|
Suggestion: eject by browser id (install id) (Wishlist)
Suggestion: eject by browser id (install id) // Wishlist
Apr 23, 2003, 7:17pm
I think another tag for people ejected should be added....a browser id that
would be generated and unique for each installation of AW..for instance, if
a tourist is ejected yet can come back with a different IP and comp id was
unsuccessful, they can cause havoc all over again with no
consequence..whereas a "browser id" would slow them down forcing them to
reinstall Active Worlds...which would be very inconvienant for a chronic
troublemaker...
I think any additional means by which someone who has been ejected can be
identified should be added...
Ryan
Apr 23, 2003, 7:19pm
They could copy their AW folder to another folder, and they could install AW
10 times.
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I think another tag for people ejected should be added....a browser id
that
> would be generated and unique for each installation of AW..for instance,
if
> a tourist is ejected yet can come back with a different IP and comp id was
> unsuccessful, they can cause havoc all over again with no
> consequence..whereas a "browser id" would slow them down forcing them to
> reinstall Active Worlds...which would be very inconvienant for a chronic
> troublemaker...
>
> I think any additional means by which someone who has been ejected can be
> identified should be added...
>
> Ryan
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 7:43pm
The browser shouldn't be able to work unless it's in the folder it was
installed in
Ryan
[View Quote]"defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
news:3ea7037f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> They could copy their AW folder to another folder, and they could install
AW
> 10 times.
>
> "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> that
> if
was
be
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 7:58pm
impossible really, and pointless, AWorld.exe is not a cell.
- Mark
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea708f1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The browser shouldn't be able to work unless it's in the folder it was
> installed in
>
> Ryan
|
Apr 23, 2003, 8:45pm
Something like this was going to be used but instead of a installation ID,
it would be relative to the hard-drive ID. Not sure what happened to that
idea. There was some sort of debate over it and I guess they decided not to
go with it.
-Dion
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
I think another tag for people ejected should be added....a browser id that
would be generated and unique for each installation of AW..for instance, if
a tourist is ejected yet can come back with a different IP and comp id was
unsuccessful, they can cause havoc all over again with no
consequence..whereas a "browser id" would slow them down forcing them to
reinstall Active Worlds...which would be very inconvienant for a chronic
troublemaker...
|
I think any additional means by which someone who has been ejected can be
identified should be added...
Ryan
Apr 23, 2003, 8:51pm
I'd like to see something more reliable than the computer ID's which don't
seem to work in all cases.
Ryan
[View Quote]"dion" <Dion at digevo.net> wrote in message
news:3ea71771 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Something like this was going to be used but instead of a installation ID,
> it would be relative to the hard-drive ID. Not sure what happened to that
> idea. There was some sort of debate over it and I guess they decided not
to
> go with it.
>
> -Dion
>
> "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I think another tag for people ejected should be added....a browser id
that
> would be generated and unique for each installation of AW..for instance,
if
> a tourist is ejected yet can come back with a different IP and comp id was
> unsuccessful, they can cause havoc all over again with no
> consequence..whereas a "browser id" would slow them down forcing them to
> reinstall Active Worlds...which would be very inconvienant for a chronic
> troublemaker...
>
> I think any additional means by which someone who has been ejected can be
> identified should be added...
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 9:37pm
Well, a computer id is for the computer, if they changed computers, your
idea wouldnt matter because it would be a different install anyways.
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea71905 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'd like to see something more reliable than the computer ID's which don't
> seem to work in all cases.
>
> Ryan
>
> "dion" <Dion at digevo.net> wrote in message
> news:3ea71771 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
ID,
that
not
> to
> that
> if
was
be
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 9:38pm
but basicly, thats a risk you take if you tourist enable your world
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea71905 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'd like to see something more reliable than the computer ID's which don't
> seem to work in all cases.
>
> Ryan
>
> "dion" <Dion at digevo.net> wrote in message
> news:3ea71771 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
ID,
that
not
> to
> that
> if
was
be
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 10:21pm
[View Quote]"ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I think another tag for people ejected should be added....a browser id that
> would be generated and unique for each installation of AW..for instance, if
> a tourist is ejected yet can come back with a different IP and comp id was
> unsuccessful, they can cause havoc all over again with no
> consequence..whereas a "browser id" would slow them down forcing them to
> reinstall Active Worlds...which would be very inconvienant for a chronic
> troublemaker...
>
> I think any additional means by which someone who has been ejected can be
> identified should be added...
|
There's no point. The three currently will take care of the three types of
"annoyances". IP for those on a permanent connection, citnumber for those that are
on dialup but don't have multiple citizenships, and computer ID by those that do have
multiple citizenships. Adding a "browser ID" would be almost no different from a
computer ID.
--Bowen--
Apr 23, 2003, 11:28pm
You forgot tourists.
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ea72dfb at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
that
if
was
be
>
> There's no point. The three currently will take care of the three types
of
> "annoyances". IP for those on a permanent connection, citnumber for those
that are
> on dialup but don't have multiple citizenships, and computer ID by those
that do have
> multiple citizenships. Adding a "browser ID" would be almost no different
from a
> computer ID.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
Apr 23, 2003, 11:34pm
[View Quote]"defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
news:3ea73ddb$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> You forgot tourists.
|
Computer ID, a browser ID could be faked more easily than a computer one.
--Bowen--
Apr 24, 2003, 12:19am
[View Quote]On 23 Apr 2003 17:43:13 -0400, "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote:
|
>The browser shouldn't be able to work unless it's in the folder it was installed in
It does work.
Apr 24, 2003, 1:10am
There are alot of tourists who doesn't have a computer ID.
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ea73f2b at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea73ddb$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> Computer ID, a browser ID could be faked more easily than a computer one.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
Apr 24, 2003, 2:17am
[View Quote]"defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
news:3ea75590$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> There are alot of tourists who doesn't have a computer ID.
|
Actually, it uses something everyone has installed in their computer, I think. Just
because you don't see _that_ ejection doesn't mean it's not there. In fact I think
that ejection dialog only shows citnumber and ip and not computer ID. The Xelagot I
was running saw the computer ID and the browser didn't.
--Bowen--
Apr 24, 2003, 3:13am
I checked Xelagot and world server logs, some ppl don't have a computer ID
at all.
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ea76567 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea75590$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> Actually, it uses something everyone has installed in their computer, I
think. Just
> because you don't see _that_ ejection doesn't mean it's not there. In
fact I think
> that ejection dialog only shows citnumber and ip and not computer ID. The
Xelagot I
> was running saw the computer ID and the browser didn't.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
Apr 24, 2003, 3:21am
[View Quote]"defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
news:3ea7727c at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I checked Xelagot and world server logs, some ppl don't have a computer ID
> at all.
|
Guess that's when human intervention is good... they'll get tired of it sooner or
later. Browser ID will serve no purpose due to the fact that it's not cement enough.
There is no real way to enforce trouble makers extending past what's already
available.
--Bowen--
Apr 24, 2003, 4:18am
You're worse than Bill Gates *g
Forget this nonsense
[View Quote]
Apr 24, 2003, 4:34am
.... and it is good that it does.
Applications with a large cache like AW have to be moveable.
[View Quote]tony m wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2003 17:43:13 -0400, "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It does work.
|
Apr 24, 2003, 2:00pm
What about AWNewbie? It HAS to be tourist enabled, and moderated...
"scuz" <webmaster at awscape.com> wrote this
(news:3ea723ea at server1.Activeworlds.com) in wishlist on 24 Apr 2003:
> but basicly, thats a risk you take if you tourist enable your world
Apr 28, 2003, 12:33pm
in my world i had a problem with a tourist on dialup. they would enter the
world and vandalize. id eject them. they would reconnect and change their
name and enter the world again and keep vandalizing. and i know that was the
same person because what are the chances that at least 20 times in a row a
tourist would be ejected and then a few minutes later another tourist enters
and vandalizes.
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ea72dfb at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "ryan" <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea702ed at server1.Activeworlds.com...
that
if
was
be
>
> There's no point. The three currently will take care of the three types
of
> "annoyances". IP for those on a permanent connection, citnumber for those
that are
> on dialup but don't have multiple citizenships, and computer ID by those
that do have
> multiple citizenships. Adding a "browser ID" would be almost no different
from a
> computer ID.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
Apr 28, 2003, 12:44pm
Computer ID is your processors serial number which is broadcast to the
internet (unless your smart and turned it off). There was a big uproar a few
years back when processor makers added this feature. People were so against
it that they had to include the option to turn it off. I have left mine on
because I'm lazy. But any one who knows about that can turn it off. (Ooops
have I spilled the beans.)
Having an installation ID would work and it wouldn't have to be something
that would change just by moving the folder in which its installed. Maybe it
could be a registry entry that is made the first time the browser is
installed. Then have a feature in the installer that will look for that
registry entry and if it finds it then it would leave it alone and not
change it. so the installation ID wouldn't change if the browser is
reinstalled. lol you could also make it so the entry isn't deleted by the AW
uninstall.
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ea77476 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "defiance" <Defiance at micro$oft.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea7727c at server1.Activeworlds.com...
ID
>
> Guess that's when human intervention is good... they'll get tired of it
sooner or
> later. Browser ID will serve no purpose due to the fact that it's not
cement enough.
> There is no real way to enforce trouble makers extending past what's
already
> available.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
Apr 28, 2003, 4:00pm
[View Quote]"panther1403" <panther1403 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ead3e40 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Computer ID is your processors serial number which is broadcast to the
> internet (unless your smart and turned it off). There was a big uproar a few
> years back when processor makers added this feature. People were so against
> it that they had to include the option to turn it off. I have left mine on
> because I'm lazy. But any one who knows about that can turn it off. (Ooops
> have I spilled the beans.)
> Having an installation ID would work and it wouldn't have to be something
> that would change just by moving the folder in which its installed. Maybe it
> could be a registry entry that is made the first time the browser is
> installed. Then have a feature in the installer that will look for that
> registry entry and if it finds it then it would leave it alone and not
> change it. so the installation ID wouldn't change if the browser is
> reinstalled. lol you could also make it so the entry isn't deleted by the AW
> uninstall.
|
Only Pentium 3's broadcasted the serial number I thought. Even so, they wouldn't
directly use the serial number... they'd hash it.
--Bowen--
Apr 29, 2003, 1:27pm
aactually, its more then just the processor's serial i believe, its a
mixture between that and the hard drive serial, and some other things. thats
why when you change things in your pc (such as adding ram) it will say
invalid password, because your computer id has changed, and so it doesnt
decrpyt it correctly, since it uses your computer id as the encrption key or
something like that. or wait, is that a diffrent matter?
-sWE Wu
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3ead6c29 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "panther1403" <panther1403 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ead3e40 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
few
against
on
(Ooops
something
Maybe it
the AW
>
> Only Pentium 3's broadcasted the serial number I thought. Even so, they
wouldn't
> directly use the serial number... they'd hash it.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>
|
May 5, 2003, 3:18am
Then it has to accept the risks associated with being tourist enabled.
TZ
[View Quote]"rossyboy" <rossyboy at swcity.net> wrote in message news:Xns9367ADACA9258Ro1124 at 64.94.241.201...
> What about AWNewbie? It HAS to be tourist enabled, and moderated...
>
> "scuz" <webmaster at awscape.com> wrote this
> (news:3ea723ea at server1.Activeworlds.com) in wishlist on 24 Apr 2003:
>
>
|
|