You are forced to play on ezQ/FQ/mqwcl because other players want be sure you dont use dirty cheats like glowing backpack's.

Security module is some kind of digital signature. If your client or one of protected resources was modified ('pain sound' for example) other players will be noticed about it.

It's needed due to leagues rules - they dont allow you to play with modified player.mdl, backpack.mdl, damage.wav, etc. If you have a better idea for cheats-protection feel free to describe it here.

Running Ezquake, Fuhquake or MQWCL does not prevent me from cheating.


Digital signatures do not work when you give the secret to everyone.


No, technically, most rules don't allow me to play unless I can find the "secret" you give to me. Some further pose the restriction (in theory) that I must use a specific piece of software.

I don't think any rules actually say that I can't modify the Quake models.


If you want to know more about better ideas, feel free to read this thread instead of saying "I got bored and stopped reading at the first page".

Which files are you not allowed to modify?

Just read all this, not a regular on here, got pasted the link. I know Bigfoot quite well and am sure he doesnt want to cheat or harm the qw community.
I do agree with him+bandog tho, im not so sure that having a security module which doesnt really do anything (from what ive read here), and yet still excludes certain players from entering tourneys because of compatability, isnt such a good idea.

legs

That's bullshit.

I agree on skip the security module blaha stuff
but for some reason I get the feeling that will never happen in the .eu community
and saying shit about the ezquake-developers here is bure bs, there's noone right now doing more for quakeworld than these guys period


a(fkn)greed

rm *security*

It's better. But you refuse to do it.

whats rm security ?

No, bigfoot, you can't use the fact that the current linux security module is poor as an argument for defending your opinion that the basic idea of security modules is wrong. I ask you to stop using such rhetorical methods.
Sassa: rm

Besides being bullshit, that's also entirely besides the fact.

The current Linux "security" module is poor. The current Windows "security" module is poor.

The Windows "security" module was cracked by someone else (OMG, yes, there's TWO persons out there who can do such a thing! OMG OMG!).

Future Linux and Windows "security" modules will be poor, furthermore they'll also easily be cracked, as I explained to you on IRC.


I ask you to stop trying to twist facts and spew bullshit.

You should mate and make a baby.

If I had to have a baby with everyone who could crack the "security" module, Guinness would have to add an entry for most children fathered by the same person.

Bigfoot: No. That the current implementation is poor doesn't imply that the whole principle is wrong.

It doesn't prove the fact wrong either. Just because a shit smells like shit doesn't mean it doesn't also tastes like shit.

In other words, what the fuck are you trying to say and how does it relate to anything I said? And where the fuck did I "use the fact that the current linux security module is poor as an argument for defending your opinion that the basic idea of security modules is wrong."?

Yes, it's stupidly simple to crack the hard way, it's even simpler to crack the easy way. This doesn't change the fact that what you're trying to do can't be done, though.

It doesn't change the fact either that what you're trying to do has negative sides.

Thus, rm *security* is the best thing you can do. You just refuse to.

Finally you agreed with what I said.

... if you say so...

No, I don't agree with what you imply.