[DarkDeviL]

Originally Posted by Ejziponken I know some might remove it, but i still think it would stop lots of servers using it since they would have to spread the removed version to all the server owners.

As easy as it is to spread those plugins, as well as the possible "suggestion" for changing core.cfg, as easy it would be to distribute a secondary MM:S/SM set capable of doing the stuff.

Originally Posted by Ejziponken Also it requires them to remove it for each update, and maybe they could implement it in a way that would require some effort to remove it and have it working. Maybe they could put it in Metamod or the binfiles.

A random SourceMod Pull Request #767, and a random MetaMod Source Pull Request #35.

If you look at these "files changed" sections linked, you're gonna see it will be very easy to take the green lines (added now), and replace them with the red lines (removed now) instead, which would be the task needed to simply revert the change and still allow the plugins to run.

With the open source MM:S and SM, I'm afraid AlliedModders won't be able to provide you with a foolproof solution to the issue.

With your suggestions, about the SM team should do something, we're ending up in the classic "security by obscurity" like way, where you are not actually fixing the problem, but simply camouflaging the problem.

Camouflaging the problem alone won't lead anyone anywhere, except leading the people doing it through a lot of wasted time for nothing.

[fragnichtnach]

What is the worst case that could happen to server owners using those plugins?

a) used tokens including the relying account gets blocked
b) Valve comes up with a fix and reimplement ip-bans
c) lawer of Valve came up with a compensation claim
d) ...

What do you think?

[DarkDeviL]

Originally Posted by fragnichtnach What is the worst case that could happen to server owners using those plugins?

Worst?

Originally Posted by fragnichtnach b) Valve comes up with a fix and reimplement ip-bans

This one cannot be considered "worst" in any way at all:

IPv4 addresses (123.123.123.123 format) are very limited, and from server providers, they are always "static", so banning based on IPv4 addresses would be a great way. You might be able to fool some providers to give you a new address, but far from always.

It will cause problems for Game Server Providers (GSP) and/or communities running with multiple servers one single IPv4 address, TRUE.

But it will also help forcing the GSP's to take actions against their customers, who violate the EULA/TOS/[...] of the service that they are earning money for providing them.

If they want to earn money on services they provide, they should also care that their services aren't being abused.

If I had a client that caused maybe 10 servers to be blacklisted, because he/she added things violating the EULA/TOS/[...], of the products being used to provide that service, I should simply terminate that client for the abuse.

The same goes for e.g. email spamming, if I use my servers at $RANDOM_PROVIDER to send out spam, that is a violation of the terms with 99% of all provider's, my services should also be terminated for that, WITHOUT any refund.

Can the situation, and solution be more simple?