Jump to content

Talk:StarForce/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

POV edit warring

Please be careful when considering your edits. I'm doing my best to de-POV this article here, and both sides seem to be pushing their views rather than thinking carefully whether what they're adding is neutral and appropriate. The 'usually' bit of the protection bit seems to correlate with the sources I've been linked to here, and as noted in a revert message of mine, the poll percentage isn't that relevant unless you can prove the poll is a decent representation of gamers/users/whatever, which I doubt (I'm sure any StarForce poll would've been flooded with anti-SF gamers and not a representative sample). --Fuzzie (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. I'm doing my best to de-POV the article without ripping the majority of the content out - the 'Problems' section could really be condensed down to a couple of sentences, the criticism section seems overly-large and the rest of the article really needs sourcing before it should be allowed. But I'm not sure how to tackle those right now. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The usually thing is very unaccurate as it is stupidly easy to bypass SF protection, in fact its probably the least problematic protection currently, I've posted many times about how its done and have alot of experiance (I've been moderating the largest and oldest piracy website for 5 years now so I tend to hear almost everything about this). I wont go into details again but suffice to say I've NEVER had a problem while using programs such a daemon tools or other programs I mentioned previously. The poll percentage, well agreed as long as the article shows that the poll was against the usage I think thats probably important. considering it was 80% against though I think even with a large amount of anti SF'ers cheating in it, it would still clearly be against SF so im happy with removing the percentage. as for the criticism section, well I've never known anything to be so publicly and widely criticised so I dont think trimming that is a good idea, as it stands it points out the major problems SF and its users have been through. I disagree with me using a POV though, I've posted almost nothing but neutral information about SF but it seems that when someone says something about it that points out its bad points then they are accused of being either a pirate or someone who is annoyed they cant copy the game, simply untrue as I've backed up MANY SF games with no problem, in fact if there were a copy protection thats easy to beat its SF. Im simply editing this article because there are so many falsehoods about SF and this article seems to attract people who think these false truths are real. If anything needs verifying in this article I will be happy to do so but I do think its going wildly into a pro SF stance with some of the edits and my repeated requests at discussion about these edits have been ignored again and again, so if Einsensteiner/Robust is going to keep just removing info then I really have little choice to replace it given that he wont discuss why. You'll notice I didnt touch this article for a LONG time, reason being as it was kept very neutral. Now however.... well some of the past editors for this page would probably get jobs with SF.Uncle Mart 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • edit* although the removal of the boycott website is just plain biased, if you think its not important then goto google and type in "starforce", do you think they would be there if they had no effect on SF? Uncle Mart 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
That can be accomplished with a simple google bomb. Einsensteiner 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But wasnt. proove it was and where it SHOULD be on the list and we can remove it. Im afraid that the boycott site is mentioned in the article and if a user wants to see it for him/herself theres no link present. Let me know when you come up with a decent argument to remove it, as for now I'd like to request ANOTHER lock on this article for the time while these issues are resolved. Uncle Mart 22:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC) *edit* as a comprise I've edited the list of starforce games so it goes to glop, as the other list was very uncomplete and doesnt seem to be updated, this will give users a chance to see the games AND the boycott site if they wish. can I say ANY fairer than that? Uncle Mart 22:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


You yourself is trying to use wikpedia to google bomb the glop site. The lists on both sites look the same to me. Einsensteiner 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The games lists aren't the same, glop's one is updated by the users on the forum. The similarities's is always some weeks behind and is just a copy of the glop's one. I don't see why you put Glop with a so bad title and as the last one on the list. Check Digg, /., Boinboing, Kotaku, ... and see how many well known sources linked it already. analogue 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Im happy with it being included as "anti starforce" by Rhobite, seems fair as nobody in their right mind would deny it is. however to not included something because its POV is crazy as the official SF site has been proven to print lies about their software many time so is probably FAR more POV orientated that GLOP. the reader of the article should have ALL the facts and links at hand, not just ones which would obviously be pro SF. Uncle Mart 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)*edit* GLOP contains 11 more games in the list. And seriously go read up on how google bombing works before saying im using wikipedia as a google bomb, you dont make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about when you say things so unaccurate. Uncle Mart 22:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to include POV links as long as they're appropriately labeled. Glop.org has a pretty active forum and several articles, it seems like an appropriate link to me. Are there any examples of google bombing or outrageous content on the site? If not, I can't see a reason to remove the link. Rhobite 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is getting quite pathetic now, so let me explain.... To googlebomb GLOP would be this <link rel="starforce" href="http://www.blop.org/starforce" /> In the HTML, google looks for a word wrapped in a link and associates it with the link its wrapped in, so if that link appeared many times on the web, a search for starforce would show blop.org as #1 , also using metawords and so on would have the same effect, however in this case our dear Russian friend has edited the link to say anti star force site from *Boycott Starforce - anti-StarForce site to try to make his OWN google bomb.

Reverting link as I think I proved that there is NO google bomb preset.... Uncle Mart 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)*edit* GAH BEATEN TO IT :P well at least I explained what a googlebomb is so we can clear up that it isnt one :/

There, happy? http://www.glop.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=279 Einsensteiner 00:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
A link entitled "Boycott StarForce" isn't google-bombing the word "StarForce", which is what that forum link is about, and you're obviously biased about it because you're trolling in your replies to the post. I must say I'm unimpressed at the forum topic, though - google bombing like that isn't particularly cool. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So ? This is a thread from some user asking if it could help the boycott to do what is called google bombing. Read the replies and you'll see that nobody's doing it, it's just a user who thought it was cool to bring the idea. Read the entire thread please. analogue 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well as you can see, when that post was made the results were identical to how they are now. I decided NOT to pursue that thread (hence it being three pages back and not being bumped deliberatly) and have asked the webmaster to remove it but he has a strict policy of never deleting posts and as I cant edit nor remove it myself theres not much I can do about it now. the fact still remains though that linking to glop isnt any kind of google bomb. Uncle Mart 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ha ha ha, i wasn't the one trolling in that thread. Don't let your own bias get the better of you, Fuzzie. Einsensteiner 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't even have a Windows machine to install StarForce on, never mind care about copy protection software, and you'll note that I've reverted people on both sides of this issue, and (as I said above) would prefer the criticisms section not babble so much, among other issues. However, User:Sn0rlax is obviously another sockpuppet by the same user as yourself and Robust, and as such, I'm unlikely to believe it wasn't you posting as 'snorlax' on the forum. You still haven't replied to my assertion that it obviously isn't googlebombing 'StarForce', I note.--Fuzzie (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about this a little im 100% certain robust/einsensteiner/snorlax/sage386 are all the same person, I have several reason to think this which are probably unimportant but theres NO way someone would sit there trawlling through three pages of threads, each of which would have taken an age to read purely on the chance there would be something about googlebombing on the site, only someone who had previous knowledge of that thread would have gone through all this, and the only person that could be from GLOP is snorlax, hes had many other names but is mostly known by his real nick which is sage386, I thought he found this article from GLOP but it appears its the other way around. If his posts on GLOP are anything to go by I wouldnt expect him to stop changing the texts until he's banned. Which I would very much like to watch so I'll step back from editing for the time and watch till either that happens or a resoloution is found without my taking part. Uncle Mart 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

GCW discussion.

Just adding this as from the GCW

"It can, however cause Windows to step down to programmed input/output [PIO] mode, which could possibly damage some optical drives if they are run in that mode for an extended period of time."

"Sure enough, an extended test using a 4x Memorex DVD-RW drive and a retail copy of Ubisoft's Splinter Cell Chaos Theory PROVED it, as the drive's burn speed eventually dropped to a paltry 1x - only to return to its original speed once we removed the StarForce program."

Almost ALL optical drives will suffer this damage if left in this mode for long durations, obviously they wont say ALL hardware because it wont affect all hardware, nor can they give a list of exact models as this has never been tested but I think theres MORE than enough proof out there that with these comments (and before anyone brings up the "possibly damage" comment take a moment to think what would happen if they said "will damage"), and the amount of people reporting broken optical drives over the last year it would be foolish to think SF isnt doing this. I placed a link to SF's own forums with some of the article as to keep it unbiased, you'll notice that SF dont deny this anywhere in the thread either. If you think you can come up with some proof that PIO mode doesnt damage drives after prolonged use fire away because im all ears but to say they didnt proove it nor go out to prove it? Thats EXACTLY what the article was about! Uncle Mart 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the GCW article is mentioned twice, one at the top and one at the bottom of the section in question. It'd probably be sensible to merge them, or remove one, or something. :) --Fuzzie (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! hope it looks ok because it was the best I could do without spending much more time re-editing the whole section (time I dont have today unfortunatly :( ) Uncle Mart 13:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Added small write up on RLD's reverse tools designed to reverse engineer SF without problems, the tools are available to anyone and from a simple tests performed appear to work perfectly, I might suggest removing the "SF is hard to reverse engineer" part once some more facts come available. Also if im right about these new tools it will probably mean the end of the discussion of cracks as it should mean any game made by SF is now as easy to reverse or crack as anything else out there.Uncle Mart 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is hard to substainiate the claim that it is hard to crack in the first place. While some things are simple the converse cannot be easily defined. I would say they are more time consuming. kotepho 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Onlinesecurity-on

I removed the paragraph below because it didn't seem to have much bearing on the article -- at the very least, it didn't belong in the top summary section --Mdwyer 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently, StarForce has created a seemingly bogus website, OnlineSecurity-ON that claims no relation to StarForce, but a whois search reveals that the administrative contacts are people with star-force.com email addresses. Additionally, the address listed is the same as that listed for Star-Force.com.

I think it clearly is a StarForce site - they host the StarForce removal product and talk about it as their own product. However, that's original research, so you're quite right in removing the paragraph - it doesn't belong here unless sources can be found. --Fuzzie (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

minor accuracy edit in list of publishers

I have removed egosoft from the list of publishers using starforce, as they aren't publishers ;). They are developers who have different publishers in different areas of the world (Koch / Deep Silver in Europe, Enlight in the US, for example) and while, to the best of my knowledge, their most recent game (X3) was published with starforce protection in all regions, this has not been the case in the past (X2) with different publishers choosing different copy protection schemes. In any case, egosoft do not choose this and release no games at all.

Is it even possible to remain objective at this point?

I've read the discussion and debate up to now, and I think you should all just throw in the towel and nuke this article.

De-POVing this seems impossible, which is a personal projection based on the following:

Everyone who isn't selling StarForce *hates* StarForce. I won't try to qualify the absolute I just used, albeit googling "StarForce" brings up what has to be the electronic equivalent of a lynch mob.

Everyone who is selling StarForce will not post an edit stating an admission of any flaws unless authorized by whoever cuts their checks.

Any specific description of how StarForce works is glossed over in favor of how StarForce works at breaking things. As to why nobody would post specifics, see above.

So in conclusion, I suggest the article be nuked, and replaced with "StarForce is a copy protection scheme. It is highly controversial." And then refer to the google search I previously mentioned, and StarForce's website. Searching for anything better is futile, and probably unimportant anyway, considering the dearth of "information" already available.


I would tend to agree... I've been reading these exchanges somewhat bemused by the hostility. It seems that anytime anyone says anything even remotely non-hateful about Starforce, they are hurled with all sorts of accusations by the lynch mob... seems they can't believe that anyone who doesn't work for Starforce might not necessarily despise it.

Here is one interview I found online that is not biased anti-Starforce, but apparently comes from a source not related to Starforce. Perhaps this link could be included in the article, that is for someone else to decide, but here it is:

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/starforce_interview/default.asp

I must say, I share many sentiments with the interviewer here. I remember many online panics from the '90s, such as the V-chip he mentions, and these panics always fizzled. None of these great horrible intrusions that people feared ever actually came to anything terrible, it's all forgotten now. And I suspect that this is what is going on with Starforce.

One thing I think would be handy; perhaps there should be some kind of fair online poll, to see what percentage of Starforce users do have problems directly attributable to Starforce, so that we can get some real numbers instead of just some anecdotal evidence. I myself have several games installed on my computer with Starforce. My computer doesn't run perfectly, but well enough. Whatever instability it does suffer, there is no evidence linking this instability to Starforce. I have a home-built system, with an overclocked CPU, and TONS of all sorts of hardware and software stacked on, so it is no wonder that my system doesn't run silky smooth! No DVD problems that I can discern.

Before anyone starts accusing me of working for Starforce, I just want to explain why I play devil's advocate when it comes to anti-software-piracy stuff. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was heavily into the Amiga (and if you don't know what that is, you are not geeky enough to participate in this discussion... :) ). It was an awesome computer, way ahead of it's time. Of course I was a completely broke teenager at the time, so I never, ever bought any games, and they were oh-so-easy to pirate, available to download on many BBSes. Well, guess what, most other Amiga owners were equally broke teenagers such as myself, and hardly anyone ever bought those wonderful games that were SOOOO much better than anything else that came out for any other computer at the time... so after a few years of this, what ended up happening? The games ended. The Amiga ended. In 1995, I finally caved in and built a PC. Although there were other reasons the Amiga died, it was quite well known in the Amiga community that the ridiculous amount of piracy played a huge role in doing in the Amiga. Those of us who loved this computer, it was our fault that it died.

And so knowing this, I would hate to see the PC games industry go under because no one buys any games. I don't play console games; I love PC games, and would be very sad to see the industry no longer bother making any. Now that I am older and have money to spend on games, I always buy them, I don't pirate any more. I do understand that kids don't always have money to buy them, since of course I've been there; and I can't blame someone who can't afford a game for pirating it. But there are plenty of people with money who pirate just because they can, not out of any financial difficulty, and it is those people who should think about what they're doing, and their impact on the future of PC gaming. If you are so worried about Starforce, instead of boycotting Starforce games I would suggest this: why not BUY the games that DON'T have Starforce? If we all increase the sales of non-Starforce games, then those companies who use Starforce will certainly sit up and notice all those game sales skyrocketing - of games that aren't theirs! That could be effective, AND would help the industry, AND reward all those brilliant programmers etc. who develop that game, no?

Have made some changes to the article according the last SF situation

I'v tried to make article more unbiassed, changing some parts of it. Here is the history for your convenience.

Protection strategies section: Descride detecting of emulators more neatly.

StarForce family of products section: Remooved the mentions of SF clients, because it not related to "StarForce family of products" and mooved it to Criticism sectopn. Exposed description of SF 3.07 subversion.

Criticism section: Added and slightly changed JoWooD case.

Effectiveness section: Added info on SF guarantee for protection reliability.

Problems section: Added info on SF Rescue Key technology. Added info on SafeDisk's ring 0 drivers for justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.247.151.53 (talk • contribs) .

I've tidied up spelling/grammar mistakes. I think quite a bit of what has been added is ad copy (such as the details about the StarForce family of products), someone might want to work on trimming it down. Also note that the edits came from a Moscow IP (213.247.151.53)... --Fuzzie (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR REVERT - Attention!

I have reverted the page to a version made a few weeks ago. Since then, the article has been edited by people with poor english skills and spelling, even some cut and paste jobs. There is also a lot of POV being added and links removed. This is all like vandalism. This page needs semi-protection to prevent anonymous and new user editing and I will contact an admin on this. huntersquid 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, please prevent any anonymous edits, this is a really disputed page with huge lobbies analogue 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SF reverting

An person in relation to SF is reverting the page (or acctually, editing themself) and pretending that the content would violate international law [sic]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StarForce&diff=53198602&oldid=52855353 The same tactics used by the company to scare bloggers. 203.144.160.242 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Zarkow

212.199.170.75

This user is multi-editing to cover/make it harder to revert his entries, but let's take a look at the version before his rampage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StarForce&diff=61193624&oldid=55056250

We can clearly see that FACTS are removed and POV is inserted.

Can we PLEASE have this page protected soon? 203.144.143.8 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Zarkow

Starforce 4 is out


// A reply from "212.199.170.75": I revert only lies and unproven propoganda. I do so because I don't think that wikipedia (which is, in general, a superb quality encyclopedia) should be used as a platform for attacks on any product, and only neutral points of view should be expressed. People reading wikipedia may take lies and unproven claims people post for granted. Your unwillingness to accept a different opinion only shows your illiteracy in computer security and computers as a whole. You want this page to be protected because, in fact, you are interested in sabotaging the freedom of expression. You can't stand a different opinion - which, distinguishably from yours, is based upon facts. Your accusation of multi-editing is also a misconception - I sometimes re-edit my modifications because of things I forget to mention at first or things I want to revise. Again, this paranoia of yours is expressed in this accusation as well. To sum it all up, facts are not being removed, and POV is not being introduced; The exact opposite - facts are being introduced and biased POV is being removed. Do your homework next time.

Bias

The article seems pretty biased in a mostly negative viewpoint of the company. How about a subsection on their effectiveness against pirate copies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.126.143 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to be bold and add something in yourself. Make sure you source it, however. Oh, and make sure to sign your posts in talk pages, using ~~~~. --EazieCheeze 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft and StarForce

Starforce claimed in may 2006 that their FrontLine Driver 4.0 passed the "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" test. These tests are executed by a company called VeriTest. I wonder if MS is aware of this situation at all. According to VeriTest: As a completely independent organization, VeriTest plays a unique role in this testing process. Microsoft receives no part of the fees paid to VeriTest. In many cases, vendors can request a test without the knowledge of Microsoft and will receive test results in strict confidence.

If MS is indeed unaware of StarForce then this is something to worry about because of the controversy surrounding this copy protection scheme, like the lawsuit by users against Ubisoft. As a result Ubisoft dropped Starforce.

I want to include these concerns somehow in the article, but I have trouble to find the correct formulation. Any ideas? MadIce 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... I gave it a shot anyway. ;) MadIce 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not happy with it. The point I am trying to make is similar to a cult church getting IRS "charity status". That does not mean it is a bona fide religious organization in the eyes of the US. The problem here is the way the logo-system works. The tests are very limited and most programs will pass the test. The logo system does not check what the software does. MS assumes nobody wants to make maliceous software and trusts the softare house (in this case StarForce) by default. MadIce 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone (88.154.100.11) deleted the paragraphs I have added. That's OK, but I have moved part of it to the Controversy section. MadIce 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

StarForce and exploit

I'v tested my Win XP SP2 system with this exploit. There is a lot of SF drivers installed from varioius games.

Services Permissions checker v2.0
(c) 2006 Andres Tarasco - atarasco@gmail.com
[+] Trying to enumerate local resources
[+] Username: sopipnsci
[+] Listing Vulnerable Services...
[+] Analyzed 283 Services in your system
[+] Your system is secure! Great! :/
So the paragraph on exploit is lie. Removed.
Simply because it did not happen to you does not make it a lie, furthermore this is against wiki rules on doing your own research. This is a very thinly veiled attack on the legitimacy of this article since this IP address TraceRT's to Russia... Hmm i wonder who did that edit... Employee of Protection Technology or not, you guys be that judge(and whether to block the IP from edits). I however am re-adding that paragraph. Once again, can we please have this page protected from edits!! Also can we notice that the IP has also only ever eddited this page. Admin, save us! HawkShark 06:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So you affirm that if my ip is from Russia im an SF's spy? Very interesting! Why didnt i use proxy to hide it?
You know - we have almost all games protected by SF here in Russia since 2002. Nobody but russian user really know what SF is. I have had a planty of SF's protected games been installed, and even now i have a lot of them. I want to say that this piece of software doesnt bring problems more that any other software.
I can see a boycott links on the SF's page here at Wiki, also i cant see an SF's Wikipedia links on every anti SF site i'v visited. Sometimes it looks like some kined of collusion. It seems that the article only edited by SF haters.
Does Wiki an independent resource were everyone could post his opinion? Or it just an "anti_somthing" site? I'v run a round of tests an could professionally declare - SF's exploit is myth! So the paragrph must be deleted or edited. You could do it by your self, of i'll do it. Also i have to notice that the "News coverage" section gives the impression that there is only bad news in SF over the internet. Let people search the news by thierselfs and not read what you want.
So i want to tell to Wiki admins that if you close access to editing the article - you will get an one-sided article which could not be connected with word Encyclopedia.
Regards

Also your little test that you ran above means nothing, how do we know you're reputable? how do we know you have SF installed on your system? I could copy and paste anything I wanted like you probably did. As such I see the article as being accurate and free of POV at the present moment, of course people will say that there are attacks on PT and thats mainly because their hideous repuatation for their software and customer relation skills, its all part of the history of the company and has a great relevance on this article. 85.178.205.135 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay kids, let's try to be objective for a moment. (Okay, not happening... Whatever.)
The main problem I with any claims of "uncrackability" for any time frame is that only a very few, very unpopular games can make that claim. And really, to be honest, how do you get a direct, accurate measure of game piracy? So with that said a lot of this article (and starforce) is obviously specculation.
I still maintain that it is suicide for any company to use starforce, being that it has become a P.R. liability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.13.35.223 (talk • contribs) .

Installation point of Starforce

'allo! I've just changed this part of the article, changes marked in bold: "StarForce has received criticism for installing its own device driver onto computers. The StarForce driver, which is installed along with the protected product or when the protected product is first run" Simply because Starforce doesn't always install with the game but sometimes not until the game is first run. Egosoft's X³:Reunion is one of the programs that installs Starforce in such a way (although they've just released a no-cd/DvD that negates Starforce entirely, and can be installed without installing Starforce at all). 82.27.28.78 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

StarForce doesn't affect my PC

After reading that TrackMania Nations contains StarForce, this was like heaps of months after installation and I read mags like APC and PC User which use cover cds/dvds and my PC does not crash, and the CD performance has not dropped either. Either it's me or I'm just lucky. rctxtreme 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarForce/Archive_4&oldid=390196831"