Sippinhaterade
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 387
Can confirm, was hit with a ban. Every active account I had on my bnet was banned. Ive been using SBR for the past 4-5 months because their Hunter rotations worked better.
RebornBuddy Forums
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
SBR got hit with massive ban
xsilverdicex
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,389
x64
WolfpackPB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 163
Keep in mind this "Massive" banwave only hit about 20-25% of the Soapbox users, a grand total of about 100 people. It's also stupid to say "look, SBR got hit and they use x64 therefore x64 wouldn't make a difference", SBR was detected regardless of the computing, it was attributed to a single function which was recently added and detected. It doesn't matter if you code in 32 or 64, if the dev makes a mistake it's going to be seen.
20-25% is pretty massive to me
WolfpackPB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 163
Soap posted up specific details of his findings, since it is a private forum I won't reproduce it here but the TLDR is...
* Approximately 5% of Subscribers to SBR were effected (~100 users)
* It was almost certainly due to Player Reports, many banned reports were using it in open PvP and Arenas
* Many new *extra* non-rotation features were removed
* 32 Bit Client was removed because "It has a certain element of risk" which I'm not sure is valid
* The common element was that the banned mostly were using a combination of 32/64 bit or were using exclusively 32 bit.
* Other bots also saw above average account loss on the date. Doesn't seem like HB did but I don't frequent any other bot forums.
* Soap has made Security Improvements to the LUA for added assurance but LUA does not seem to be a contributing factor considering the amount of bans.
* Approximately 5% of Subscribers to SBR were effected (~100 users)
* It was almost certainly due to Player Reports, many banned reports were using it in open PvP and Arenas
* Many new *extra* non-rotation features were removed
* 32 Bit Client was removed because "It has a certain element of risk" which I'm not sure is valid
* The common element was that the banned mostly were using a combination of 32/64 bit or were using exclusively 32 bit.
* Other bots also saw above average account loss on the date. Doesn't seem like HB did but I don't frequent any other bot forums.
* Soap has made Security Improvements to the LUA for added assurance but LUA does not seem to be a contributing factor considering the amount of bans.
his argument for removing the 32 bit is perfectly valid-you have to keep in mind that just about every bot available is running on the 32 bit client hence it is safe to assume that blizz will focus more attention to detect hooks into that client
Xcesius
Community Developer
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,050
If you think 64bit is "safe" because no one uses it for "botting / rotation". You're wrong, there's always a risk no matter how you put it.
Also, blizz will f*** you over no matter what client you're on if they wanted to.
Do I need to remind people about the "test banwave" blizzard had for HB? It may happen to this as well, this may have been a test banwave to detect it.
ryftobuddy
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,291
Except for the stats lolzagain gave, more users on the 64 bit client got hit than straight 32-bit...So that argument is completely invalid.
Since the concensus the developer reached was player reports the 32 vs 64 comparison is not applicable
WolfpackPB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 163
I was just hitting some points Soap gave, I don't think if HB were to make a 64 bit version that we would see any more or any fewer bans. The change from 32 to 64 bit would only reap the benefit of possible improved WoW performance while botting. I think the decision to reduce it down to 64 bit was, primarily, to set it away from other bots in that regard even if it's a placebo effect to make users feel safer; but more importantly not needing to worry about the added complexity of supporting both. Soap has treated the situation very well and has done a good job to repair the small amount of damage done.
The stats that were given were also a voluntary poll and may contain less than truthful or inaccurate information.
The stats that were given were also a voluntary poll and may contain less than truthful or inaccurate information.
I can accept the placebo effect as the main reason for somehow implying that x32 was the main culprit for the bans. It's easier than to consider that the developers of a very sucessful bot may have found X hooks in the x32 clients being observed, right?
There is 0 reason to keep Hb working in a less efficient environment, and making the banning much easier, as if it were necessary. Defenders of x32 at this point are pretty much like XP defenders. Yeah, it works, but it is plainly worse than 7 or 10 or anything.
Honestly, this is starting to feel like a showoff by Blizzard anti***** CS once every few months; because locating offenders would be so easy that they couldn't justify keeping their jobs.
There is 0 reason to keep Hb working in a less efficient environment, and making the banning much easier, as if it were necessary. Defenders of x32 at this point are pretty much like XP defenders. Yeah, it works, but it is plainly worse than 7 or 10 or anything.
Honestly, this is starting to feel like a showoff by Blizzard anti***** CS once every few months; because locating offenders would be so easy that they couldn't justify keeping their jobs.
Lister
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 581
xxBot was also hit its was some Kind of Data Collection because even here the Ban posts got more! but ther is truth in:
I think the next Target is again HB
they saying like 5% now but I think it was more 10 to 15% imho
laughed when he blamed pvp, most reported not touching pvp.
Last edited:
WolfpackPB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 163
Soap has always been open and honest with his customer base, actually has access to his total # of Subscribers to compare to the # of bans; I'll take his word over your hunch all day long.
He never blamed PvP at all, he in fact admitted it was a vulnerability which was overlooked for windows clients, 32 and 64 bit. Random subscribers are the ones who started pegging PvP as the sole cause, which is not necessarily true. Soap did disable use of the rotation in PvP because his software is only designed for PvE and a majority of his users wanted PvP disabled to reduce the chances of player reports in the future. Considering Soap sells primarily to raiders, most of them guild raiders, I'd say that was a fantastic decision. PvP brings a lot of unwanted attention to bots and Soap want's his software off the radar as much as possible. Before anyone with a permanent caps lock button comes in to say PvP is safe to bot, take a look at...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIf0yqR7hJz6HilJk66CXFA
...and keep in mind most of the people featured in his videos are banned very quickly. I don't think you'll see Archimonde making videos to ban people for unfair competition.
When did he admit to a vulnerability? Last official word I saw from him said it was player reports, which is bullshit.
WolfpackPB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 163
"I believe I have identified a vulnerability..." Last page of the POLL for Count thread.
And player reports being the culprit isn't ridiculous at all, player reports are well known to be the prime source of Bot Bans. I'm not 100% on board with it being exclusively player reports either but don't act like you know better. Soap and the other Bot Developers know far more than you ever will about this industry, they rely on it and their well-being depends on their knowledge of it. If they deduce that it was most likely player report caused then I'll believe them until I see hard evidence otherwise, something like the May Banwave where a staggering % of users are banned rather than ~5%.