ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
Bots in global mode should be able to see invisible bots. (Wishlist)
Bots in global mode should be able to see invisible bots. // WishlisttechnozeusJan 4, 2003, 10:56am
I would think that would be good only if they had a way to recognize that those bots were meant to be hidden. Otherwise a global mode bot might inadvertantly announce to everyone the presence of a bot that was intended to work unannounced in the background.
TechnoZeus [View Quote] strike rapierJan 4, 2003, 12:37pm
strike rapierJan 4, 2003, 5:33pm
It does, you see them connect etc to the world server, but invisible is
merly not needing a physical location in world so it dosent declair itself as having 1 with aw_state_change the second it does its not invisible any more, but keeping em invisible so they dont start filling up worlds etc, I dont see a prob. - Mark [View Quote] d a nJan 4, 2003, 8:10pm
Hope im not causing a problem here, but as noticing Hamfon's BuildBot
whether its available still, it updates property when its invisible i think, or all bots, even without ct, can update property :\ --- D a n shredJan 4, 2003, 8:23pm
Considering the fact that global mode bots have to be logged into one of the world's caretaker's (which, in most worlds, number quite few) privileges, I really don't think that this would be a problem.
[View Quote] strike rapierJan 5, 2003, 11:10am
Of course they can, the property data exists at 'world' level, not
'physical' level so can be edited while invis. - Mark [View Quote] technozeusJan 5, 2003, 1:52pm
It would be if it defeats the bot's intended purpose, or if it interferes with the normal operation and intended usage of other bots that the world's caretaker also wants to have running.
TechnoZeus [View Quote] shredJan 5, 2003, 2:03pm
Since presumably the world caretaker will be running the bots that you worry about being interfered with *along* with the global mode bots, then the world caretaker should quite easily be able to have his or her global mode bots not announce the presence of the invisible bots. If the caretaker can't even figure out how to do that, then it seems to me that he or she should do a wee bit of learning.
[View Quote] technozeusJan 5, 2003, 2:14pm
Now that would depend on the design of the bot, don't you think? And since there are people who run bots that they didn't write, that should be taken into consideration.
TechnoZeus [View Quote] tony mJan 5, 2003, 2:21pm
Ummm, I have yet to see the SDK itself crash (not the application) from the thousands of avatar_change events it receives. Or any other high-load event.
Try again. [View Quote] >No it shouldent thats why theyre hidden cause the SDK would go insane! shredJan 5, 2003, 2:26pm
No, I'm afraid that I don't. Most, if not all, of the popular bot programs currently used in Active Worlds have a simple mechanism that can be used to enable or disable public announcement of avatar entries or departures. It's good that you're trying to take all possible factors into account here, but ultimately doing so may not be practical for such small audiences. If the devteam implements this feature, which I doubt, they will decide how to do so in the best way possible.
[View Quote] strike rapierJan 5, 2003, 3:50pm
I meant because where would the AVATAR_X, AVATAR_Y, AVATAR_Z, AVATAR_TILT,
AVATAR_ROLL, AVATAR_YAW, come from, as well as session targeting for commands such as aw_whisper, aw_console_msg, etc - Mark [View Quote] bowenJan 5, 2003, 4:22pm
The caretaker is not necesarilly running the bot. Maybe someone found out his PPW
and is using it to log bots into his world invisibly to change things? Global mode bots should still be able to see them. --Bowen-- bowenJan 5, 2003, 4:23pm
[View Quote]
They'd be NULL, wouldn't they? As far as I'm aware, every bot is given a session as
soon as they connect. --Bowen-- shredJan 5, 2003, 4:47pm
This is one of the reasons that I think that this should be implemented. Since my world is hosted by a friend and I don't have immediate access to the world log, it would be rather difficult for me to know whether there was an invisible bot running in my world or not. There is also the issue of less trustworthy worldhosters than mine simply adding themselves to the caretaker list and running and invisible bot in the world in order to do whatever they like without the worldowner suspecting anything.
[View Quote] tony mJan 5, 2003, 4:53pm
[View Quote]
>I meant because where would the AVATAR_X, AVATAR_Y, AVATAR_Z, AVATAR_TILT,
>AVATAR_ROLL, AVATAR_YAW, come from, as well as session targeting for >commands such as aw_whisper, aw_console_msg, etc These would either be 0 or NULL like Bowen suggested. The session number would exist because it was assigned by the universe. strike rapierJan 5, 2003, 5:08pm
I still prefer invisible bots being invisible. Not like you cant track and
eject em if they build etc - Mark [View Quote] shredJan 5, 2003, 5:27pm
Like I said above, there is still a slight but realistic security risk in invisible bots only being detectable by having direct access to the world log, which is cumbersome in itself, or by the invisible bot actually changing the environment and sending out events to other SDK applications.
"This is one of the reasons that I think that this should be implemented. Since my world is hosted by a friend and I don't have immediate access to the world log, it would be rather difficult for me to know whether there was an invisible bot running in my world or not. There is also the issue of less trustworthy worldhosters than mine simply adding themselves to the caretaker list and running an invisible bot in the world in order to do whatever they like without the worldowner suspecting anything." Besides, they would only be visible to bots logged into global mode. It could even be made into another world option, if the prospect is that disconcerting to you. [View Quote] bowenJan 5, 2003, 11:31pm
> Besides, they would only be visible to bots logged into global mode. It could even
be made into another world option, if the prospect is that disconcerting to you. I could see a battle of bots with the invisible one disabling that when it enters then the global one enabling it. It'd be funny. Then it goes into an endless loop and the universe (the real one) collapses. Oh no! Ahh! Sorry... too much ketchup today. --Bowen-- strike rapierJan 6, 2003, 7:41pm
They could change world features and rights, the second they delete an
object appart from with wipe all they give away their session and are open to nuking. - Mark [View Quote] shredJan 6, 2003, 11:52pm
Not really. Like I've been saying, not everyone has access to the server that hosts their worlds. If you haven't noticed, the server administration program gives access to all the worlds that the server hosts. Do you think that good worldhosters that host multiple worlds for multiple people are just going to hand out unlimited access to their server and expect to remain in business? If what you are suggesting were to work as a solution to this problem, then the world server administration program would have to be redesigned or at least amended with the capability of limiting remote access to specific worlds on the hosting machine.
[View Quote] shredJan 6, 2003, 11:58pm
Give away their session to what, exactly? Other SDK applications? Even so, invisible bots could sit and simply do something so benign as "spying" on the world.
And, if you didn't know, denial of service attacks are illegal (at least to my knowledge, in the United States - and probably in the UK as well. Check if you like.), so I'm afraid that's a rather weak defense. [View Quote] bowenJan 7, 2003, 12:07am
What AW should really do is rework world administration to be soley browser based on
the citnumber that originally purchased the world. Have a list of server side options, propdump, atdump, elevdump, caretaker addition in the browser and based on the users credentials as the owner of the world. Also have an option for others that should have access to this list, a super caretaker if you will. Then completely remove host-side caretaker ability as well as the power to "whipe" the world. This should "fix" some of the problems people have with wayword hosts. Would be a nice addition to 3.5. --Bowen-- bowenJan 7, 2003, 12:10am
[View Quote]
In addition, still allow the host to make dumps, just not whipe... don't confuse me
liberalism with taking that power away. Loading would be another story but you shouldn't be tampering with a world without the owners permission. And if the owner gave the super caretaker to the host, then they could. But then some hosts will require you to give them super caretaker, so, find one that doesn't. :) (future 3.5 wishlist feature advice) --Bowen-- grimbleJan 7, 2003, 6:45am
Where do the rights and wrongs of DoS come into this? I think you
misunderstood Strike's post .... "give away their session" = "have their presence notified to global mode bots" "open to nuking" = "ejectable" I agree with you that "invisible" instances should be notified to global mode bots ... having the session notification tied to the arrival of a an avatar was always a bit wonky, but global mode gets around the (probable) reasons for it now. No compromises are needed - tell the CTs about the presence of non-visible bots. Grims. [View Quote] bowenJan 7, 2003, 8:10pm
[View Quote]
Hosters usually don't host one world. Setting up multiple servers just allow access
to that is a pain in the ass. Especially when the hoster needs to administrate it in case of an emergancy. --Bowen-- shredJan 7, 2003, 9:33pm
Um, I know how to configure the administration program. You're assuming that the worldhoster is running a separate server for each world, which is not usually the case.
[View Quote] |
