about cdm...

Can someone explain to me how this CDM works? ( or maybe how testSUR works).
Im not too familiar with this commands… yeah i know.
What should client do with this xml ?
How this testing actually works ?

i think this is question for crise or adrian

op: request file that do not exist (ie in strong TestSUR[username].[cid], under mine [rand_str][username].[cid])
user: reply that file not av.
client checked.

about that i was thinking about some improvements…

Hmm ok, so whats the purpose of this testing? Whats the benefit of sending this message and getting a reply ?

the point is to detect slotlockers and some misses in protocol (supports, pk, lock, response for certain actions and so on)
but it’s easy to prevent from stealth client side… but i’ve got some ideas to extend it like i said but i need a time for researches… but rather i’d like to release next rsx++ :slight_smile:

How dispatch a slotlocker from a simple client who has no slots ?
And if there are some misses in the protocol what?
A stealth client can fake all this with no problem so i really dont see the point

normal client will respond that file is no av.
faker for ex. respond no slots av.

and yes smart coder can pass it easily i know. that’s why we need new methods.

what if the “normal” client really has no slots what then ?
it will say no slots probably right ?
I dont think there could be a detection method. Everything can be faked.

i don’t think any user would have file with this kind of name (TestSURPietry.SOMECIDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) so there is no way to get no slot respond.

hmm so “no file” has higher priority then " no slots" . a stealth client can easily fake it.

i don’t know if you get the point. i said smart coder can pass it easily - it’s not a problem.
also, we get to know if user have wrong connection settings (timeout on testsur).

nobody says it’s 100% working detection. it can only give you a clue if user is clean or not.

and to get all info (lock, pk, supports) you don’t need to download filelists (testsur have 0B size).

indeed this could be useful for helping users… but still wont detect bad client and i still dont see a good reason to discriminate clients based on this test.
i think there should be better proof for faking then this one so that action is justified.

honestly, if someone want to be a faker, he will no matter what we will use to test it. it’s a leak of dc protocol (nmdc and adc). clients are open source, there is no authorization for clients so anybody can fake for ex. dc++ without problem.

btw get any client with TestSUR check and open one of client profiles, you’ll see what info is checked by this test.

There is another ways of detections

Like Alums client and Xaydies Clients

not to go on standard testsurs to send some random commands and see how the client responds most faker clients are greedy and respond after that structure…

this client testing i think it should go for helping people rather than a way of determining which client is a “hacked” one. since everything is open src indeed there is no auth way, so maybe this “detection” should be called “identifying” what clients have and do not have. in ADC this isnt so useful since the INF already has a SU where clients can advertise what they can or cant do

Yes, but old stealth clients didn’t. They have improved slightly over the years. Was effective back in the 0.301 - 0.4034 days. the 0.674 generation of stealth clients didn’t fail this check.

oh, and about cdm’s. . . . apparently they cause cancer. LoL :wink: