Is there a database of griefers out there?

Does anyone know if there is a publicly available database of users who belong to particular groups that are known to grief and participate in grid crashing?

If not, do you guys think there is interest in creating such a database?

Good luck with that.

They can come and grief, and go, and come again, as they please w/ the current open registration. Your list will soon fill up with the undead of SL.

Scripting ability should be limited to verified accounts only!


Edited to add: Was not attempting to belittle your idea or attempt at a solution, as I believe ANY brainstorming is good. But it just isn't gonna happen. The registration in SL is too fluid.

It exists. Search General Archive.

Bad idea in my opinion, as malicious subscribers can use it to further vendettas.

slbanlink.com

I have a copy of the unofficial FAQ to BanLink. If you want it, IM me and ask

As long as it remains possible to create unlimited numbers of free, untracable accounts by typing pure bullshit into the registration forms, Griefers will have an open revolving door that allows them to never need to re-use a griefing account. It is insane that LL allows anyone to create an account for free, and doesn't even bother to check ANY of the information provided for validity - not even the e-mail address that is provided!

Until that loophole is firmly welded shut, a database such as you suggest would require infinite capacity, and the data in it would likely be obsolete as soon as it was entered, as 95% of the accounts listed in it would never be used again.

If Linden Labs would allow us to ban users based on their Machine ID Hash, we might stand a chance. We don't need to ever SEE that hash ourselves. Just know that of we enter "Griefer Smithe" in our ban list, it will auto-ban any other alts that he uses from the same computer.

LL also needs to have SOME way to prevent new alts from logging on in the first place from systems whose machine ID hash is a known, banned griefer. As far as I can tell, they are not even trying to do that now, except in the worst individual cases.

I'm very much aware of the problems caused by griefers getting an endless stream of new accounts. I've I've posted writeups about it before, such as this one , and my prop 1632 includes a the option to "ban X and all their alts" to ban lists.

So yes, I am very much aware of the problem, and I am trying to do something about it.

In the BanLink FAQ I wrote, I do explicitly say that BanLink is not designed to handle griefing by endless alts. No resident-run system can do that very well... because there is no way to identify or ban alts built into SL.
BanLink is mainly intended to stop a griefer going around griefing *other* places with the same account. Effectively it forces them to sign up for a new account each time they grief a BanLink-enabled place. In short, it slows them down. It can't stop them, but it helps... especially against the griefers that grief without using alts.
Really the greatest thing about BanLink is not its ability to ban at all. Rather, it is the fact it gets residents working together on security issues.

I'd like your help with getting Linden attention focussed on the alt-griefing issue, and on our need to be able to ban *people* from our land, not just accounts. If you are interested in working with me on trying to get better security tools in SL, please IM me inworld.
The Lindens seem to be pretty steadfast on their open registration policy... but they may listen if we demand better security tools.

I don't like the fact that the only security against alt-griefing now is to ban those without payment info on file from my land. I'd like us to have better options than that. Please help me with this.

I'm confused. I thought you had to change computer to register more alts than 5. Is this not the case ? Is the computer hash only used to ban people after punishment is decided, not to implement the alt limits ?

Doesn't the hash prevent anyone getting a sixth alt ?

Barmovic:
At this point, it appears that the computer ID hash is only looked at after punishment (suspension or banning) is decided. It certainly is NOT being checked in any way, shape or form on account creation.

If you lie on the form, you can create infinite numbers of free accounts. Just decline to give valid information. They don't verify a single piece of what you type into the form.

If you tell the truth in all regards on your registration forms, then the Lindens will charge you $9.95 USD per account after the first account as a reward for your honesty, and they may later choose, at their capricious whim, to limit you to no more than 2 accounts per payment method or 5 accounts per household. You can create more paid-for accounts than 5, because again, no one is counting at registration. But you risk losing all but 5 accounts later, with no warning, if you exceed 5 per person. They apparently only impose those limits if someone complains, or if some Linden decides on their own to enforce a limit that is no longer in the TOS or Registration process, but which the Lindens have neglected to formally repeal. (See my feature vote item in my signature, for more on that.)

Angel:
I did not wish to denigrate your efforts on BanLink. I simply stated, for the benefit of the original poster, what the problem was with the current unlimited unverified registration policy. I would be happy to work with you, or anyone else, to eliminate the insanity of unlimited free account registration for unverified accounts.

I am currently escalating my proposal on verified registration all the way up to Phillip and Robin Linden. Part of my proposal includes eliminating unlimited unverified registration. I am proposing instead that they actually DO check machine ID, and that they only allow one new account per 90 day period for free. My proposal would also only allow a 'no ID Check' account on the very first registration, at which time it still records the machine ID hash. That would still allow the Lindens to give non-American customers a way to get a first account on SL without having to have a US credit card, but it would slam the door in the face of the griefers and their continual stream of throw-away alts. Second and subsequent accounts, even if granted as a "one free one every 90 days" account, would still require valid ID of some sort.

Well thank you Ceera. Fascinating.

Why would the Lindens do this? Possibilities:

1. Need to impress potential investors with inflated membership numbers. Imminent sale or new funding attempt.

2. Perhaps analysis shows best route to new committed contributing members is to hook them with no-barrier free entry, and that it is worth it (for LL) to suffer all the grief, bandwidth loss etc to carry the dross until they lose interest. That even the smallest entry barrier loses masses of potentially valuable clients forever. I can well believe this might be true.

3. PR unrelated to any new investment need. Getting the numbers up increases our status in the MMORPG community, and attracts more media attention, hence more client recruits.

Wonder which is dominant. Anyone think of any more ?

Just as a point of note:

BanLink wont do much to help against grid attacks, for a multitude of reasons, nor will any security device - including the linden parcel tools.

Primarly because of two reasons:




BanLink was indended to neutralize the type of griefer who hops from site to site causing trouble in person, and to facilitate the sharing of banlists between similar sites.

Ceera, you've made me stop and think about how "loose" the current registration process is. Thank you...

It doesn't even do the "you must click this link to validate your email" mail message check, at least not last time I created an account.

I went and read your proposal for enforcing a limit on free accounts and backing that up by validating a machine hash and other identifying information *before* permitting account creation/login. It seems eminently logical.

I've pulled my 10 votes off of two other propositions and put them onto proposition 1838. It is the first "account limiting" proposal I've read that doesn't involve eliminating the "free account" idea, it just adds back in an element of credible verification. I'd love to see some Linden thought given to your proposal!

Except for the fact that sending a machiene hash is pretty much pointless, as you can send in anything you want in there. Really, a random hash generator/replacer would not be hard to do. (Oh, I'm such a bad libsecondlife hacker)

I suspect the percentage of people using a hash replacer would be small. So what if it didn't get every alt, it might get some.

True, but if you were using a radom replacer with a machiene hash and got banned, you could potentially end up with a collision with an innocent person's hash.

Tain't nothing simple, is it?

I have a list of several W-Hat members... But its several months old now.