It's more trouble than it's worth. No way to do it with BYOND but you would to run something separately on the client's machine and get that to send information back to the server.

Any method to do so would be a huge security risk and be patched by the staff ASAP. Dream Seeker is designed to more-or-less run in its own little sandbox, you aren't supposed to be able to run arbitrary system commands on the clients.

Even if you could exploit some older versions of IE, all someone would have to do is update is prevent you from catching them.

Anything in particular you're trying to stop? Because of BYOND's client-server model, the only reliable cheating method players have is macro programs.

A.T.H.K wrote:

DarkCampainger wrote:

the only reliable cheating method players have is macro programs.

Which you could just change the name of the .exe to blah.exe rendering this method useless really.

Exactly.

The only real way to block macro programs is to make your gameplay not easily macroable. Make it dynamic.

For example, in an online RPG called Tibia, there was a fishing system that was literally "click your fishing rod, click water, get fish 4% of the time". That was easily macroed. They changed it so that fishing used up worms, and so that after you caught a fish on a particular water tile, you couldn't catch a fish there again for a few minutes. This made it much more fun harder for me to macro.

Sprin wrote:

Anything in particular you're trying to stop? Because of BYOND's client-server model, the only reliable cheating method players have is macro programs.

Actually, I'm trying to stop people from spoofing their IP with Tor and spoofing CompID with another program.
There's got to be some way to detect it, IP bans are practically useless now. (I have other types of bans in place, but still, it's irritating).

I'm surprised they can play a game over Tor, I always assumed it would be very slow/high latency.

Unfortunately, because of the way the internet works, there's not much you can do. However, if you have any info on the program people are using to circumvent computer_id, I'm sure the staff would appreciate it if you would pass it on through the support form. They may be able to beef it up a bit more if they know how people are getting around it.

Best defense is to build safeguards into whatever they're abusing, such as by adding spam filters.

I'm not aware of any function called "run".

Could you not just use javascript via perhaps maybe its been a long day for me I have edited this post around 4 times...

Yes sorry you will need to run an activex addin for ie.. Where the client has the option to run it or not.

If you know and c# you can use a dll in DM

I was looking into this but with lack of knowledge i ultimately failed.

This can be done by writing your own DLL and use the call function in DM, if you try looking up call or dll in the forums there is a certain way to get the dll to return the value.

I am assuming the above will work client side as the reference quotes

The arguments are not needed and so far i do not believe the proc is needed, all in all you can create a dll to return the cpuid hdd id or another piece of hardware from the clients pc, imo stick with cpu id as hdds are easy to change id. If the client can be bothered.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I will continue with writing the dll myself and if successful ill upload it as a lib for all.

Nadrew wrote:

You'd only be able to access the host's processes using a DLL, and only if hosting from Windows. You can't run a DLL function on a client.

^

Sad maybe someone should request a feature that BYOND can return the CPU ID of the client, I don't know why this was not thought of by Tom in the first place (in a banning perspective).

IP/Key banning is easy to bypass.

I could suggest that IP/KEY ban and file ban, to do this you can send the client a file if file exists when they login ban them... this is also easy to bypass...

Personally, I ban via key, IP, computer ID, cookie and client-side savefile. If someone's going to be assed getting around it via a VM, I guess you can be proud that they love your game that much.

A.T.H.K wrote:

Murrawhip wrote:

I guess you can be proud that they love your game that much.

Not always the case.

^

Indeed, as I have exactly all those bans in place. There are about 5 people who still try to bypass all of them.
Flattered, maybe. But people with that amount of free time and crackhead energy, are usually the ones who are trying to break your game for their own amusement... So not so good.

PS: I take it there is no way to return if a client has canceled a run() request?
But the DLL can get running windows processes and return the result via call()? I'm assuming they get the 'Ok and Cancel' request, would it return something in that case if the client canceled?