Quote from: [TC]Granny on December 19, 2006, 02:07:41 PMthe dll isn't made for any of the new anticheats, there is NO WAY for me to use it on ts.Yes you can use it on ts, unless you're using a valid anticheat.dll client. You can use it with plain r1q2 (without anticheat.dll), you can use it with 3.20, you can use it with frkq2 (that emulates NoCheat), etc. etc. etc.
the dll isn't made for any of the new anticheats, there is NO WAY for me to use it on ts.
so do we know he was using it in game?
Quote from: [TC]Granny on December 18, 2006, 03:41:49 AMit's the same 1 u seen the error for before
it's the same 1 u seen the error for before
Are you saying that under those circumstances you can use a cheat on ts without getting the "MZ exec" message?
what I would like to see is a search done of all the logs on ts for that command, to see who was using it
Krez stfu i admit u owned me with 3 times my ping i dont deny the truth.
The MZ message only reveals the _existence_ of a file.
But if you do use anticheat and have bad files laying around you'll get kicked from the server, loaded or not? I'm guessing only when loaded and if that's so then there's no reason for him to deny it. If it got loaded by quake2 itself because he had renamed it then that's his own fault.
Nice try. But unlike our rcon scans, anticheat.dll doesn't report files sitting in your q2 folder. It only reports files you ACTUALLY HAVE LOADED.
if he was playing quake and could just type a command to cheat:he would be kicked by the server most of the time with the nc_visibility check?i take it , this isn't recorded or logged.
Quote from: |D|sean on December 19, 2006, 05:10:16 PMwhat I would like to see is a search done of all the logs on ts for that command, to see who was using itCan't.
Note, your wallhack isn't sophisticated enough to get around the server-side anti-wallhack measures (sv_nc_visibilitycheck) when we have those turned on.
if he did always have that as his file, the check would kick him. . so you would think he didn't try it on the servers. i presume it doesn't log that. i don't think it matters what client you use - the server just has that protection?do you really think he was just always trying that command, even though he might think he would get logged/kicked?