There's no reason to break your back finding a new way to defeat a hack.
But there's no reason you shouldn't include an anti-hack, even if it's outdated, not everyone uses the latest version of a hack.
Keep in mind an anti-hack shouldn't be used unless it's absolutely necessary, like a map hack in a melee game.

There's also been some people keeping their anti-hacks to themselves. If an anti-hack isn't shared due to fear of it getting fixed in the hack update, then it's probably not worth using at all. It's a waste of time to find a method and not use it in a public map.

I'm sure that Zynastor updates his hacks because he won't settle for anything less than perfection, not because he wants to harm the community. Although if I were him, I would find it fun to watch everyone worry and run around like ants for a new method to counter the hack.

Quote from Heinermann

But there's no reason you shouldn't include an anti-hack, even if it's outdated, not everyone uses the latest version of a hack.

Not true of EUD anti-hacks: these systems make maps Mac-incompatible, and Starcraft is supposed to be a Mac-compatible game. Remember, Mac people have (usually) paid for the game just like everyone else. You don't have the right to make the game unplayable online for them, whatever the upshot in terms of a better or more secure map, no matter how much you dislike their choice of computer and operating system. Between the wider use of EUDs and careless utilization of map protection methods that make Macs crash (when there are other methods available that don't have that effect), that seems to be the direction that things are heading. It has to stop, even if that means giving up certain ways of "making a better map".

Quote from FoxWolf1

Quote from Heinermann

But there's no reason you shouldn't include an anti-hack, even if it's outdated, not everyone uses the latest version of a hack.

Not true of EUD anti-hacks: these systems make maps Mac-incompatible, and Starcraft is supposed to be a Mac-compatible game. Remember, Mac people have (usually) paid for the game just like everyone else. You don't have the right to make the game unplayable online for them, whatever the upshot in terms of a better or more secure map, no matter how much you dislike their choice of computer and operating system. Between the wider use of EUDs and careless utilization of map protection methods that make Macs crash (when there are other methods available that don't have that effect), that seems to be the direction that things are heading. It has to stop, even if that means giving up certain ways of "making a better map".

well i guess this is your virus that you avoided getting since you bought a mac. (seriously who writes viruses for macs lol). To be honest i'd rather deal with no hackers and the downside of no macs than to have them both. On the right to make it unplayable for macs users, we do have it because it is our maps not your map. If someone wants to implement it into his/her map its their map so they damn well do have that right.

Please don't post your anti-hacks here, Falkoner likes to run and tattle to zynastor.

Quote from FoxWolf1

Quote from Heinermann

But there's no reason you shouldn't include an anti-hack, even if it's outdated, not everyone uses the latest version of a hack.

Not true of EUD anti-hacks: these systems make maps Mac-incompatible, and Starcraft is supposed to be a Mac-compatible game. Remember, Mac people have (usually) paid for the game just like everyone else. You don't have the right to make the game unplayable online for them, whatever the upshot in terms of a better or more secure map, no matter how much you dislike their choice of computer and operating system. Between the wider use of EUDs and careless utilization of map protection methods that make Macs crash (when there are other methods available that don't have that effect), that seems to be the direction that things are heading. It has to stop, even if that means giving up certain ways of "making a better map".

As much as I'd like to agree, if the map maker feels inclined to use EUD or map protection that doesn't allow Macs to play, it's his decision because it's his map really. The only thing that would change that is Blizzard, because Blizzard is the one who actually owns Starcraft.

Quote

Please don't post your anti-hacks here, Falkoner likes to run and tattle to zynastor.

That's only happened once I actually think that's why he got an account here

Quote from FoxWolf1

Quote from Heinermann

But there's no reason you shouldn't include an anti-hack, even if it's outdated, not everyone uses the latest version of a hack.

Not true of EUD anti-hacks: these systems make maps Mac-incompatible, and Starcraft is supposed to be a Mac-compatible game. Remember, Mac people have (usually) paid for the game just like everyone else. You don't have the right to make the game unplayable online for them, whatever the upshot in terms of a better or more secure map, no matter how much you dislike their choice of computer and operating system. Between the wider use of EUDs and careless utilization of map protection methods that make Macs crash (when there are other methods available that don't have that effect), that seems to be the direction that things are heading. It has to stop, even if that means giving up certain ways of "making a better map".

I didn't mean to make it sound like it should be used regardless of circumstances. I meant if you already decided to use an anti-hack and ran into problems. I agree with your point, but it's the map creator's decision, not yours.

EUD anti-hacks really can be dangerous in maps, if the address changes between patches to a value that returns true, then the map becomes completely unplayable. My feeling is that making EUD anti-hacks, specifically for the hack programs, and not for their changes in StarCraft is a horrible idea, and are way too easy for hack makers to work around.

Is the issue with Macs that they crash when they try to read an EUD or is it that the memory is in a different location? If the latter then it is very possible to detect if they have Windows or Macs based on memories being true in certain places in a controlled circumstance; then all you would need to is make the Hack EUD detection for each system run only for that system.

That' would be a lot of work however. Too much work to be worth it.

Edit:

Quote from Falkoner

EUD anti-hacks really can be dangerous in maps, if the address changes between patches to a value that returns true, then the map becomes completely unplayable. My feeling is that making EUD anti-hacks, specifically for the hack programs, and not for their changes in StarCraft is a horrible idea, and are way too easy for hack makers to work around.

This is the other issue I was going to address.

Quote

Is the issue with Macs that they crash when they try to read an EUD or is it that the memory is in a different location? If the latter then it is very possible to detect if they have Windows or Macs based on memories being true in certain places in a controlled circumstance; then all you would need to is make the Hack EUD detection for each system run only for that system.

Actually, a little while back people were looking into Mac EUDs, so they are completely feasable, but once again, no one wants to do the work, so a limited user group can play their map

I thought I'd update here...

-Oblivion 4.0.2b is still dropped by these AH triggers. No sign of Zynastor working up a wtfPwn as far as I know. Also, kudos to Zynastor as Oblivion 4.0.2b prevents battle.net from disconnecting you. On clean Broodwar I drop every 1 to 5 minutes... I can't chat with someone in a channel but this new Obliv solves my woes whenever I'm not playing StarQuest.

-I know a Mac Player who plays with me using a Virtual Machine w/ Windows. He said he wants to create a Mac-friendly version of the EUD's but he can't find a program to read the memory on Mac, which he needs to compare memories from Mac/PC with.

I have known about these maps for a while, I get bugged now and then but have not really worried about it until recently. I will be releasing protection in the next update of Oblivion once I finish a few other features, so if your up for the challenge then give it a shot. My protection currently only works for the triggers that read starcraft's memory, so there is other methods you could possibly try if your interested, I always look forward to seeing what new ideas and methods are released.

I also remember reading somewhere where some guy thinks he can update his triggers faster than I can update my hack, LOL. Lets see about that then yeah?

There's a simple way to defeat oblivion. Make our own warden, and make maps only playable when our warden is running

Quote from Clokr_

There's a simple way to defeat oblivion. Make our own warden, and make maps only playable when our warden is running

This has the same problem as Esponeo's super protection: Distribution.

There is still one method Mr. Retarded Piece Of Shit can't block. It's really simple, too.

-Place a blinded unit for each player with a unit it can attack nearby
-If the blinded unit attacks the other unit, then the player is hacking
-Kill all of the player's units

Quote from zynastor

I have known about these maps for a while, I get bugged now and then but have not really worried about it until recently. I will be releasing protection in the next update of Oblivion once I finish a few other features, so if your up for the challenge then give it a shot. My protection currently only works for the triggers that read starcraft's memory, so there is other methods you could possibly try if your interested, I always look forward to seeing what new ideas and methods are released.

I also remember reading somewhere where some guy thinks he can update his triggers faster than I can update my hack, LOL. Lets see about that then yeah?

That's the spirit. Just waiting for the drama to happen now. Come on guys! Show him your anti-h4x!11

Maybe I'll give some hints this time.
BTW are ALL your code patches protected from

Score(Custom) 0x00460071
Score(Units) 0x0046007C
Score(Buildings) 0x00460087
Score(Units+Buildings) 0x00460092
Score(Kills) 0x004600A4
Score(Razings) 0x004600AF
Score(Kills+Razings) 0x004600BA
Score(Total) 0x004600CC

Deaths(Any Unit) 0x00460417
Deaths(Men) 0x00460428
Deaths(Buildings) 0x00460432
Deaths(Factories) 0x0046043C
Deaths(Specific Unit) 0x0046044C

Kills(Any Unit) 0x00460537
Kills(Men) 0x00460548
Kills(Buildings) 0x00460552
Kills(Factories) 0x0046055C
Kills(Specific Unit) 0x0046056C

Accumulate(Ore+Gas) 0x004605E7
Accumulate(Gas) 0x00460662
Accumulate(Ore) 0x0046066B

Bring/Command(Any Unit) 0x00460768
Bring/Command(Men) 0x0046077A
Bring/Command(Buildings) 0x00460785
Bring/Command(Factories) 0x00460790
Bring/Command(Specific Unit) 0x004607A1

Hmmm display leaderboard probably accepts extended unit IDs but I havn't listed them yet. Addresses are where the patches should be placed. You can get the address two ways: Disassemble Starcraft and follow the Trigger Actions array (@ 0x00512800) or execute the trigger so that it reads memory out of bounds (error 0xC0000005 [Access Violation]) when DEP is turned on.

Quote

There is still one method Mr. Retarded Piece Of Shit can't block. It's really simple, too.

-Place a blinded unit for each player with a unit it can attack nearby
-If the blinded unit attacks the other unit, then the player is hacking
-Kill all of the player's units

That's the dumbest pile of shit I ever heard. If the blinded unit attacks the player would desync anyway, and "Mr Retarded piece of shit" already knows this.

Yes I have them all covered, Heinermann. If I missed one it only takes 1 minute to add in a hook and compile.

Quote from TassadarZeratul

There is still one method Mr. Retarded Piece Of Shit can't block. It's really simple, too.

-Place a blinded unit for each player with a unit it can attack nearby
-If the blinded unit attacks the other unit, then the player is hacking
-Kill all of the player's units

No need to start with the attacks and you do realize you made yourself look like a retard who has no clue.

Quote from TassadarZeratul

There is still one method Mr. Retarded Piece Of Shit can't block. It's really simple, too.

-Place a blinded unit for each player with a unit it can attack nearby
-If the blinded unit attacks the other unit, then the player is hacking
-Kill all of the player's units

you should know it doesn't work that way.... or else hackers would be dropping all over in melee games every time they siege a tank by an enemy hill.
You should have the sense to know that just because you, the omniscient observer, see something there is a chance your unit doesn't. (especially when hacks are involved)

Quote from ws-Tank_7

-I know a Mac Player who plays with me using a Virtual Machine w/ Windows. He said he wants to create a Mac-friendly version of the EUD's but he can't find a program to read the memory on Mac, which he needs to compare memories from Mac/PC with.

Test//Matt_Burch was making a memory map for SC Mac.

EUDs very work for Mac users, they just have different offsets and such. For an anti-hack I don't see how MAC users would be affected at all, unless they magically had whatever value the EUDs were to look for.

Also, thx tank for giving zyn more motivation to update his hack so the current AH doesn't work( <<<<<<<< the actual Mr. Retarded Piece Of Shit you should really be mad at TZ)