10 Reasons to Disallow Reverse Engineering of Second Life Protocol

I think that's because there isnt a complete description of the protocol. But it does raise an interesting point - is there any docs that LL has that they are able to share?

It's all written on the back of napkins.

Good point. Doesn't make sense to have to Reverse Engineer it.


The process of duplicating an existing component, subassembly, or product, without the aid of drawings, documentation, or computer model is known as reverse engineering.

Reverse engineering can be viewed as the process of analyzing a system to:

1. Identify the system's components and their interrelationships
   
2. Create representations of the system in another form or a higher level of abstraction
   
3. Create the physical representation of that system
   (Does LL need to do any of this? I'm sure its already in a file cabinet somewhere...just post it up for all of us to see)
   

Following are reasons for reverse engineering a part or product:

1. The original manufacturer of a product no longer produces a product ...Nope
   
2. There is inadequate documentation of the original design ...Prolly not
   
3. The original manufacturer no longer exists, but a customer needs the product ...Nope
   
4. The original design documentation has been lost or never existed ...Nope
   
5. Some bad features of a product need to be designed out. For example, excessive wear might indicate where a product should be improved
   
6. To strengthen the good features of a product based on long-term usage of the product ...Maybe, but is LL gonna let US peeps do this. Highly unlikely
   
7. To analyze the good and bad features of competitors' product ...We already know this
   
8. To explore new avenues to improve product performance and features ...See my commebt on #6
   
9. To gain competitive benchmarking methods to understand competitor's products and develop better products ...hmmmm
   
10. The original CAD model is not sufficient to support modifications or current manufacturing methods ...Nope
    
11. The original supplier is unable or unwilling to provide additional parts ...Nope
    
12. The original equipment manufacturers are either unwilling or unable to supply replacement parts, or demand inflated costs for sole-source parts ...Nope
    
13. To update obsolete materials or antiquated manufacturing processes with more current, less-expensive technologies ...Once again, not OUR place to do this
    

So then...why?

Heh, I thought of that after I made the post.

I picture them looking around for little scraps of paper, stuff scrawled on old napkins.

----

I know, this is an attempt to get the user community to write the protocol documents, once the protocol wiki gets good enough, they will get their Russian affiliates to hit the R.E. wiki site with a DoS attack till they give up and give it to LR.

Not possible.



*odd look* is that some sort of perverse bedroom suggestion?



Objects yes scripts no.



Hey don't need to reverse engineer the client to make wild claims like that.



Then why do you play?



Those are to be expected anyways.



Only possible if they are your objects or on your land.



Possible



Don't you mean provide LL with a longer list of bugs to fix?



If LL's competitors reproduce SL exactly they are doomed. lol


So all you've come up with is finding more bugs and object cloning(which it is my understanding is possible anyways). Ok reverse engineer it.

For the adrenaline rush Baby!

THEY CAN DO IT BECUZ THEY R HACKERS ZOMG

My best guess is a combination of 1) the documentation isn't in an organized sensible manner fit for releasing to the public yet, 2) the legal department and executives haven't had enough time to fully comb over the idea, 3) by letting experienced engineers have a crack at it first there's a greater chance of bug reports being filed before the amateurs get ahold of potential exploits.

Hey! I started this thread I make the rules.

'Fraid not.

Fraid so.

Uno!

No one needs to make the rules, they where already made.
Rules

Anyone care to 'reverse engineer' the forum rules? Let's see what's the underlying rules, so we can come up with better rules and hack all the current rules and exxploit the new rules that haven't been created yet.



Just tryin ta stay on topic

'Fraid not.

Am too!

Boys, boys.


Keep up this nattering and we'll be forced to settle the dispute with a nude jello wrestling match.

I will be watching and taking snapshots to... *cough* ensure compliance with the rules.

As a programmer, I have to say you're full of it

This is completely wrong and impossible unless a complete moron programmed it. I'm speaking as somebody who wrote a server. Due to that, I'm really glad you're not on the coding team:


This is just plain paranoid nonsense and proves you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about:


This is also wrong:


Yes, it may mean LL will need to fix some things that are possible to exploit if you know the protocol, but this means that: It wasn't done right in the first place, so it was a bug that had to be fixed anyway, and fixing it will make the whole system more stable and griefer resistant.

While I don't disagree that a documented protocol will bring a change or two, it's neither bad, nor you can do anything to avoid it.

I thought this was kinda apt:

[/url]

How does it feel to demonstrate so completely that you have absolutely no understanding of that which you speak, in a public thread, and proceded to prove it by arguing with one of the most knowledgeable people about the subject SL has?

Does it feel like happy?

I mean, you realize you're arguing with a lawyer about how the legal system works, because you watched a couple episodes of Law and Order, right?

Who's arguing?

This thread is complete and absolute comedy gold! It should stay as an example of why you shouldn't post something before you are actually informed of the topic

There was one?



Did someone eat it?

Lewis

(where it says "topic", put "issue"