Megor writes "Well it was bound to happen, people are cheating on Seti@home to inflate their work unit statistics, and the people who administer Seti are ignoring the complaints. ZDNET has an article explaining how they are cheating."
Wasn't cheating to be "impossible" ?
by
holle2
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I thought the move to close the source of SETI@home back in the old days was meant to stop the cheating ? Could it be that the protocol should be redesigned to contain, say digital signaures embedded into the binary (well not really a save place for that anyway..)
Re:Wasn't cheating to be "impossible" ?
by
anshil
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Closing the source does not help a bit. After all you give a binary to your "foe", thats enough. Look in example to Ultima Online, they encrypt the stream already in 10 layers or so, with constant changing keys, algorithmns and so on. But it is still beeing hacked, simple as that, you've a binary of the client, you can view the algorithmn on assembler basis, thats enough "source" code to hack anything assuming enough motivation and time.
Look at all the companies trying to hinder people copying with copy protection CD's, tongels and all that. Does it help? No it's all just a new challange for the hacker folk.
--
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Our experiences from running the rc5-56 challenge
by
jukal
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
run at cyberian.org some 4 years ago was that people will do anything to get their team/name listed in the first page of the statistics. Some of the people were even arrested by police for hacking into machines to make them crunch rc5 for their name. And it seems this trend is only getting worse. This is kind of sad, because it is not very good for the reputation of such efforts.
Re:SETI Checking?
by
Coplan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Simple solution...
Seti should track what it hands out (and I'm sure it probably does). In fact, it should probably track to who it sends it (again, it probably does).
If Seti sends out 30 WUs (abroad), it should know that if it gets 200 back, a flag should be sent up. If seti sends a WU to Bob, but not to Gregg, and Gregg sends THAT WU back, the one returned from Gregg should be voided.
This is not about preventing competition. Screw that...Seti shouldn't be concerned about this issue relative to that. Seti's concern should be plain and simple -- it should be protecting the integrity of the data.
'Nuff Said.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the move to close the source of SETI@home back in the old days was meant to stop the cheating ? ..)
Could it be that the protocol should be redesigned to contain, say digital signaures embedded into the binary (well not really a save place for that anyway
run at cyberian.org some 4 years ago was that people will do anything to get their team/name listed in the first page of the statistics. Some of the people were even arrested by police for hacking into machines to make them crunch rc5 for their name. And it seems this trend is only getting worse. This is kind of sad, because it is not very good for the reputation of such efforts.
Seti should track what it hands out (and I'm sure it probably does). In fact, it should probably track to who it sends it (again, it probably does).
If Seti sends out 30 WUs (abroad), it should know that if it gets 200 back, a flag should be sent up. If seti sends a WU to Bob, but not to Gregg, and Gregg sends THAT WU back, the one returned from Gregg should be voided.
This is not about preventing competition. Screw that...Seti shouldn't be concerned about this issue relative to that. Seti's concern should be plain and simple -- it should be protecting the integrity of the data. 'Nuff Said.