HLGuard v1.60 Beta Released

[CSN NewsBot]

A new version of HLGuard has been released. This version contains a very nice feature entitled "UnitedAdmins BlackList". With this feature turned on, if HLGuard detects a cheat, it will ban that person plus add it to the UnitedAdmins Blacklist meaning that this person will be banned from every server that has UnitedAdmins BlackList feature turned on. Many other additions/changes have also been added. View these below.



Tired of those nasty little hackers? Download HLGuard now![break="changelog"]» [NEW] Implemented blacklist system (HLGuard mode 6).

» [NEW] Loads of new alias detections.

» [NEW] Added server command hlg_listexec to show which files HLGuard has executed.

» [NEW] Added hlg_mode CVAR for remote filtering out servers with unwanted HLGuard mode (internet/lan/league).

» [NEW] Added more features to hlg_menu including "Restore Default Configuration".

» [NEW] Added Alias Detection Lists for Counter-Strike: Condition Zero.

» [CHANGED] Redone the configs entirely for easier configuration.

» [CHANGED] Changed "authentication messages" feature to be either repeated or one-time only.

» [CHANGED] Alias Detections now log/displays a code instead of the alias name.

» [CHANGED] Namebaning now logs to a seperate file.

» [CHANGED] Renamed all hlguard_* cvars to hlg_*

» [FIXED] Fixed agreement disabling alias scanning.

» [FIXED] Fixed bad data in status part of hlg_menu.

» [FIXED] Fixed a bug with namebaning not kicking.

» [FIXED] Fixed filelist and files being loaded if "Filecheck" is off.

[Spedmaster]

UnitedAdmins Blacklist?



Oogly, I think I just spooged me pants. Brb.

[Dis Guy Here]

very to similar to how vac bans all vac-enabled servers.

[SolidSnake75]

hahaha blacklist... I might never have to play with stupid hackers again...

[SteelV]

blacklist is actually a very very bad idea.



Think about it this way:



how long until someone figures out how to "spoof" the packets and get someone banned who doesn't hack.



Have you ever pissed off an admin? I know I have, I killed an admin one too many times before and he messed up my binds.



Next time, he'll get you banned from every single hlguard server. Brilliant idea... wow.

[Evil Timmy]

I'd agree with the concerns posted above. What happens if there's a false detection, or someone starts spoofing packets from you? There should be a cvar along the lines of hlg_blacklist_minimum that defaults to, say, three. This means that a minimum of three different servers have to have detected a cheater for the universal HLG ban to take effect. The cheater would still be banned from the servers that have specifically banned them, but in the case of a false positive, malicious admin, or whatever, they'd have a bit of a margin for error.

[N*-DAnk]

go over to UA and post that there ^^ good idea tho

[Loomis]

SteelV wrote..

blacklist is actually a very very bad idea.



Think about it this way:



how long until someone figures out how to "spoof" the packets and get someone banned who doesn't hack.



Have you ever pissed off an admin? I know I have, I killed an admin one too many times before and he messed up my binds.



Next time, he'll get you banned from every single hlguard server. Brilliant idea... wow.

Blargh, the blacklist can only be made by HLGuard itself, not an admin. No damn hatesprees.



I hate abusing admins too, and I doubt that they'd overlook the possibility that there would be a 11-year old admin on every other server. :)

[Nathan D.]

I'm 99% sure that you won't have the ability to ban someone and add them to the blacklist manually. HLGuard will do this on it's own if it detects a cheat meaning if you make an admin mad, he can't punish you globally.

[esky]

So how does this work when some servers disable certain HLGuard checks?



HLGuard has some anti-script features, so if one server enables that option with blacklist, and another disables the script checking but enables blacklist... a person gets banned from both servers anyway...?



I'm not sure how many other issues are similar, maybe with checking your cvar values like 'brightness' or somdething...

[Deletable_Man]

ooh stepped in just in time to see some fucktard jump to conclusions about pissing off admins. :)



(good work UA!)

[Tuxedo_Penguin]

Nathan D. wrote..

I'm 99% sure that you won't have the ability to ban someone and add them to the blacklist manually. HLGuard will do this on it's own if it detects a cheat meaning if you make an admin mad, he can't punish you globally.

And if that isn't how it works, it should be. I really hope we don't start seeing Admins go on power trips any worse than the ones they go on now.

[SteelV]

Loomis wrote..

Blargh, the blacklist can only be made by HLGuard itself, not an admin. No damn hatesprees.



I hate abusing admins too, and I doubt that they'd overlook the possibility that there would be a 11-year old admin on every other server. :)

Nathan D. wrote..

I'm 99% sure that you won't have the ability to ban someone and add them to the blacklist manually. HLGuard will do this on it's own if it detects a cheat meaning if you make an admin mad, he can't punish you globally.

Deletable_Man wrote..

ooh stepped in just in time to see some fucktard jump to conclusions about pissing off admins. :)



(good work UA!)

None of those who commented above understand the technology I was discussing in my first post.



Let me try to explain again.



The way that the individual servers let HLGuard know that someone should be blacklisted is by sending a "packet" of data, which probably includes the players steamID and what they did to get banned (what they were detected with).



This "packet" is sent by the server and thus can be spoofed, or faked, by a server operator.



I just hope that some of you who posted above end up getting banned by some 12 year old admin after supporting this foolish idea by HLGuard.

[Deletable_Man]

SteelV wrote..

None of those who commented above understand the technology I was discussing in my first post.



Let me try to explain again.



The way that the individual servers let HLGuard know that someone should be blacklisted is by sending a "packet" of data, which probably includes the players steamID and what they did to get banned (what they were detected with).



This "packet" is sent by the server and thus can be spoofed, or faked, by a server operator.



I just hope that some of you who posted above end up getting banned by some 12 year old admin after supporting this foolish idea by HLGuard.

So why not just do the same with VAC?

[CheesyPeteza]

SteelV wrote..

The way that the individual servers let HLGuard know that someone should be blacklisted is by sending a "packet" of data, which probably includes the players steamID and what they did to get banned (what they were detected with).



This "packet" is sent by the server and thus can be spoofed, or faked, by a server operator.



I just hope that some of you who posted above end up getting banned by some 12 year old admin after supporting this foolish idea by HLGuard.

EDIT: Arghh beat me to it deletable_man



Thats exactly the way VAC does it. Why don't server admins spoof packets for VAC to get people banned?



The answer is, programmers generally aren't stupid. They add authentication checks and encryption.



What worries me more is someone doing an exec client on a player like: alias +aimbot blah



Which would then give them a dodgy alias that'd get them banned.