Re: Urban Dictionary for Metis (non related debate)

[GhostShip]

I'm just pointing out some hypocrisy here.

Perhaps you would like to explain just who is the hypocrite them Pri ?

[Pri]

I don't wanna get in to a big thing with you Ghost what I said originally was clear enough.

[GhostShip]

If you dont care to explain your comment then perhaps it will be best if you kept said comment to yourself, I feel your comment was rude and offensive, especially when no one from WMW has said anything negative to you about your Metis work as your comment seem to imply.

Just so you understand our position on peer caches/patches I will explain it to you again, the patch connects to one of four dns locations and is then directed to one of the peer caches, this allows for current "live" nodes to be delivered efficiently to each user and an opportunity for each client to obtain the blocklist prior to entering the otherwise anarchistic decentralised network. I have explained to you privately some time ago that yes its possible to bypass the peer caches and that we already have a solution in hand to do just that if there is some pressing emergency need to do so, there is no current pressing need and doing so would not be as efficient or helfpful as using the current method, there are no true networks that operate on blind node discovery that I know of and thus its pretty clear that there would be an efficiency limitation using a cache less method, just why you feel we should do something because you like the sound of it I dont know but thankfully wiser heads are setting the agenda and there is no current reason why a perfectly good system should be broken for no better reason that wanting change for the sake of it.

My apologies to those reading this thread with a view to enjoying Pri's offerings, once a public "slight" has been delivered I feel I have no choice but to rebutt it also publicly, however its nothing personal and I am glad Pri is continuing his efforts to share the fun on the network he cares about.

[Pri]

What I said was obviously (but not obvious to you) targeted at people moaning about me releasing software that uses my server but not moaning at others who release patches for WinMX that use there servers. That was the hypocrisy I was referring to.

In the same way that it is more efficient to have a central servers with static IP's to do the Peer Cache duties it is more efficient to run certain functions of my scripts through my server and I see no difference between the two and I'm sick of taking all the heat for my software when others do the same thing with there software with nearly a peep from the same people who are at my neck.

[White Stripes]

based on Richy (RebelMX) suggestions

just to make sure... this richy? ; https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=7690.0

...its the first result on google when searching for rswcs....

guess its a good thing the source of metis scripts can be seen

[GhostShip]

Your correct  in your observations Pri it wasn't clear to me what was being said and that's why I asked for clarification, unfortunately none was forthcoming and I then felt I had to remedy the perceived concern.

Now having viewed a few other forums it seems to me that the community is in danger of forgetting something important so I would like to offer some plain language pointers on this topic.

* Pri does this for fun.
* You don't have to use his scripts if you don't want to.
* He delivers the means to modify the code.

Like ourselves Pri of course reserves the right to stop ppl abusing his server that is used by some of the scripts, thankfully so far that's not been a problem but he is simply being up front and honest in stating it anyway.


I think its clear that there is nothing going on here thats bad in any way and if I thought there was I would be the first in the que to say so. Are we in danger of killing the goose that laid the egg because we dont care for the colour of its feathers ? I would like to think we are all more mature than that.

[RebelMX]

Yes Stripes the very same Richy.
Have you produced any program for the community?  You are of course in the "Core" section for a reason I'm sure...?

I find it surprising how you can find that particular thread but no1 can find the supposed commands in any version prior to 1.8.8 or since 1.8.8
So either I'm such a genius that no-one can find them or they were never intentional "backdoor" commands.  Am I really Stephen Hawkins or did people jump on the band wagon?  Please test 1.9.5.2 as thoroughly as you like, as I would love to know of any bugs, and have nothing to hide.

[GhostShip]

Ritchy You where given much time to explain yourself at the time you added the backdoor commands to the modified wcs server you release, you made no explanation for most of the additions and you removed them pretty fast when there presence was  publicised.  If you can tell me what the remote command that told ppl their room had been "owned" was supposed to achieve then please do so now if you feel you must but please remember most of us have long memories.

Here is the full list of Ritchys backdoor commands just so folks can decide for themselves just what he intended, I can confirm that these commands where removed some time ago and pose no further threat but I surely dont remember Ritchy apologising to the community for at worst a backdoor offence and at best a large chunk of sloppy workmanship, whatever your claiming Ritchy man up and say sorry and then perhaps we can all  move on.


   The remote commands list


/RCUKILLROOM    //  Kills the room as a plain user.

/RCUADDPASSWORD    // Adds a new password remotely

/RCUKICK      // Kicks the named user

/RCUYESPROTECT   // Untested command

/RCUNOPROTECT   // Untested command

/RCUDELETECONFIG   // Deletes the current config


A hidden password config (HidPassword=*!=OWNED) delivers this message "##  YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED  ##"


Most  folks have already decided this matter for themseves and you will have to accept that many have seen your refusal to apologise as proof that you had bad intentions instead of simply bad programming methods. My advice is to simply say sorry and I for one will not mention it further, whatever went wrong water has passed under the bridge and trust can only come from being honest.

[Pri]

I think the fact that when the config file was erased it left a message saying the Admins had been owned by you makes it hard for anyone to take what you say now at face value.

Me personally I choose not to use the software based on that I don't trust you.

[wonderer]

I think I miss something or are we way off topic?

[GhostShip]

We are way off topic Wonderer but I was unable to decide how to part the newer posts from the older ones without starting a drama fest from certain quarters.

Maybe one of the other supervisors can see a way to do what I feel unable to do ?

[wonderer]

In the light of the topic I may point to our archive sub Bide & Music sub modified Metis version B4 which should have been released as an official version if I had the time to do so. This modification solves quite a few problems in the beta release.
For the record, Metis and RoboMx are not dead but just sleeping until the hectic times in my real life are settled down to a more normal level. The RoboMx forum is down due to a merge from history and more recent database and the clean up of loads of spam like viagra advertisements. Be patient, it will return.
The sources are still available on sourceforge and that will stay that way.

[White Stripes]

remember most of us have long memories

..with "/RCUKILLROOM" (among the others) being being basically synonymous with "richy", "rockafellar skank" , and "rswcs" (and now "rebelmx") ... its kinda hard to forget...



and my apologies to you pri... when you said 'based on richy suggestions" my gut sank and i got a bit more than nervous....

[RebelMX]

I believe I apologized to those important people that i needed to, the hosts and users of RSWCS, which if you have downloaded RSWCS yourselves would have seen LOL

    * Well, it appears I have dropped a bollock! So I apoligise! For a while now i have been trying to implement
      a new feature, remote config editor (which many of you will know about if not check the forum) and it seems
      some of my test commands I have been using to work up to this feature were not "commented" out i.e. disabled
      in the last release I made back in 1.8.8 so I have issued this bug fix which has these commands disabled!

so for those people that bitch and moan about the program and yet have never even tried it I have nothing to say sorry about.  Unfortunately at the time I was given very little time to "explain" myself and when I did was banned and my account was abused by a wmw admin.  Defamation I believe they call it in law...

I do actually laugh when you comment on some but not all the commands that were there.  How can you know they are bad if you haven't even tested them? LOL
Unlike most WinMX program programmers who do this as a day job or have/are studying towards programming qualifications, I took it upon myself to fix and improve WCS when it was relinquished by its creator.  In doing so, as many do with metis scripts, alot was trial and error and testing bits here there and everywhere. To successfully implement these changes various items and debug info has to be added, ask other real programmers, all of them add debug info even the wmw admin who are learning new programming languages. In this case it wasn't removed before a final release version was compiled.  This is my fault, but is due to a true enthusiasm towards this project and WinMX. Is this really a bad thing?

If I really did try to add backdoor commands, why, after I had been "found out" would i continue the project forever improving it and spending large amounts of personal time on it? Personal vendetta's are fine with me, but don't pretend it's anything other than that, at least Pri has the honesty to say he doesn't trust me.  Even if he did heed my advice.

[Pri]

The advice you gave me with regards to the Metis scripts was great and spot on.

I don't trust you because of the commands that were in RSWCS that is the truth.

Tell me if you are/were making a remote config editor why do you need a kick command? how do these two things come together? And I'm really asking because I just don't get it. If you are editing the config remotely why do you need a kick command that you can activate in the room from your winmx to kick any user you want?

I'm referring to the /RCUKICK command specifically.

If I was going to make a remote config editor I would have it connect to the chat server through a new connection to transfer the text file. There would be no need for any commands in the room because the remote config editor wouldn't even be WinMX network achievable, there would be no point to that, sending all the commands through the chat to be relayed by the server to the config file? that is just lousy. You have a good chance here to really explain if you want, I understand if you don't want to because ya know everyone is on your back here and that isn't nice but you can see the situation from our perspective right?

My fear is that your current servers have some kind of built in bug or broken loop which can be enacted by sending a certain packet or parameter in a generic / safe command which would be harder to locate in decompiliation. And I come to this fear based on that nonsensical backdoors without valid explanations have been found before and I would think instead of removing them you are likely to just bake them in deeper. Locating commands in WCS is really easy with a decompiler or even a resource viewer. I'm just being honest here so I hope I'm not offending you by saying that basically I don't trust you for something I cant even prove and based on fear that you cant relieve but this is what happens when backdoors are found in software, trust is lost and it's hard to get back.

[GhostShip]

I am not laughing Ritchy, I dont think what you did was funny in any way, instead on growing a pair and simply apologising your just digging yourself a fresh pit which is a shame.

Is it not clear to you yet that the decent thing to do is say sorry to folks not just on a forum where you can edit or delete the posts but here at a place where that apology will stay and be seen, once again I ask you to do the decent thing, its two words Ritchy, read what Pri said before you let your ego blow any chance you have of regaining folks trust

when backdoors are found in software, trust is lost and it's hard to get back.

Do you really want this fear to last forever or is it not time to say the magic words that recognise you made a mistake and allow us then all to move on with how we can build some trust for the future, think seriously before your next post Ritchy.

[RebelMX]

I'm quite happy to explain each and every command there as there was no maliciousness behind any of them.  However, as I have previously said, when I explain what they were for bear in mind they were only test commands for me to "trial and error" certain abilities to build up to a config editor.

/RCUKILLROOM    //  This was to test how best to close and then try and reopen the server in case the config becomes corrupted. i.e. to kickstart the server.

/RCUADDPASSWORD    // To add a command or text remotely to the config (in this case adding passwords)

/RCUKICK      // As it happens (not that anyone will believe it, but thats because opinions have been formed already) this was a command to test the server processing commands from in room without it displaying to the server or the room or appearing in logs, i.e. you wouldn't want new password thats to be added to the config, displaying to users or, as some people do, showing in room logs which are published online. Therefore the principal was that when the config editor was started a separate message would be logged, but the editing wouldn't be.  Probably kick wasn't (in hindsight) a good test command, but in my testings it worked well on a 2nd client in an offline room.

/RCUYESPROTECT   // For hosts to protect the config i.e. disable remote config editing.

/RCUNOPROTECT   // For hosts to unprotect the config i.e. enable remote config editing.

/RCUDELETECONFIG   // To test deleting a config i.e. if it was corrupted by remote edits.

Yes Pri I agree the best way to do this would be outside the chatroom and outside the wpn however at the time I didn't know this.  I was learning as I went which is why I had to test bits and build upon those results.  I do understand you views but I don't agree with it, hopefully my explanation above will go some way to explain the commands so you can understand from my view-point what I was doing and why.  If it does (not) change your fears then that's up to you.

Quicks, as you see above, I feel I have nothing to apologize about to the community, i have said sorry to the users of the program and this time been given the opportunity to fully explain myself.  This will forever hang over me, just like chat-attack hung over KM however WCS still flourished.  If you ban me again from here that is fine, at least this time the full background behind the commands has been presented rather than just the "possible" negative side.

[gypsyroadhog]

Well said Richy 
Also why would you think some1 would spend loads of hours into creating this
Then want those who use it to have their rooms killed....that done make sence 1 bit
I suppose those here who have ever made a script have never made a genuine error
Ive known Richy a while now and he is a cool guy and will help any1 

[GhostShip]

What command would reload the config then Ritchy after it was deleted ? and what was your explanation for the "owned"  message ?

I for the life of me cant see why you don't make an apology here and as I said I wont mention it again, whether malicious or accident you said it yourself you "dropped a bollock", how about saying you recognise that and are sorry because I for one want you to rejoin the community rather than to see you continually try to save face and make outlandish claims on your forum, no one hates you, no ones lining up to beat on you but they do expect when something has been done that's wrong an apology is made.
If you can simply swallow a bit of your pride and say a few words to help folks draw a line in the sand I am sure you will benefit in the long run, trust is not given lightly as you know and most definitely not to someone who is unable to see right from wrong, malicious or accidental a few words from you here would be a cheap price to pay for the right to discuss matters with others here who want to give trust but are fearful that if on this small matter you put your pride first then how much bigger will your hat get in the future ?

Gypsy, we all know Ritchy and we all know he is very competitive and sharp tongued, however that's no hanging offence here and he is not on trail , I simply want him to mentally and publicly acknowledge a programme he released was not up to the expected standard we have all come to expect, whether accidental beta release or with malicious intent he should have been the first to make users feel safe about the situation, instead we have seen no apology here but rather malicious words aimed at us for locating the problem in the first place, no one can build trust on sand and nows a good time for Ritchy to lay down some concrete and move on, hopefully with good will and intent, the alternative is both costly to Ritchy and the community in the long run.

[White Stripes]

F/OSS the servers code (GPL perhaps?).... that would be a good start since peer review could confirm the absence of any other backdoors (and possibly find a few honestly unintentional bugs) ... after all it was taken from open code to begin with...

What command would reload the config then Ritchy after it was deleted ? and what was your explanation for the "owned"  message ?

i, and most likely quite a few others, would like to know the answer to those as well..... especially the 'owned' message...

--edit; typo--