"Native" leecher banning

[taz]

Hi,

I think other modders might find this useful

It's been ages since I've used a mod or official without added leecher detection mechanism. Now while working on my "mod generator" (getting closure to adding CA) I've noticed that applying :

Xman's use ConnectIP instead of GetIP() at CClientList::AttachToAlreadyKnown (i.e. :

Code: Alles auswählen

...
        if (sender){
            if (found_client->socket){
                if (found_client->socket->IsConnected()

// Contrib - fix
//                    && (found_client->GetIP() != tocheck->GetIP() || found_client->GetUserPort() != tocheck->GetUserPort() ) )
                    && (found_client->GetConnectIP() != tocheck->GetConnectIP() //Xman use ConnectIP instead of GetIP()
                    || found_client->GetUserPort() != tocheck->GetUserPort() ) )
// <-------- fix

                {
                    // if found_client is connected and has the IS_IDENTIFIED, it's safe to say that the other one is a bad guy
                    if (found_client->Credits() && found_client->Credits()->GetCurrentIdentState(found_client->GetIP()) == IS_IDENTIFIED){
                        if (thePrefs.GetLogBannedClients())
                            AddDebugLogLine(false, _T("Clients: %s (%s), Banreason: Userhash invalid"), tocheck->GetUserName(), ipstr(tocheck->GetConnectIP()));

...

results in banning a lot of AJ (and derived) as well as other leechers (identified as Nick thieves or via nick as probably unaware bad mods users via looking at verbose log).

If anyone finds this worth looking at - I've earned my 2 cents

[WiZaRd]

I dunno why this would help banning leechers... it simply makes the attach work correctly... and btw: the GetIP() is wrong/messed up in MANY more locations...

[Stulle]

yeah, exactly. in fact xman added it in various places... and he labels it as fix not as leecher ban code.

[WiZaRd]

Well, I added that, too and IIRC someone also added it to the Morph code...
Anyways, it's a *delicate* issue though it has been addressed several times on the official board and if SomeSupport doesn't think it's worth fixing... who knows?
But btw: if the next Alpha test starts, we should try and grab all our ancient fixes and changes and post them to the Alpha forum 'cos pretty much everything we posted there did finally make it into 0.49a

[taz]

yeah, exactly. in fact xman added it in various places... and he labels it as fix not as leecher ban code.

As it was brought (as fix) here ...

Well, I added that, too and IIRC someone also added it to the Morph code...
Anyways, it's a *delicate* issue though it has been addressed several times on the official board and if SomeSupport doesn't think it's worth fixing... who knows?
But btw: if the next Alpha test starts, we should try and grab all our ancient fixes and changes and post them to the Alpha forum 'cos pretty much everything we posted there did finally make it into 0.49a

Most of those common fixes and optimizations were accumulated into the "vanilla" v0 (VS2005 based 0.49a pre features stage) of my "mod generation" - once done outcome SRCs (pre and post CA addition) will be published (contributed to modders community). If anyone is interested in the "pre featured version" - I'd be happy to post it (since I'm too fresh - I can't be sure of "true" credits earners, so I've used comments and credits from mods changes were taken from. All changes (to 0.49a) are wrapped by "// Contrib -" prefix and "// <----" suffix (I used Contrib notation to distinguish from my own code changes - that are less trust worthy)).

[dlarge500]

I think this is a good idea, you get feedback about the changes and whether they do sense or are rather bad.

[Tuxman]

[Off-Topic, thus German]

whether they do sense

Dieses, nur dieses eine Mal wäre "make sense" richtig gewesen.
Schade.



[/Off-Topic]

[Stulle]

yeah wiz, might really be worth it. however, i am not much into fixing official bugs cause i usually concentrate on other things unless something really goes wrong. yours and xmans might really need some nagging to be added.
what we should also do is ask SS to add something to kill sx-leechers. we are already banning aggressive clients and i think not replying sx requests is also somehow aggressive, huh?

[WiZaRd]

Not aggressive but simply unfair and stupid... leecher behaviour, indeed...