|
|
open world to bots? (Bots)
open world to bots? // Bots
Sep 5, 2003, 5:53am
I have a p30/5usr world and I was thinking it could be fun to open it to
everyone to load a bot into.
This would allow far more people to chat in my world than could visit at one
time and the scene for those who did visit would be interesting with all the
bots going about.
What I'm not sure on is how secure it would be. I'm wondering if bots that
have only ordinary citizen speak and enter rights would be able to do
anything else that their owners may not? Can they vandalize the build or
kick people out or build if thier owners may not?
What other problems would you think i'd run allowing anyone to send a bot
into my world?
I would not find it tremendously difficult to reload the world from backups
as I host the server at home. Would bandwidth be an issue with bot logins?
Am I incorrect in assuming that citizen limits don't apply with bots?
Thankyou for all serious replies. :-)
Sep 5, 2003, 6:07am
[View Quote]anarkissed wrote:
> I have a p30/5usr world and I was thinking it could be fun to open it to
> everyone to load a bot into.
> This would allow far more people to chat in my world than could visit at one
> time and the scene for those who did visit would be interesting with all the
> bots going about.
> What I'm not sure on is how secure it would be. I'm wondering if bots that
> have only ordinary citizen speak and enter rights would be able to do
> anything else that their owners may not? Can they vandalize the build or
> kick people out or build if thier owners may not?
> What other problems would you think i'd run allowing anyone to send a bot
> into my world?
> I would not find it tremendously difficult to reload the world from backups
> as I host the server at home. Would bandwidth be an issue with bot logins?
> Am I incorrect in assuming that citizen limits don't apply with bots?
> Thankyou for all serious replies. :-)
|
Bots get the same abilities their owners get. They can spam more
effectively though. I suggest adding some sort of customs aide clone to
protect against spamming and scrolling and such.
--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
Sep 5, 2003, 6:08am
[View Quote]bowen wrote:
> anarkissed wrote:
>
|
Also sounds like a good idea, providing a test world to bot developers
who don't have access to funds like that.
--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
Sep 5, 2003, 7:05am
That wud be scary if so cos then pplz could eject people from AW, lol....
~John
[View Quote]"anarkissed" <anarkissed at nospam.alt.2600.net> wrote in message
news:3f584100 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I have a p30/5usr world and I was thinking it could be fun to open it to
> everyone to load a bot into.
> This would allow far more people to chat in my world than could visit at
one
> time and the scene for those who did visit would be interesting with all
the
> bots going about.
> What I'm not sure on is how secure it would be. I'm wondering if bots
that
> have only ordinary citizen speak and enter rights would be able to do
> anything else that their owners may not? Can they vandalize the build or
> kick people out or build if thier owners may not?
> What other problems would you think i'd run allowing anyone to send a bot
> into my world?
> I would not find it tremendously difficult to reload the world from
backups
> as I host the server at home. Would bandwidth be an issue with bot
logins?
> Am I incorrect in assuming that citizen limits don't apply with bots?
> Thankyou for all serious replies. :-)
>
>
|
Sep 5, 2003, 5:18pm
All I can say is this: I would not recommend public bots for private
worlds... bots can be far from controllable...
- Mark
Sep 5, 2003, 5:31pm
Just like RapierRampage.exe ? ;)
-Joe
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at Rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f58e180 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> All I can say is this: I would not recommend public bots for private
> worlds... bots can be far from controllable...
>
> - Mark
>
>
|
Sep 5, 2003, 5:48pm
nah.. StrikeDown.exe
- Mark
[View Quote]"joeman" <john at fakeplastic.com> wrote in message
news:3f58e49b$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Just like RapierRampage.exe ? ;)
>
> -Joe
|
Sep 5, 2003, 5:51pm
Like Black hawk down but different?
~John
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at Rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f58e87f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> nah.. StrikeDown.exe
>
> - Mark
>
> "joeman" <john at fakeplastic.com> wrote in message
> news:3f58e49b$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Sep 7, 2003, 5:08pm
Bots can be fun. But they have MANY more abilities than their owners,
even without their owners having special rights.
All bots can scan property, revealing the name, description, action
and location of objects. They can scan terrain. They can do these
things even in invisible mode (all bots can log invisible), so that
only an examination of the world log will show they have been there.
In normal visible mode:
They know who is there, in a square of approx. 200m around them, their
exact position, name, cit number, avatar and avatar-state (walk, run,
fly, etc). They hear all chat and can log it, broadcast it or
whatever. Same with avatar and object click, and object select.
If bots owners have special rights, bots can do much more than their
owners. They have more abilities and speed than browsers.
What no SDK bot can do is read object passwords (even caretaker bots
can't do that), read the URL of the object path unless they are
caretaker bots (but anyone can do that by looking at the browser's
cache), intercept telegrams (only the universe owner can do that),
intercept whispers not directed at the bot (no one can do that).
Well, I mentioned a few qualities of bots. In my world xelagon, I
allow all bots, I have nothing to hide or protect. If you have a
world with special object configurations, a game, or something that
must not be revealed, don't allow all bots in, otherwise make bots
happy and let them in :)
Alex
On 5 Sep 2003 03:53:36 -0400, "anarkissed"
[View Quote]<anarkissed at nospam.alt.2600.net> wrote:
|
>I have a p30/5usr world and I was thinking it could be fun to open it to
>everyone to load a bot into.
>This would allow far more people to chat in my world than could visit at one
>time and the scene for those who did visit would be interesting with all the
>bots going about.
>What I'm not sure on is how secure it would be. I'm wondering if bots that
>have only ordinary citizen speak and enter rights would be able to do
>anything else that their owners may not? Can they vandalize the build or
>kick people out or build if thier owners may not?
>What other problems would you think i'd run allowing anyone to send a bot
>into my world?
>I would not find it tremendously difficult to reload the world from backups
>as I host the server at home. Would bandwidth be an issue with bot logins?
>Am I incorrect in assuming that citizen limits don't apply with bots?
>Thankyou for all serious replies. :-)
>
Sep 7, 2003, 5:14pm
bot can do get the OP pw , if they have caretakers rights , its in encrypted
form , same as in an atdump .
Sep 7, 2003, 6:47pm
Wow, anyone with an older browser and a buddy with this, AWHack, can do the
same things.
-Joe
[View Quote]"xelag" <xelag at digitalspace.com> wrote in message
news:toumlv490k6vv2jf0lsn3ddemotus079oo at 4ax.com...
> Bots can be fun. But they have MANY more abilities than their owners,
> even without their owners having special rights.
>
> All bots can scan property, revealing the name, description, action
> and location of objects. They can scan terrain. They can do these
> things even in invisible mode (all bots can log invisible), so that
> only an examination of the world log will show they have been there.
>
> In normal visible mode:
> They know who is there, in a square of approx. 200m around them, their
> exact position, name, cit number, avatar and avatar-state (walk, run,
> fly, etc). They hear all chat and can log it, broadcast it or
> whatever. Same with avatar and object click, and object select.
>
> If bots owners have special rights, bots can do much more than their
> owners. They have more abilities and speed than browsers.
>
> What no SDK bot can do is read object passwords (even caretaker bots
> can't do that), read the URL of the object path unless they are
> caretaker bots (but anyone can do that by looking at the browser's
> cache), intercept telegrams (only the universe owner can do that),
> intercept whispers not directed at the bot (no one can do that).
>
> Well, I mentioned a few qualities of bots. In my world xelagon, I
> allow all bots, I have nothing to hide or protect. If you have a
> world with special object configurations, a game, or something that
> must not be revealed, don't allow all bots in, otherwise make bots
> happy and let them in :)
>
> Alex
>
> On 5 Sep 2003 03:53:36 -0400, "anarkissed"
> <anarkissed at nospam.alt.2600.net> wrote:
>
one
the
that
backups
logins?
>
|
Sep 7, 2003, 6:47pm
[View Quote]s t e f a n wrote:
> bot can do get the OP pw , if they have caretakers rights , its in encrypted
> form , same as in an atdump .
|
No.
--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
Sep 7, 2003, 8:00pm
Egh.. yes
- Mark
[View Quote]"bowen" <Bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:3f5b9970$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> s t e f a n wrote:
encrypted
>
> No.
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
> Yeah, it's that good.
> (Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
>
|
Sep 8, 2003, 3:11am
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> Egh.. yes
|
Check again, the hash is not the same anymore. Maybe back in the days
of 3.2 - certainly not anymore. I've tried it. You know, using the
browser to reverse the password on ATDumps by assigning it to your PPW,
yes I know the process and no, it doesn't work anymore.
Yes, it can get the encrypted form, but I do not believe it's anything
of value... unless I misunderstood what he was trying to convey but
that's pretty easy to do.
--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
Sep 8, 2003, 9:54am
the OP pw is always send in encrypted form , to both the browser and the bot
on CT rights , the browser has its own decrpypt code for this pw .
Sep 8, 2003, 11:07am
If it was a hash, then it wouldn't be of -any- use, so why send it? Anyway,
the browser uses your disk serial number in part of the calculation for the
browser password, but that's not factored in for the world object password.
So, if you ghetto-decrypt the password with the browser, you wont get
anything.
-Joe
[View Quote]"bowen" <Bowen at andras.net> wrote in message
news:3f5c0f77$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> strike rapier wrote:
>
> Check again, the hash is not the same anymore. Maybe back in the days
> of 3.2 - certainly not anymore. I've tried it. You know, using the
> browser to reverse the password on ATDumps by assigning it to your PPW,
> yes I know the process and no, it doesn't work anymore.
>
> Yes, it can get the encrypted form, but I do not believe it's anything
> of value... unless I misunderstood what he was trying to convey but
> that's pretty easy to do.
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
> Yeah, it's that good.
> (Maybe an AW section in the near future?)
>
|
Sep 9, 2003, 1:33am
*wonders if this is a PUI case*
J
[View Quote]"john" <john at 3d-reality.com> wrote in message
news:3f5851f3 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> That wud be scary if so cos then pplz could eject people from AW, lol....
> ~John
>
> "anarkissed" <anarkissed at nospam.alt.2600.net> wrote in message
> news:3f584100 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> one
> the
> that
or
bot
> backups
> logins?
>
>
|
Sep 9, 2003, 1:33am
*wonders if this is another PUI case*
J
[View Quote]"john" <john at 3d-reality.com> wrote in message
news:3f58e927 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Like Black hawk down but different?
>
> ~John
>
> "strike rapier" <strike at Rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3f58e87f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Sep 9, 2003, 2:23pm
PUI?
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message
news:3f5d4a20$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> *wonders if this is another PUI case*
>
> J
>
> "john" <john at 3d-reality.com> wrote in message
> news:3f58e927 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Sep 10, 2003, 3:13am
Many thanks, yours is the voice most sensible in this thread and I really
think it would be fun to do this.
Ultimately since I host the server at home it's very easy to make backups
and restore so if anyone did screw around it would be fixed in the snap of a
finger.
I think I will open the world and see what happens.
Thankyou Alex.
[View Quote]"xelag" <xelag at digitalspace.com> wrote in message
news:toumlv490k6vv2jf0lsn3ddemotus079oo at 4ax.com...
> Bots can be fun. But they have MANY more abilities than their owners,
> even without their owners having special rights.
>
> All bots can scan property, revealing the name, description, action
> and location of objects. They can scan terrain. They can do these
> things even in invisible mode (all bots can log invisible), so that
> only an examination of the world log will show they have been there.
>
> In normal visible mode:
> They know who is there, in a square of approx. 200m around them, their
> exact position, name, cit number, avatar and avatar-state (walk, run,
> fly, etc). They hear all chat and can log it, broadcast it or
> whatever. Same with avatar and object click, and object select.
>
> If bots owners have special rights, bots can do much more than their
> owners. They have more abilities and speed than browsers.
>
> What no SDK bot can do is read object passwords (even caretaker bots
> can't do that), read the URL of the object path unless they are
> caretaker bots (but anyone can do that by looking at the browser's
> cache), intercept telegrams (only the universe owner can do that),
> intercept whispers not directed at the bot (no one can do that).
>
> Well, I mentioned a few qualities of bots. In my world xelagon, I
> allow all bots, I have nothing to hide or protect. If you have a
> world with special object configurations, a game, or something that
> must not be revealed, don't allow all bots in, otherwise make bots
> happy and let them in :)
>
> Alex
>
> On 5 Sep 2003 03:53:36 -0400, "anarkissed"
> <anarkissed at nospam.alt.2600.net> wrote:
>
one
the
that
backups
logins?
>
|
|
