Unfortunately it was so busy catching cheaters in cs that it failed to ever catch a cheater in tf2.

It caught jmk when I was on Arc's xensity in Open. Had to be a starter because of it.

ah yes the low open medic who all of the sudden was the best sniper the world had ever seen

just like sg

space good at sniper

ahahahahahahahahahaha

http://i.imgur.com/0K7Gi.gif

Is there any way to remove/unhook the bitcoin mining code outside of a reformat? Was the malicious code ever specifically delineated at any point in that court document?

Per lpkane words.

If you're are not happy with eseas client you can "delete the client, and format"

the bitcoin code was only in there for a few days/weeks over this summer and was then removed.

The rest of the malware allegations are up in the air as to whether or not it's actually malicious, and it'd be pretty stupid of them to actually use it maliciously because it'd destroy 10 years of building a business.

lmfao

Really? Because the New Jersey settlement is pretty damn clear. "Full administrative access to all
end-users' computers. The ESEA Software enabled Defendants to not only monitor end-user
computer activity but also view and upload any and all end-users' computer files."

If none of this had happened it would also be pretty stupid for ESEA to do something like this eh? So stupidity isn't a reason to think they weren't abusing this. BRB, reformatting my computer...

Lets get a couple things clear
ESEA is uploading binaries from flagged accounts for cheating so they can reverse engineer them. They need kernel access to detect organner style cheats. Vac can upload files and send them to valve. Better boycott valve as well guys.

http://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/99787-yet-another-vac3-module.html#post844872

The ESEA Monitoring Code was approved because of the pressure from the cs community to detect organner. It fits the timetable of when it was approved.

lets not forget that tf2 community was not effected by bitcoin mining.

raped with ease

did they ever make an official announcement that this was added/add it to the TOS/anything to let us know that this was in the client?

Would you mind posting that in other threads.

no...why would you let cheat makers know that you were adding something like this. vac didnt put out a TOS either. which thread

all 10 of them please

Actually it doesn't matter since we're bumping this thread.

So this officially makes the last 2 days about literally nothing then, right?

Doesn't change the fact that they're a shady company who treats their customers like trash and operates under the assumption that we need them more than they need us. Doesn't erase the bitcoin mining. Doesn't change the countless times that we are forced to play on their client and reschedule matches, even though the client literally does not catch tf2 cheaters. Esea might work fine for cs, and those players should stick with it. Tf2 should go in another direction. The fact that we talk about this every season should be reason enough to actually do something about it and not an indication that we aren't going to do anything about it. And don't even get me started on lpkane.

there are valid reason to be mad at esea

- Settle off court with a statement that clearly says that the company had access to the players computer and personal files at any time.
- Never mention it on ESEAs official statement
- Ban anyone who mentions it or criticises no explanation on that matter on their site
- Not even trying to refute that statement

Yeah let's puts blind trust in ESEA again, just one more opportunity guys, please it's the love of my life, I can't find anyone that loves me more than ESEA, it will get better i promise.

God dammit you guys are masochists

Anytime a case can be settled out of court at reasonable terms it is. This isn't a shady practice, it's standard. It saves a lot of time and money for both parties involved.

It's not mentioned in an official statement because it's a normal part of anti-cheat software. Legalese is intended to remove ambiguity, not improve clarity. Believe it or not those are two different things in legalese, but that's why they call it legalese. My point is that the language used to describe the process sounds much more malicious and independent of the normal anti-cheat software than it is.

I can't speak for the bans at all, I don't know anything about them.

You can call me a devils advocate or whatever.

There is not one post in the ~40 pages of threads about this that says "I like ESEA." Literally 0 people think ESEA is actually good. This is only between people who think that it's our only option for serious competition and people who want to break off and start or join a new league.

Nobody is blindly trusting ESEA, and nobody is declaring love for them.

There are just people accepting that and tolerating them, and people refusing to. Except then those people sign back up for next season too.

lpkane clearly banned multiple people for 10 years for arguing with him in the thread under the announcement. fzero being one of them.

Fuck ESEA..

Those cheat developers seem like nice people. :(

Hiding what you're doing is one of the worst ways to write secure software. You are just hoping your software is secure/doing what you intend because people don't know how it does it, rather than it actually being well written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

There's an entire wikipedia page on it, but you tried.

Did you read the article? It supports his statement.

Security through obscurity doesn't really apply to anti-cheat clients the way you're talking about. That's more something that comes into play when dealing with user security(storing passwords, managing permissions and things). To some extent any anti-cheat client has to be obscured in some way because seeing exactly what the client is doing makes it much more easy to circumvent whatever controls it has in place.

The main issue is that any client-side anti-cheating device is fundamentally flawed; it can't provide a guarantee of non-cheating, it can only help. As long as people maintain control over their own pcs they will always be able to circumvent anti-cheating tools (in theory if not in practice purely because the methods the anti-cheat client uses are not obvious).

If you know exactly what it does you have a much easier time avoiding it, security through obscurity would still apply. I'm not assuming that this is the only security feature, security is layered and this should typically be one of them.

That statement supports it, it says not to depend upon it. You're supposed to use it to supplement other security features.

But this isn't really the point of this thread so I'll be quiet now :P

Surely if it is trivial to circumvent their anti-cheating measures then they are not fit for purpose?