Good for you. Me myself, I won't put that much more trust into the ability of looking at a source that's many thousands pages long and so utterly complicated it would take a team of experts to fully audit; also one that may or may not be the same software I wound up with. Theoretical possbilities I have no real means to use are that: theoretical possibilities.

If you are that paranoid, do what I do. Install a network filter at your endpoint and analyze your own traffic. That's the only way to be sure, unless the network filter/analyzer themselves are bugged. But that's a risk I'll live with.

(Now, I also value open source for some of its merits - long-term maintainabilitiy, the biggest among them. But that doesn't mean blind and exclusive faith, imho.)

You say let the user decide... but that's a ridicolously bankrupt concept. If some of the users weren't wanting to cheat, we wouldn't need VAC in the first place. By allowing the user to do the same poisonous behaviour they do today, you simply didn't change anything! Legit players will still need VAC, and VAC will still need underhanded methods to catch software that also operate unethically.

I agree on the OS part anyway; the OSes that are popular today were designed very, very long ago. But, that's something we'll have to live with for a good while. Designing an OS that would prohibit "super access" for any app by design... while nice in theory, would also require putting together completely new ones. And that's a lot of effort... so I guess we won't really get to see them for a while. Not to mention the inertia that - similarly to any other industry - is present in IT.

Anyway, permissions. You say you give those things permission. Fine. Permission for what? Scan you RAM? Your full HD? Basic requirements as far as antivirus softwares go... but that's way worse than browsing your DNS entries, right there! And some of those scan results will wind up in some global database, or else new virus definitions couldn't be made. So, how do you know what gets reported and how? Will you keep checking the source for all your antivirus apps? Every patch, every commit?

Ah, I think you misunderstood me; I was approaching from the other angle. My point was: since all desktop OSes today give apps free reign - stuff like VAC is neccesary. Just like anti-malware, anti-rootkit, etc softwares - all of them neccesary in the given environment, even if it'd nice not having them running in the background 24/7.

Even Android - a relatively secure linux with some seperation between processes - will gladly allow you to mess around with any process, once you are root. So if you want to alter a process (inject cheat into a game, say)... then it won't stop you.

I understand the theory of having a properly compartmentalized OS (hypervisor running only completely sandboxed apps, etc), and I wouldn't mind having one. But, the thing is: we don't. Not in a state where they could run the majority of the apps we need an OS for today, anyway. Even so, we still want to play games. And without cheaters ruining it for all us, if possible.

Interesting. So, out of curiosity... what do you use to keep your *nix box safe? Tripwire?

You could subtitue 98% of Linux and 100% of Windows systems and say the same. You say source - but we both know that if we're paranoid, just looking at the supposed does little good. Any binary you download could have been made from an altered source. So, how many OSes did you compile yourself? Which binary do you trust, and why?

Whether you use those things or not makes little difference as long as the underlying OS allows such things to happen. If people stayed away from VAC in protest, they would only give an absolutely free reign to cheaters who don't give a hoot about such ethical concerns.

This is a technical answer to a technical problem. Or do you have a better solution, short of no-one playing multiplayer on servers they don't host themselves?

I hope you don't run any anti-virus/malware software either, then. Because, you know, they use almost exactly the same methods (RAM, registry, full HDD scan and reporting home) for exactly the same ends - that is, preventing software they deem harmful from running.

If you hate software poking around your RAM, running processes etc, then you can already wave goodbye to multiplayer - almost every anti-cheat service is doing those now (and need to, given the arms race between cheat software and cheat detection).

Unless you don't mind rampant cheating, that is. But if that's indeed no biggie, then I wish you an enjoyable stay in wallhack-land.

Barring a ridicolous lack of common sense, just why would you start your own VAC secure server if you intend to cheat anyway?

If something on your PC is calling home to some cheat-DRM address (not forum, not discussion board, not even a frikken' download site)... then you are probably not a false positive, though.

Sure you can. Just don't connect to VAC secured servers.

I get what you mean. Reading this topic makes me seriously wonder just how much sarcasm/irony is flying over my head, or if people are really that bad in general. That being said, I usually don't read too much into it; the internet in general is a very poor indicator of human behavior. I'm sure you are also familiar with Penny Arcade's GIFT - sure, there are some really hair-rising things sometimes... but I'm not all that sure if those folks act the same way IRL.

Re: really bad jokes: certainly a good point there... but the thing is - in my experience! - folks in IT tend to be cynical/snarky in general. I guess it's related to the fact we tend to be more technical-minded than the average (for the better and worse). Sure, this means minorities get a load of passive/aggressive jokes thrown at them... but so does everyone and everything else just as well. I mean, have you ever been to a place where IT managed to be consistently positive about something and not just complain all day long about whoever/whatever they have to work with? 'cause I sure haven't... most jobs in IT need a thick skin. But beyond that, I hardly saw "special" treatment for women or foreigners. If anything, being too easily offended is something that can make you stand out from a team, which tends to not end well.

Maybe it's because I'm working in the EU; here, the economical crisis never ended (officially anyway), and with the continuous headcount restrictions and wage-freeze... we're not really picky, really. Just don't be more of a liability than an asset, and we're really happy that we're being worked less to death.

While parts of society tend to pick up changes slower than the law (which, ideally, reflects the majority's view on topics), they eventually have to. That's how countries work; the majority will force the popular behaviors onto the minority. Nowadays, for example, it's fairly straightforward to record evidence of discrimination and then turn to a lawyer.

Yes, I can understand how pointing out the flaws in your argument makes me a horrible, horrible person... instead of your argument being, well, over-dramatized to the point of losing any shred of credibility. You don't argue with the rule of bigger numbers, like drawing from a larger pool offering better chances at getting a workers with better abilities (which is the real deal instead of suddenly geniuses popping up). All you did was a cheap appeal at emotions... because making a rational argument would've taken effort, I guess.

Coming with the ridiculous blanket statements again. Not that we shouldn't try, but noone will be ever truly equal. The poor schmuck in the middle of nowhere may have aspirations but will have no money for getting any education that gets him into any fancy campus - compare that to the better-than-average citizen who has access to private tutors and the like. Or are these flaws of the system okay by you, just because you aren't affected?

Care to spell out the laws that prohibit them from entering the field?

And your hypothetical example of "OMG A PERSON IN THE RIGHT POSITION COULD BE DOING SOMETHING" is flat-out horrible. For one, if the girl with the most radical CPU idea went to nursing.... how do you even know she'd have come up with the idea in the first place? You make it sound like she invented it but was turned down - when in reality, the most qualified person could well be filling the role; because, well, she's a nurse and actually has no idea about CPUs.

Seriously, where does that point of yours even go? Have everyone master every single profession, just so we can be sure we're not missing on any talent?

I didn't say anything like that. That post wasn't made by me... I was merely correcting you. :p

Anyhow, that's a pretty odd defence. All stealth crafts until the F22 were pretty much bombers. The F-117 in question was strictly a ground attack aircraft as well; I don't think it was ever officially called a fighter. It had no radar for example, which would put a rather serious curb in any real fighter role.

As for lucky shots; most wars the US fought in recent history were hilariously one-sided, and no other country fielded stealth aircraft so far (may be subject to change with PAK-FA, though that's more stealthy than stealth still). What, did you expect a mangled Serb army to put up a serious fight against the US? I think we'd have seen more stealth plane losses if there was a real Vietnam/Korea style, "US vs USSR" shoot-out.