Be watching for an Update on Starforce from Toms Hardware!!!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

What I find really amazing in all of this is that the 'disclaimer/warning' is tantamount to saying:

"We're sorry, but we've included software in this product which might screw your drive. We'd tell you more but (a) we can't really be sure just which drives it effects, and how badly, and (b) we deny anything any time a customer encounters a problem and contacts us, so we can hardly admit to these problems in a warning or our position of denial would appear even more ridiculous than it already does"

I really wonder if any of these people actually contemplate life as a customer. Seems perverse to me to produce a game like SHIII with its dedicated audience (i.e. all of us...) not likely to be into piracy etc. It's rather like saying "let's protect our product so thoroughly that we can't sell it because our method of said protection is so punitive to our customers".

Despite being a dedicated wargamer for over 25 years, I have not purchased SHIII - even though I know it is by far the best sim for WWII subs ever released (and I've played pretty much every other one, as have many here).

Dan and others: I'm totally in agreement with your efforts to make it clear to publishers that while responsible gamers want to support future game releases through purchasing games to allow reasonable profits etc, they WON'T compromise their systems or be treated like fools whenever they try to resolve an issue apparently caused by some 'protection' measure.

Cheers

I agree. I'd love to play SH3 again, but refuse to put this protection back on my system. My offer to sell my copy of SH3 still stands too. Make me a reasonable offer, and its yours!

-S

[Soulcommander]

Originally Posted by Brentano

Cool. I'm graduating from law school this May. This whole starforce thing is very interesting from a legal standpoint. It almost has the scent of a class-action.

It's especially interesting if the developer and publisher, Ubisoft, knew about the problem before they released the game. They did include a lame "disclaimer" on the box and in the manual.

Funny you mentioned class action we have one Attorney that was involved in the Starforce Investigation (actually it was his wife) who also wanted to start a class action. I advised them to please hold off on that untill more knowledge came forth or companies had a chance to look at what was happening.

You have to understand that Ubisoft, although many of you hate them, has no understanding of Starforce. Yes they should be held accountable in some regards for messing with our machines. But truthfully they have been in the dark as much as all of us.

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by ThirteenthHouR

In this way it is clear concise and we do not have ridiculous legal threats being made against bloggers who may have used one or two words out of place.

Ok, so you´ve made up that definition to avoid possible legal threats. Fine. But I don´t see how your definition could help anybody. Can you give me an practical example? In which way could a blogger or website use your definition to inform people who know nothing or not very much about SF in a way so that the blogger or website don´t get into trouble?

[GT182]

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms. Whether they make them up or not, is NOT important. It's the term they use, pure and simple.

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by GT182

Soulcommander is not making up definitions! They are coming from someone else that is using the terms, whether they make them up or not. It's NOT important.

Let me get this right, the 1-6 list and the idea to call it "the definition of a Trojankit" didn´t come from ThirteenthHouR or SC?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Let me get this right, the 1-6 list and the idea to call it "the definition of a Trojankit" didn´t come from ThirteenthHouR or SC?

Nope

[Gizzmoe]

Whose (stupid) idea was it then?

[Soulcommander]

Originally Posted by ThirteenthHouR

Thats good news, at least the IT press are starting to take a responsible attitude.

Speaking of Press!!

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Toms Hardware article will be released Saturday February 11th!

Thats tomorrow guys.

[GT182]

It seems "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder only.

[Gizzmoe]

Right. So whose idea was it? Just curious.

[GT182]

More than likely... it's none of you business. Leave it at that.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Right. So whose idea was it? Just curious.

Well, it follows the basic outline of a rootkit since it replaces drivers or changes the way your system interoprates with a said component, and attempts to hide itself in the process, so it is definitely a rootkit. The extra definitions just add up to more evidence is all.

The first people to call it a rootkit on this site were the game developers guys that are also boycotting them (And who give an excellent description of the problems of SF) - you can find that on this forum somewhere. It was about a few weeks back where they give a clear definition on the subject. NG? Forget. Do a search - if I find it again, I'll post it.

Sony recently got in trouble for using a rootkit in a similar manner.

Official description:

Functions of a rootkit
A rootkit typically hides logins, processes, files, and logs and may include software to intercept data from terminals, network connections, and the keyboard. In many instances, rootkits are counted as trojan horses.


Uses of rootkits
A rootkit is often used to hide utilities used to abuse a compromised system. These often include so-called "backdoors" to help the attacker subsequently access the system more easily. For example, the rootkit may hide an application that spawns a shell when the attacker connects to a particular network port on the system. Kernel rootkits may include similar functionality. A backdoor may also allow processes started by a non-privileged user to execute functions normally reserved for the superuser. All sorts of other tools useful for abuse can be hidden using rootkits. This includes tools for further attacks against computer systems the compromised system communicates with such as sniffers and keyloggers. A common abuse is to use a compromised computer as a staging ground for further abuse. This is often done to make the abuse appear to originate from the compromised system or network instead of the attacker. Tools for this can include denial-of-service attack tools, tools to relay chat sessions, and e-mail spam attacks.

A recent example where a rootkit was used on commercial CDs for digital rights management purposes is the 2005 Sony CD copy protection controversy.


Types of rootkits

Basic types
Rootkits come in two different flavours, kernel and application level kits. Kernel level rootkits add additional code and/or replace a portion of kernel code with modified code to help hide a backdoor on a computer system. This is often accomplished by adding new code to the kernel via a device driver or loadable module, such as Loadable Kernel Modules in Linux or device drivers in Microsoft Windows. Kernel rootkits commonly patch, hook, or replace system calls with versions that hide information about the attacker. Application level rootkits may replace regular application binaries with trojanized fakes, or they may modify the behavior of existing applications using hooks, patches, injected code, or other means. Kernel rootkits can be especially dangerous because they can be difficult to detect without appropriate software.


Examples
Rootkit.com hosts examples of rootkits too many to list individually here.
Ambient's Rootkit (ARK) for Linux
Hacker Defender
Sony BMG's use of First 4 Internet XCP (Extended Copy Protection) DRM [1]

[Brentano]

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.

[Soulcommander]

Originally Posted by Brentano

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.

Sir Do as your heart leads you. Do a search here on my name, or Starforce. Then go to Ubisofts forums as well and do the same. Then do a google on Starforce and Soulcommander if you like.

Get all the posts others have said and make your choice.

Personally????? If your asking me... I say Never again on my computer! NEVER! I have seen Starforce act unprofessional and insulting towards the gaming community. I have seen it all.

Even if every game that comes out in the future is laced with Starforce it will never be on my computer ever again unless it gets there by accident!


But you have to make your own choice my friend.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Brentano

So how many of you reading this thread are still playing SHIII? Has everyone given it up to protect their systems?

I'm sitting here with the SHIII box in front of me wondering if I should install it on the new system I just built. My heart says yes, but my stomach says no.

I'm tempted to install just to see what happens.

I am one who also has SH3, yet no desire to install it back on my new reloaded system (Adding more OS's to my boot selection - Gentoo needed 50 GB of the RAID). I really do not want something like that messing up my drives or worse!

-S