61 19:11 < bridge> [teeworlds] binary encoding based on fake maps. 20:38 < bridge> [teeworlds] if you're tracking users, you need to think about the gdpr 20:41 < bridge> [teeworlds] @heinrich5991 are honeypots servers considered a bannable offense? 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] probably yes 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] what kind of honeypots? 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] servers with exact same config 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] thats what i wanted to ask 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] no provable malice though 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] do you know which one was there earlier? 20:42 < bridge> [teeworlds] so account sniffing and s tuff 20:43 < bridge> [teeworlds] it's @Trafalgar Law's server and it says Trafalgar Law's server in the name 20:43 < bridge> [teeworlds] gametype? 20:43 < bridge> [teeworlds] All the same 20:44 < bridge> [teeworlds] ah somebody is phising players 20:44 < bridge> [teeworlds] Yesterday my server crashed my Multimap_Less Server and all thought it was my Server but they joined the fake srv 20:44 < bridge> [teeworlds] Yesterday crashed my Multimap_Less Server and all thought it was my Server but they joined the fake srv 20:45 < bridge> [teeworlds] 108.191.164.78:8302 is the fake server 20:45 < bridge> [teeworlds] the ping is very bad and the IP is different 20:45 < bridge> [teeworlds] They actually use the same port as my server 20:46 < bridge> [teeworlds] maybe add a rule to the masterservers, that you can't register when a server with the same name exist already? 20:46 < bridge> [teeworlds] nah you can go around this easily 20:46 < bridge> [teeworlds] with another masterserver 20:46 < bridge> [teeworlds] yes 20:46 < bridge> [teeworlds] don't need a rule for that anyway, no malice should be obvious 20:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] the master server doesn't know about the servers' names currenty 20:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] currently* 20:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] Rip unnamed server 20:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] make it an exception, like nameless tee 20:47 < bridge> [teeworlds] that's ugly imo ^^ 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] Add verified servers 🙂 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] or just ban honeypots 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] banned 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] thanks 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] should go away in the next hours 20:48 < bridge> [teeworlds] Add CA system :p 20:49 < bridge> [teeworlds] 😄 20:49 < bridge> [teeworlds] so i can't annoy anyone with MITM attacks :p 20:49 < bridge> [teeworlds] Thanks @heinrich5991 20:52 < bridge> [teeworlds] well, teeworlds would need a https client for this, the game itself should obv. still run on tcp and udp directly 20:53 < bridge> [teeworlds] cas work without https 20:55 < bridge> [teeworlds] I woudn't know how to implement it <.< 20:57 < bridge> [teeworlds] lol, that is not really clever to ban server for having he same name. as you have no proof if someone asks for you to ban the incorrect server while hosting their own server with the same name. 20:58 < bridge> [teeworlds] the server had the person's name in its name 20:58 < bridge> [teeworlds] > [8:42 PM] heinrich5991: do you know which one was there earlier? 20:58 < bridge> [teeworlds] names are not bound to accounts and nobody's property 20:58 < bridge> [teeworlds] yes 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] yet if you and someone else were to host a jxsl13's server, I know which to ban 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] "magic, right?" 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] I would not care. 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] great 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] as I do not call my server's that 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] so the case is closed :) 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] what about people faking servers that do not contain anyone's nicks? 20:59 < bridge> [teeworlds] what about generic server names 21:00 < bridge> [teeworlds] what are you concerned about, @jxsl13 ? 21:00 < bridge> [teeworlds] I'm concerned about you people introducing arbitrary rules. 21:00 < bridge> [teeworlds] however you please 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] faking servers does have a security impact 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] sniffing server logins was done before, and we have already banned servers for that 5 years ago 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] same servers have an account system so you could phish accounts by faking servers 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] can you proof that the server sniffs login credentials? 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] no 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] very doubtful we'll ever have grey cases in those 21:01 < bridge> [teeworlds] it's obviously visible that that server is different when one looks at the ping 21:02 < bridge> [teeworlds] I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here, @jxsl13 21:02 < bridge> [teeworlds] not everyone is a network expert like us 21:02 < bridge> [teeworlds] I want that server unbanned, as it's been banned on asumptions 21:02 < bridge> [teeworlds] and not on any facts 21:03 < bridge> [teeworlds] if it's your server, present your case 21:03 < bridge> [teeworlds] if not, ask the server owner to do it please 21:03 < bridge> [teeworlds] Law asked for it and his name was in the server name 21:03 < bridge> [teeworlds] especially as there is not proof in any form and nobody has any right to claim any nicknames, what's the basic system of teeworlds 21:03 < bridge> [teeworlds] it's a flaw in the system, not in the people hosting servers. 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] it's not my server. 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] thus you try to avoid the issue, what if I hosted the same server. 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] I'd simply bring this forth, just to bring up this issue. 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] > what if I hosted the same server. 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] > if it's your server, present your case 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] if I fake your zCatch server @jxsl13 would you care? 21:04 < bridge> [teeworlds] let me startup a clone 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] no, as you don't have my ranking data 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] so nobody would care 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] but I will receive your admin probably from tweef 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] and what would you do? 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] login in your server 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] I have logs and can simply change the login 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] wow 21:05 < bridge> [teeworlds] tell m ypeople to favourite their server, wher ethey ar emods and that would get you nothing 21:06 < bridge> [teeworlds] arbitrary ban on assumptions 21:06 < bridge> [teeworlds] that's what this is 21:06 < bridge> [teeworlds] banning random people, changing some values maybe gravity, maybe you aren't online on this day? 21:06 < bridge> [teeworlds] I'd get informed 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] as I am available via discord 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] damage is already done at this point 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] happens 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] same as when a mod tells their password to someone 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] I don't know if you have any database commands 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] like deleting some players stats 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] for sure I don't 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] having database commands would be dumb 21:07 < bridge> [teeworlds] yes 21:08 < bridge> [teeworlds] no backups, no pity 21:08 < bridge> [teeworlds] do you get a notification if somebody unknown logs into admin? 21:08 < bridge> [teeworlds] no 21:08 < bridge> [teeworlds] maybe i don't do much, except being unbannable 21:09 < bridge> [teeworlds] I don't see your point, it's damage that's avoidable with a little bit of intelligence 21:09 < bridge> [teeworlds] favoriting your servers 21:09 < bridge> [teeworlds] you never want random people being able to do anything with your stuff unerpermited 21:09 < bridge> [teeworlds] thats rule #1 on the internet 21:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] getting ones server banned falls under that? 21:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] randomly 21:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] maybe it's not much damage in your case, but what about other servers? 21:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] and faking a server is a clear phishing case 21:10 < bridge> [teeworlds] I'd say it's a case that tries to get players from those server's, not necessarily their data 21:11 < bridge> [teeworlds] there have been ton os these cases in 0.6 21:11 < bridge> [teeworlds] tons of 21:11 < bridge> [teeworlds] and nobody cared 21:12 < bridge> [teeworlds] and getting players is not an offense, is it? 21:12 < bridge> [teeworlds] banning servers on assumtions, that's all this is. 21:12 < bridge> [teeworlds] assumptions* 21:14 < bridge> [teeworlds] do you think that the banned server was not the copy? 21:14 < bridge> [teeworlds] no, as it's missing the player data 21:14 < bridge> [teeworlds] which is obviously visible by times, when the player plays there 21:15 < bridge> [teeworlds] then everything seems to be fine 21:15 < bridge> [teeworlds] we made the right judgement according to you, as to which server was the copy 21:15 < bridge> [teeworlds] no, it wa snot a copy? 21:16 < bridge> [teeworlds] oh. I ment which server had the server name later 21:16 < bridge> [teeworlds] *meant 21:16 < bridge> [teeworlds] since when is having the same name an offense? 21:17 < bridge> [teeworlds] I was trying to establish the other thing first 21:17 < bridge> [teeworlds] I understand the problem, but this is introducing arbitrary judgement on solely assumptions 21:18 < bridge> [teeworlds] can the masterserver proof which server was there first? 21:18 < bridge> [teeworlds] as anyone could tell you which server was first 21:19 < bridge> [teeworlds] assumptions 21:19 < bridge> [teeworlds] You should also know that my server was first 21:19 < bridge> [teeworlds] I know that it was there first, it's not exactly about your server, it's a case that might change the judgement in further cases like these heavily 21:20 < bridge> [teeworlds] as judgement is done based on assumptions here, not on exact proof 21:20 < bridge> [teeworlds] if it's an unknown server 21:20 < bridge> [teeworlds] any somone said that somone else is faking their server 21:20 < bridge> [teeworlds] who would you trust 21:20 < bridge> [teeworlds] there's a third option there: don't ban any of these if you don't know 21:21 < bridge> [teeworlds] I would say this is always the option, as currently this is based on assumptions that it's a phishing server 21:21 < bridge> [teeworlds] by just having the same name 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] you just said that we have a consensus that this was the fake 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] is having the same name already considered being fake? 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] yes 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] since when? 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] if it's such a unique name 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] I don't know, we had such a case before 21:22 < bridge> [teeworlds] search the IRC channel logs 21:23 < bridge> [teeworlds] It happend already with L# Servers 21:23 < bridge> [teeworlds] what is considered unique 21:23 < bridge> [teeworlds] people's judgement 21:23 < bridge> [teeworlds] mushy definition 21:24 < bridge> [teeworlds] mushy judgement in my opinion. 21:24 < bridge> [teeworlds] as no proof 21:24 < bridge> [teeworlds] well, it's fake cuz "unique" same name 21:25 < bridge> [teeworlds] is tw.com down? 21:25 < bridge> [teeworlds] no 21:26 < bridge> [teeworlds] oh, I'm dumb, teworlds 21:26 < bridge> [teeworlds] 😂 21:27 < bridge> [teeworlds] https://teeworlds.com/?page=docs&wiki=rules/server_rules 21:27 < bridge> [teeworlds] should be updated then 21:29 < bridge> [teeworlds] I wonder how the case will be handled if 3 people tell you that one server is the fake and another 5 people tell you the other server is fake, while pressuring you annoyingly. This will seemingly be fun to watch. 21:29 < bridge> [teeworlds] And I will happily say I told you 😄 21:29 < bridge> [teeworlds] but currently the game doesn't have enough players to have such problems, yet. 21:29 < bridge> [teeworlds] Great, let's just disagree here then 🙂 21:30 < bridge> [teeworlds] yeah. 21:30 < bridge> [teeworlds] I'm fine with that. 21:30 < bridge> [teeworlds] just wanted to present my point. 21:31 < bridge> [teeworlds] it would be better received without condescension 21:31 < bridge> [teeworlds] well, I find that judgement arbitrary and baseless. 21:31 < bridge> [teeworlds] still, no condescension please 21:32 < bridge> [teeworlds] same name -> ban 21:32 < bridge> [teeworlds] we presented the reasoning 21:32 < bridge> [teeworlds] there is no unban function and this server is banned forever 21:33 < bridge> [teeworlds] there is an unban function. contact the admins 21:33 < bridge> [teeworlds] no, you lying 21:33 < bridge> [teeworlds] ok 21:33 < bridge> [teeworlds] that's how servers have always been unbanned, @Assa 21:34 < bridge> [teeworlds] assa is trolling 21:34 < bridge> [teeworlds] maybe 21:36 < bridge> [teeworlds] *probably 21:39 < bridge> [teeworlds] *assably 21:44 < rand> poor guy that wanted genuinely to host a server that appeared to have the exact same name and gametype 21:45 < bridge> [teeworlds] unnames server - dm 21:45 < bridge> [teeworlds] unnamed server - dm 21:49 < bridge> [teeworlds] I think the problem is more of how do you proof who was there first if the server is not that well known. Maybe someone had the same name, as they call themselves the same. If teeworlds for example had 3million players and 60000 players. and you had this exact same problem. 21:50 < bridge> [teeworlds] how would the judgement be. 21:50 < bridge> [teeworlds] could probably not be done manually then 21:51 < bridge> [teeworlds] what is unique if someoe else has the same ingame nick, as it's a character from One Piece a widely known anime. 21:51 < bridge> [teeworlds] uniqueness is not objective 21:52 < bridge> [teeworlds] anyway, case closed. 21:52 < bridge> [teeworlds] uniqueness can be measured if you want 21:52 < bridge> [teeworlds] statistics is a thing 21:52 < bridge> [teeworlds] but I don't want to do that, that sounds more annoying than it is worth 21:53 < bridge> [teeworlds] e.g. ddnet servers do some sort of closeness computation on nicks 21:53 < bridge> [teeworlds] "objective" 21:54 < bridge> [teeworlds] googling a nickname is enough of a uniqueness test 21:54 < bridge> [teeworlds] test my nick 21:54 < bridge> [teeworlds] x) 21:55 < bridge> [teeworlds] and google Trafalgar Law 😄 21:56 < bridge> [teeworlds] Well Law's could be stand too for the "Law" 21:56 < bridge> [teeworlds] 😉 21:56 < bridge> [teeworlds] But true the name is from Trafalgar Law 23:37 < bridge> [teeworlds] if you google my real name, you won't find me 23:37 < bridge> [teeworlds] if you google Essigautomat however, you find all my gaming accounts, old profile pictures and stuff 23:41 < minus> Essiggurkenautomat sounds like a good name for a band 23:49 < Dune> what does it mean? : 23:50 < Dune> :) 23:50 <@heinrich5991> vending machine for pickles 23:56 <@heinrich5991> was that disappointing? ^^