Hiding "The Honorbuddy" from "The Warden"

[Liferose]

So you want me to prove the lack of existence of laws preventing warden from accessing areas of memory not allocated to wow.exe? Why does that not seem logical.

Unfortunately for Blizzard and Activision there are legal issues with privacy and the internet. If you haven't been breathing for a long time some of the recent upbringings of this are the NSA and Google being forced to permit information withdrawal. Sure, the actual legal terms are rather blurred as technology advances laws have to be written to accommodate them, but Blizzard was under fire by the media when the warden was introduced and they have further claimed to back down. I highly doubt they don't abide by their statements or they could face a class action lawsuit from an amass of nerds, as well as media uproar. "Unauthorized Access" is definitely illegal, and will get the afflicting program labeled as spyware and persecuted to legal action under the various computer crime acts. I have a few more links but they're just as vague, but at least I have a source.

 

[ryanh]

Unfortunately for Blizzard and Activision there are legal issues with privacy and the internet. If you haven't been breathing for a long time some of the recent upbringings of this are the NSA and Google being forced to permit information withdrawal. Sure, the actual legal terms are rather blurred as technology advances laws have to be written to accommodate them, but Blizzard was under fire by the media when the warden was introduced and they have further claimed to back down. I highly doubt they don't abide by their statements or they could face a class action lawsuit from an amass of nerds, as well as media uproar. "Unauthorized Access" is definitely illegal, and will get the afflicting program labeled as spyware and persecuted to legal action under the various computer crime acts. I have a few more links but they're just as vague, but at least I have a source.

Neither NSA nor the recent Google case have anything at all to do with how Warden works and potential legal limits. Blizzard was hardly ever "under the fire by the media" regarding warden, a few articles and EFF saying "omg blizzard is evil" hardly constitutes as "under the fire".
A class action suit for what?
"Unauthorized Access" is obviously irrelevant when you willingly and knowingly install a software, and even then you'd still be agreeing to the EULA.

I really doubt you can find any laws or court decisions backing up the claim that there's some sort of legal reasons stopping warden from doing anything but scanning memory allocated to WoW.exe as many seem to claim.

Oh, and for the record. Warden regularly does these supposedly "illegal" things, which kind of makes this conversation pointless.

 

[Liferose]

Neither NSA nor the recent Google case have anything at all to do with how Warden works and potential legal limits. Blizzard was hardly ever "under the fire by the media" regarding warden, a few articles and EFF saying "omg blizzard is evil" hardly constitutes as "under the fire".
A class action suit for what?
"Unauthorized Access" is obviously irrelevant when you willingly and knowingly install a software, and even then you'd still be agreeing to the EULA.

I really doubt you can find any laws or court decisions backing up the claim that there's some sort of legal reasons stopping warden from doing anything but scanning memory allocated to WoW.exe as many seem to claim.

Oh, and for the record. Warden regularly does these supposedly "illegal" things, which kind of makes this conversation pointless.

Two very influential groups that have the largest influence on privacy, one of which by aggregating information without your knowledge, for one sounds very similar, and just might have something to do with legal limitations of something like this. As for the media concerns, if you Google "Warden+Blizzard" you get news stations, people being wrongfully banned, and if you had a time machine and went to any kind of gaming community back when this wasn't sensationally old news it would be a very heated topic.

An EULA is void if it's contents aren't legal. If those things were legal tender Honorbuddy would have sank years ago, and we'll probably be in court for years to come granted the game doesn't magically die out before then. A full on legal battle with regards to warden instead of a bot would be a firing range for any kind of privacy advocate. Just the concept of the warden is controversial at best, and Blizzard isn't interested in losing a bunch of money over something that doesn't even keep out the bots that matter. So no, there isn't any legal binding stating what the Warden does, because they weren't asked.

You have quite a lot of bias in your argument. If you find something explicitly showing it doing something awry I'd find it interesting to read. All I'm getting off of you is anger because you want people to believe you like you're an apostle of the lord.

 

[ryanh]

Two very influential groups that have the largest influence on privacy, one of which by aggregating information without your knowledge, for one sounds very similar, and just might have something to do with legal limitations of something like this. As for the media concerns, if you Google "Warden+Blizzard" you get news stations, people being wrongfully banned, and if you had a time machine and went to any kind of gaming community back when this wasn't sensationally old news it would be a very heated topic.

An EULA is void if it's contents aren't legal. If those things were legal tender Honorbuddy would have sank years ago, and we'll probably be in court for years to come granted the game doesn't magically die out before then. A full on legal battle with regards to warden instead of a bot would be a firing range for any kind of privacy advocate. Just the concept of the warden is controversial at best, and Blizzard isn't interested in losing a bunch of money over something that doesn't even keep out the bots that matter. So no, there isn't any legal binding stating what the Warden does, because they weren't asked.

You have quite a lot of bias in your argument. If you find something explicitly showing it doing something awry I'd find it interesting to read. All I'm getting off of you is anger because you want people to believe you like you're an apostle of the lord.

Do you have anything to contribute that isn't purely speculative?
"An EULA is void if it's contents aren't legal." Isn't exactly true, a part of the EULA might be void if it isn't legal. Not the entirety.
Warden regularly does these things people claim to be illegal, anyone who's ever worked with it will know that.

Do you believe that antiviruses violate the law too? They kind of rely on RAM pattern scanning.

 

[Liferose]

Do you have anything to contribute that isn't purely speculative?
"An EULA is void if it's contents aren't legal." Isn't exactly true, a part of the EULA might be void if it isn't legal. Not the entirety.
Warden regularly does these things people claim to be illegal, anyone who's ever worked with it will know that.

Do you believe that antiviruses violate the law too? They kind of rely on RAM pattern scanning.

Do you have anything that isn't speculative? All of it out there is speculative but everyone who actually does have a very technical "speculation" says there isn't anything to worry about. You can also add inference from the bad reputation Blizzard gets with it. Your speculation is far more broad than mine is. I don't think even remotely sane to say "It does things that are illegal, but only people who have only created it have seen it." I could say my shower curtain does illegal things and actually have more credibility than you because it's my shower curtain

The EULA legality is true, but most of them are written in redundancy like a bunch of mini EULA's so that if one part of it isn't legally correct, the others can stand on their own.

An AntiVirus is supposed to scan all of your computer, though. Computer crime acts don't really list explicit methods such as RAM scanning, but more general like permit of access. I'm willingly giving the antivirus system up that privacy, but I'm not wanting my other programs doing that. Just because they both have a terms of use doesn't make it the same. We permit police officers to break certain rights in various circumstances like reasonable search and seizure, hot pursuit, ..etc. We want antivirus to sit there and be annoying so we can be safe, it's basically the exact same reasoning we have a government we can indirectly control ourselves (in concept). Spyware is what you get when you cross those kinds of paths, it's very unreasonable to have a game scanning my entire computer without reason, and there's no reason for WoW to need to have that much monitoring power and if they want to retain the credibility and not have to get the legal team together and figure out how to make spyware legal, it's not going to work.

Edit: Also, it's pretty rare courts hold EULA's to a very high degree. Some even get downright ignored.

 

[ryanh]

Do you have anything that isn't speculative? All of it out there is speculative but everyone who actually does have a very technical "speculation" says there isn't anything to worry about. You can also add inference from the bad reputation Blizzard gets with it. Your speculation is far more broad than mine is. I don't think even remotely sane to say "It does things that are illegal, but only people who have only created it have seen it." I could say my shower curtain does illegal things and actually have more credibility than you because it's my shower curtain

I never said that warden actually does illegal things, I pointed out that warden regularly scans things outside of WoW.exe which anyone who has ever done any reversing on it would be aware of. Nothing speculative there.

An AntiVirus is supposed to scan all of your computer, though. Computer crime acts don't really list explicit methods such as RAM scanning, but more general like permit of access. I'm willingly giving the antivirus system up that privacy, but I'm not wanting my other programs doing that. Just because they both have a terms of use doesn't make it the same.

Why not?

Edit: Also, it's pretty rare courts hold EULA's to a very high degree. Some even get downright ignored.

Really depends on the context, EULA is a contract like any other. Can you cite a court decision on this?

 

[Liferose]

I never said that warden actually does illegal things, I pointed out that warden regularly scans things outside of WoW.exe which anyone who has ever done any reversing on it would be aware of. Nothing speculative there.

But what exactly does it do? Some of it's functions are obvious, but just because it can do something bad doesn't mean it is. If you know exactly what it's scanning, and if it's returning any kind of questionable data, then that is what makes it different. Apparently, Blizzard also said it will try to see if you're trying to "copy" the game, which I guess gets into private servers. I have a video camera on my computer and when it's on it could have the power to do god knows what with the audio and video, but it doesn't, and just because it could doesn't really make it a viable reason.

Why not? ... snip ... Really depends on the context, EULA is a contract like any other. Can you cite a court decision on this?

If I made something that did the nastiest kind of information stealing imaginable, do not pass go straight to jail terrible, and made an EULA stating it all obviously but hid the intent from the user, it will collapse under its own weight in court. Sure there is some degree of, "you should've read it," but courts take them in on a case by case basis. If we got into foreign law that would be another case. Like I mentioned with Google, they're being forced by the EU governments to allow people to withhold personal information from Google when they obviously have mountains of agreements, which I've never seen but you have to imagine with a company like that being able to tell them no must have moved mountains. Comparing Google to Blizzard, and the EU court systems to "general" people, is a skewed proportion, but privacy is a sticky topic anyway.

 

[IPreferHappy]

Ryanh, you're basically just denying everything here without actual content. You've got someone trying to meaningfully engage you in conversation about this and your answers are vague, dodgy, and present a severe lack of effort and attention. The evidence supporting the claim that Warden doesn't scan outside of WoW is ALL OVER the internet and is not hard to find at all and since it's also the widely accepted belief amongst those of authority on the subject it falls on your shoulders to provide proof of your claims as you've called on these people to do. If you believed it was important, if it was truly a value you possessed, you wouldn't neglect to do so yourself. The entire subject was witnessed by millions and discussed widely across the net with the same conclusion was found in the end. It was a massive deal not too many years ago, being talked about as commonly as any other aspect of the game. It was a common subject in general chats in game.

TL;DR: If you think people need to provide source and proof of their claims that have been widely accepted as truth, you should do so yourself, especially since your belief is the one considered debunked now.

 

[ryanh]

Ryanh, you're basically just denying everything here without actual content. You've got someone trying to meaningfully engage you in conversation about this and your answers are vague, dodgy, and present a severe lack of effort and attention. The evidence supporting the claim that Warden doesn't scan outside of WoW is ALL OVER the internet and is not hard to find at all and since it's also the widely accepted belief amongst those of authority on the subject it falls on your shoulders to provide proof of your claims as you've called on these people to do. If you believed it was important, if it was truly a value you possessed, you wouldn't neglect to do so yourself. The entire subject was witnessed by millions and discussed widely across the net with the same conclusion was found in the end. It was a massive deal not too many years ago, being talked about as commonly as any other aspect of the game. It was a common subject in general chats in game.

TL;DR: If you think people need to provide source and proof of their claims that have been widely accepted as truth, you should do so yourself, especially since your belief is the one considered debunked now.

If it's all over can you link something supporting that instead of just making yourself look retarded?

 

[IPreferHappy]

If it's all over can you link something supporting that instead of just making yourself look retarded?

Circular logic is circular logic is circular logic, ad infinitum. I just explained quite clearly why you should be the one finding those links yourself. You also consistently fail to address issues brought up with your point in a meaningful way and entirely side-step the fact that you are failing to do what you so rudely imply others should do and why that is inherently flawed (which I also explained.) You are a chirping bird. You can talk back all day but in reality, you're not actually saying anything, you're just trying to get attention.

 

[ryanh]

Circular logic is circular logic is circular logic, ad infinitum. I just explained quite clearly why you should be the one finding those links yourself. You also consistently fail to address issues brought up with your point in a meaningful way and entirely side-step the fact that you are failing to do what you so rudely imply others should do and why that is inherently flawed (which I also explained.) You are a chirping bird. You can talk back all day but in reality, you're not actually saying anything, you're just trying to get attention.

Why are you unable to provide those links if they're so easy to find?

I've googled for evidence on this and have been unable to find any, why not be constructive and post those links here?

 

[Liferose]

If it's all over can you link something supporting that instead of just making yourself look retarded?

If one were to spend the time searching for them there are plenty of very intelligent sounding articles on the matter from communities such as this. OwnedCore (or Mmowned or whatever it was back then) had a few people, and you'd find even more in-depth explanations on the more snarky forums. I've seen some of the devs here make a few comments on it, but as time passes this subject gets less and less informative and the best thing you're going to find is something like Tony's response above.

 

[ryanh]

If one were to spend the time searching for them there are plenty of very intelligent sounding articles on the matter from communities such as this. OwnedCore (or Mmowned or whatever it was back then) had a few people, and you'd find even more in-depth explanations on the more snarky forums. I've seen some of the devs here make a few comments on it, but as time passes this subject gets less and less informative and the best thing you're going to find is something like Tony's response above.

Tony's response is hardly informative, nothing's stopping you from patching warden to stop it from detecting your bot. That hardly says anything about how warden works.

 

[IPreferHappy]

Why are you unable to provide those links if they're so easy to find?

I've googled for evidence on this and have been unable to find any, why not be constructive and post those links here?

Ok. I'll throw ya a bone. Google "warden scans outside of wow" and start reading.

 

[Liferose]

Tony's response is hardly informative, nothing's stopping you from patching warden to stop it from detecting your bot. That hardly says anything about how warden works.

It's a rather effective TL;DR
As you stated it's not really doing its job very well.

 

[ryanh]

Ok. I'll throw ya a bone. Google "warden scans outside of wow" and start reading.

And what am I supposed to find? Clearly nothing related to the legality of how warden works. That didn't really bring up anything except threads about how warden doesn't actually do anything most of the time besides basic process list scanning and detecting really shitty hacks that don't hook it, which isn't anything new.

It does scan RAM outside of WoW.exe in the rare cases when it's actually doing something (e.g. Glider banwave). Warden isn't a static part of the client but something that's loaded over the internet.

 

[macedawg]

so why dont you take them to court and make millions upon millions of dollars then? because it is ILLEGAL for them to breech your privacy like that. fact.

 

[webhond]

there is no reason to hide HB process

This is what u "devs" always say.

And when it comes to discussing this

Does WoW's warden not scan for known processes? Or does it just look for additional ram that has attached itself to WoW. I guess your account has to be under investigation to even have this done right? Otherwise we'd all be instantly banned right?

We prolly start about privacy invasion and all that, even tho we all know that they can and will "scan" your processes if they feel like it. They can scan it, nothing else.
So if they find a "honorbuddy" your done. So why not change to be more safe. But we cant. Are not allowed or get told off cause its not needed.

Idc no more, did in the past, now im just "fck it, bot on - main or not, ban is a ban". I dont farm, just arena and rbg but botting is botting.


If i see all these numbnuts running bg's wich are infested again with bots... so retarded ( u cant play nomally no more between 22.00 and -8.00 ) i dont think you
should worry about a proces.

Dont forget one thing, bots keep a economy running, the game playable, offordable. Every game has em. And after botting for quite some time, i do believe blizzard
only bans when u get reported. Bots are accepted in this game, as in any other, as long as the community doesnt complain to much. Keep it balanced. Its money both
ways for blizzard.

They could stop us in a heartbeat if they wanted. but just another one would come out, even more suffisticated and harder to track. Think of it. Remove click to move
from game and we got a problem, why dont they do that. People play like that.. lmao. But they DID remove "auto follow" target in bg to stop other bots.

So the conclussion in the end, bot smart. If you meet a fellow botter on your journey, he will know. And if its a *** he will report you for various reassons. Most
people couldnt spot a bot if they where mounted on one.

 

[bambam36]

This is what u "devs" always say.

And when it comes to discussing this



We prolly start about privacy invasion and all that, even tho we all know that they can and will "scan" your processes if they feel like it. They can scan it, nothing else.
So if they find a "honorbuddy" your done. So why not change to be more safe. But we cant. Are not allowed or get told off cause its not needed.

Idc no more, did in the past, now im just "fck it, bot on - main or not, ban is a ban". I dont farm, just arena and rbg but botting is botting.


If i see all these numbnuts running bg's wich are infested again with bots... so retarded ( u cant play nomally no more between 22.00 and -8.00 ) i dont think you
should worry about a proces.

Dont forget one thing, bots keep a economy running, the game playable, offordable. Every game has em. And after botting for quite some time, i do believe blizzard
only bans when u get reported. Bots are accepted in this game, as in any other, as long as the community doesnt complain to much. Keep it balanced. Its money both
ways for blizzard.

They could stop us in a heartbeat if they wanted. but just another one would come out, even more suffisticated and harder to track. Think of it. Remove click to move
from game and we got a problem, why dont they do that. People play like that.. lmao. But they DID remove "auto follow" target in bg to stop other bots.

So the conclussion in the end, bot smart. If you meet a fellow botter on your journey, he will know. And if its a *** he will report you for various reassons. Most
people couldnt spot a bot if they where mounted on one.

Agree'd - Been botting for a while now and I've had no issues on 3 accounts on the same battle.net ID. Bot smart and if you want - Run Lazyraider and focus on other things while you babysit. Stops your hands from hurting from a constant spell rotation. I afk all the time and if you see a "bot train" just move yourself away.

 

[nomnomnom]

I don't think the issue is whether Blizzard is allowed to scan or not scan - I think the real reason is that due to privacy rights in many countries it prohibits Blizzard to use these obtained details knowing from who it is - They cannot link it to you in person or your account as that would possibly violate your privacy rights. A virus scanner doesn't send details like "Ah Peter Griffin had Virus XXX on his PC", virus scanners specifically ask you to allow ANONYMOUS data collection .