30 replies to this topic

[Patistar]

If you can place a disk drive next to a computer, you can also destroy the computer or the door with your pickaxe. So no "hacking" is necessary />

[Pinkishu]

Wired rednet />

[SavinaRoja]

One security measure which I use, and haven't seen mentioned here, is an authenticator. Put your password-checking computer (Controller) in a protected area and only allow it to send messages to (and process from) two computer IDs. Do your best to ensure that nobody has physical access to this computer. Obviously, you must then have an accessible computer (Gate) with one of the approved IDs with which to communicate with the remote, protected, Controller. Just open a Lua interpreter and type

rednet.send(Controller_ID, password)

, this ensures that nobody has tampered with your rednet signals to steal your password. Now for the authenticator. You must carry a single computer at all times to act as your Authenticator, it has the other approved ID. When you want to access a protected area, place it and activate it so that it can send a response to the Controller to let it know that it is present. When the Controller receives your password, it should check for the presence of the Authenticator before finally permitting access to your protected zone. Bonus points if you tokenize your authentication

[BigSHinyToys]

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

[KingMachine]

Pinkishu, on 29 July 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Wired rednet />

Redpower2 is pretty badass for that. I'm currently designing my project around wired rednet for part of the project and then wireless for the administration side.

[SavinaRoja]

BigSHinyToys, on 30 July 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But... I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

[KingMachine]

SavinaRoja, on 30 July 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But... I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

I've discovered the balance in zone protection. An area of land for the government, unalterable by any player, an area of land only alterable by the owning player. Chests and doors being accessed? Free game. This allows computers to work their magic without being disk drived and without the doors being removed.

[Noodle]

SavinaRoja, on 30 July 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

BigSHinyToys, on 30 July 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But... I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

Something can be so secure.. The players must manage their own entry ways. It's not all server side. You can't break the World Guard areas but you can get into a players "area" if you are provided an entry way. If you managed your plot so people couldn't get in then maybe they won't be able to get in? (Redundant I know, but its the truth)

[ChunLing]

How does zone protection interact with turtles doing things?

[PixelToast]

ChunLing, on 03 August 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

How does zone protection interact with turtles doing things?

the bukkit port simulates the user using a tool or block modifications for permissions

IGN: infinikiller64
oh god i love turtle warfare, gps hacking, remote controlling, and messing with unprotected rendet programs
for the lulz

[Laserman34170]

In theory, if you had a universal Rednet networking system you could hack remote computers if:
1. You convinced the victim to download a file
2. You send empty parameters in a message to a server to bring it down with errors
3. If someone broadcasts a message to be able to connect to a network and you calculate their relative position and bomb them with turtles