137 replies to this topic

[ETHANATOR360]

i think that rednet.send should be change from computer ID to the frequency the message is on to make it hackable but hard to hack.
example code
rednet.send ("msg, 351")
rednet.open ("top, 351")
rednet.set ("423")

[Sxw]

That would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zalerinian]

ETHANATOR360, on 06 August 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

i think that rednet.send should be change from computer ID to the frequency the message is on to make it hackable but hard to hack.
example code
rednet.send ("msg, 351")
rednet.open ("top, 351")
rednet.set ("423")

I second this motion!

[Sxw]

... This calls for..
I am Sxw1212 and I approve this message.
/>

[Pharap]

I like the idea, but I don't think it should replace the computer id, perhaps be an additional feature.
It would also add semi-privacy since you could broadcast to everything on the one frequency, but not to every computer listening for rednet messages.
The hacking thing is also, dare I say it a good idea. Not only would trying to hack a frequency be a challenge to the hacker, but stopping the person from hacking the network would be a good challenge for the person in charge of the network.

[wilcomega]

very nice! i am gonna have to expand my rednet listener to support all 5 million frequencies

PS: a little bug in ur code, i should be like this:

rednet.send(3, "msg")
rednet.set( 512 )

[ETHANATOR360]

Pharap, on 06 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

I like the idea, but I don't think it should replace the computer id, perhaps be an additional feature.
It would also add semi-privacy since you could broadcast to everything on the one frequency, but not to every computer listening for rednet messages.
The hacking thing is also, dare I say it a good idea. Not only would trying to hack a frequency be a challenge to the hacker, but stopping the person from hacking the network would be a good challenge for the person in charge of the network.

and mabye this will start hackers acually hacking instead of making a 3 line virus

[Pharap]

ETHANATOR360, on 06 August 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Pharap, on 06 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

I like the idea, but I don't think it should replace the computer id, perhaps be an additional feature.
It would also add semi-privacy since you could broadcast to everything on the one frequency, but not to every computer listening for rednet messages.
The hacking thing is also, dare I say it a good idea. Not only would trying to hack a frequency be a challenge to the hacker, but stopping the person from hacking the network would be a good challenge for the person in charge of the network.

and mabye this will start hackers acually hacking instead of making a 3 line virus

Which would be a bonus, since it means you'd actually need a bit more more intellect to work on, which means less chance of griefers taking advantage.
Plus there's a way to stop people getting into your rednet server(the computer managing the network) after the session has commenced, as well as allowing others to join.
Plus it would make a nice little 'community' style thing. Only issue is preventing player's computers operating on the same frequency without it being intended eg one player starts a network on frequency 178, and another player, about 2 or 3 chunks away, uses the same frequency. Without there being a way to tell one user the frequency is taken or there being a password to use a frequency, it's going to cause conflict.

[ElvishJerricco]

i think this idea is absolutely brilliant. As a guy making an internet like system, i can tell you uncrackable networks are VERY easy right now. This could be a very fun change.

[Sebra]

Intended holes in security is quite a BAD thing.
All, you are glad here, is a commit or prevent BAD behavior.
Can you imagine any positive use of this?

[Pharap]

Sebra, on 12 August 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

Intended holes in security is quite a BAD thing.
All, you are glad here, is a commit or prevent BAD behavior.
Can you imagine any positive use of this?

It's harder to hack and easier to implement than the current system (from a user's point of view).

[dimitriye98]

It allows more flexibility. If I want to send to computers 1, 2, 3, I can do it in one command rather than three. For three computers this isn't much of a difference, but for 10, for example in a rednet irc chat, it makes a significant difference in speed.

[Cloudy]

dimitriye98, on 13 August 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

It allows more flexibility. If I want to send to computers 1, 2, 3, I can do it in one command rather than three. For three computers this isn't much of a difference, but for 10, for example in a rednet irc chat, it makes a significant difference in speed.

rednet.broadcast?

And you'll find the speed difference is negligible.

Having said that we do want to make rednet more realistic.

[dimitriye98]

rednet.broadcast is insecure. If I synchronize all the computers taking part in the "conversation" to a certain channel, I can communicate between them fairly privately considering that there would be likely hundreds of frequencies. And if someone can intercept the messages, that just adds to the fun/realism. Also, if I can monitor private conversations between computers over bundled cable, it should be even easier with wireless, since logically, if the signals are in the air, I should be able to monitor them, provided I'm within range.

[Cloudy]

dimitriye98, on 13 August 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

rednet.broadcast is insecure. If I synchronize all the computers taking part in the "conversation" to a certain channel, I can communicate between them fairly privately considering that there would be likely hundreds of frequencies. And if someone can intercept the messages, that just adds to the fun/realism. Also, if I can monitor private conversations between computers over bundled cable, it should be even easier with wireless, since logically, if the signals are in the air, I should be able to monitor them, provided I'm within range.

As I said, it is something we want to look into.

Point taken about broadcast - but sending a message to 10 computers at once won't cause a speed loss the way you're describing it, considering it is mostly Java side code.

[Sammich Lord]

Well this stuff could be possible with somebody making a API and have servers setup that when sent to that server the server sends it to the computers connected to that "frequency". I will start getting working on some code in see how easy the API will be to make.

[kamnxt]

Awesome idea!
The rednet could be open, so hackers could read your messages...
It would be a nice challenge, because if you don't want hackers to read your messages (and send new) easily, you can just secure it! ROT13, base64...
And... broadcasting like APs: you could make the rednet modem broadcast it's name and frequency, and you could find them on other computers! And maybe mac addresses... and ip addresses...
And you could add auth systems!

[immibis]

kamnxt, on 14 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

secure it! ROT13, base64...

Please tell me you're joking.

[KaoS]

Pharap, on 06 August 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

ETHANATOR360, on 06 August 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Pharap, on 06 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

I like the idea, but I don't think it should replace the computer id, perhaps be an additional feature.
It would also add semi-privacy since you could broadcast to everything on the one frequency, but not to every computer listening for rednet messages.
The hacking thing is also, dare I say it a good idea. Not only would trying to hack a frequency be a challenge to the hacker, but stopping the person from hacking the network would be a good challenge for the person in charge of the network.

and mabye this will start hackers acually hacking instead of making a 3 line virus

Which would be a bonus, since it means you'd actually need a bit more more intellect to work on, which means less chance of griefers taking advantage.
Plus there's a way to stop people getting into your rednet server(the computer managing the network) after the session has commenced, as well as allowing others to join.
Plus it would make a nice little 'community' style thing. Only issue is preventing player's computers operating on the same frequency without it being intended eg one player starts a network on frequency 178, and another player, about 2 or 3 chunks away, uses the same frequency. Without there being a way to tell one user the frequency is taken or there being a password to use a frequency, it's going to cause conflict.

I don't think operating on the same frequency is a problem, at the moment we all operate on the same frequency and we must adapt to do so, in order for it to be realistic I think anyone should be able to use a frequency. I think it would be awesome because you could make a frequency algorithm based on the os time or anything to keep cycling, it's an amazing idea

[thepowdertoy]

I agree with this, not just because this makes this harder to hack, but because I don't need to change the send id every time I change my computer