PD vs Hackers "Notice of Account Ban Measures"

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Er... I don't have GT6 but it was horrible in GT5, I'm not the kind of player who goes online with the same group of friends every time, I always went for different lobby types and with completely random people and everything from drifting to drag racing was completely ruined by it. It was almost insulting how obvious some people were about it.

I'm not gonna lie, I reported hundreds of people back then, any modded car I saw I would just report them because it was getting out of hand. Out of 3 completely random lobbies, 1 had modded cars and no, they weren't there to show-off their creations, they were just being completely stupid.

Now of course, people can be stupid with any car but with this whole movement, more and more stupid people come to play because modders aren't smart enough to maintain a low profile, they're always showing off, talking about it and that brings unwanted people to it.

I wonder if hybriding is really a way to make the individual experience better or it's just a way to be different for the sake of being different no matter what.

I think maybe you should watch the blanket statements you make. I was one of those modders in GT5 and I NEVER went online, at all, with or without my modded cars and the only ones I talked to about it was a select few people that also did mods. Not sure how much more of a low profile than that you want. I also know people like me, that never went online and you wouldn't even know they were modding cars unless I told you. So yea, your statement there is completely false.

 

[deadbob777]

Being the man I am, the only hack I need in GT6, is the ability to swap transmissions in Hybrids, as in electric/gasoline cars, I can't stand CVTs and the Prius's complete and utter lack of any transmission, at all

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Someone pointed out to me tonight (thanks ray!) that it is now possible to see the HP and weight of other peoples cars in a lobby. That will be very helpful when trying to identify a hacker.

I have to say though, the billions^billions to the power of Billions more computations that have been talked about here seems a bit much.

As @Johnnypenso said, you are only testing one car at a time when it goes online. Not 13hundred something.

When I buy a car and take it to upgrade it, there are only a few options in each category. The garage knows instantly that I can't buy a supercharger for my Integra. Adding a few more parts to the test, like car x needs chassis x does not seem, to me, to be out of the realm of possibility.


T

 

[brianwong]

When I hybrided on GT5 I never actually raced anyone with my cars. I would only join free run lobbys (such as Eiger with the 1200hp 4WD NSX in my profile picture) and drift lobbies. I don't see how this is detrimental to anyone's gameplay experience.

 

[PepeMickey]

I think maybe you should watch the blanket statements you make. I was one of those modders in GT5 and I NEVER went online, at all, with or without my modded cars and the only ones I talked to about it was a select few people that also did mods. Not sure how much more of a low profile than that you want. I also know people like me, that never went online and you wouldn't even know they were modding cars unless I told you. So yea, your statement there is completely false.

What? So you represent the majority of GT players? Funny I never mentioned anybody, I'm not talking about you and your circle of friends, I'm talking about the community in general, who cares if you and some GTPers did their private lobbies and stuff, that didn't stop the vast majority of modders from going online and do their stuff. My statements were never directed at anybody here since I don't know them and I don't care what they do and how they do it, all I'm saying is that I went on public lobbies and saw modders left and right, reported them on a daily basis and I would do it on GT6 too if I had the game, end of story. What you did does not represent the entire modding community.

 

[Imari]

What? So you represent the majority of GT players? Funny I never mentioned anybody, I'm not talking about you and your circle of friends, I'm talking about the community in general, who cares if you and some GTPers did their private lobbies and stuff, that didn't stop the vast majority of modders from going online and do their stuff. My statements were never directed at anybody here since I don't know them and I don't care what they do and how they do it, all I'm saying is that I went on public lobbies and saw modders left and right, reported them on a daily basis and I would do it on GT6 too if I had the game, end of story. What you did does not represent the entire modding community.

He never claimed it did.

You made a generalisation that all modders are too stupid to maintain a low profile.

Now of course, people can be stupid with any car but with this whole movement, more and more stupid people come to play because modders aren't smart enough to maintain a low profile, they're always showing off, talking about it and that brings unwanted people to it.

@GTP_CargoRatt is a modder that is not too stupid to maintain a low profile. Statement refuted.

If you want to retcon your statement to mean that the majority of modders are too stupid to maintain a low profile, then possibly many people would agree with you.

 

[nasanu]

The only reason to use a hash is to limit data transfer: one number instead of many. However, the size of the server-side hash tables required to cover the range of possibilities in GT6 is intractable for this particular issue, as has been explained many times. Computing a hash is not necessarily trivially quick, either, especially given the encryption.

So you need to transfer more information, but again that's potentially quite a lot depending on the range of exploits you want to check for (it's not just limited to those values you can adjust in-game) - a byte per piece of car information would be a 1kb upload per check, although it should ideally be compressed. It's unknown what extra load that would put on the game servers, but anyone inspecting the network traffic the game relies on might have an idea of the relative increase it would represent.

As a programmer, what's your reckoning of the current bandwidth requirements of the client-server checks?

Why is the size of the hash table an issue? So far nobody has explained why we need to check setups and not specs? Or even if we need to check setups, why cant we just check upper and lower bounds? The notion that we would need to check every possible setup value combination just seems absurd to me.

And encryption does not effect anything really. A hash of the encrypted data is the same as a hash of the unencrypted data, it will show a modification either way.


As for data transfer, it all depends on what needs to be checked. But I really could not see it being more than a few KBs, even if it were hundreds of KBs I don't think it would be a major issue. Remember it need not impact on game servers at all since this can all be done p2p (check against host, modders could get on the network but could only play with others who have the same mods, which is fair). Plus think about things like custom liveries in Forza, those things take up not mere KBs but MBs yet the networks hold up fine.

Oh and it is not necessarily computationally expensive either to produce a hash. Actually GT6 is already... Actually no, it would be using UDP to send data so what I was about to say is wrong. But anyway when using TCP on the internet your PC or phone or whatever is producing a hash (a simple one, but still) for every TCP packet sent. It need not be a burden and it would be calculated when the console is not doing much else anyway.

 

[OdeFinn]

I do go online every couple of days for a few races and I've never seen a hybrid. Correction, I've lost to someone and thought it was a hybrid. Even in GT5 where it was much easier (plus trading) I still never saw a hybrid unless it was in my own lounge with a friend or when I started opening lobbies entitled "Bring Your Hybrids". Even then I never saw any silly, overpowered hybrids, just engine swaps, chassis swaps and stuff like that.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should allow GT6 to turn into the wild west, if at all possible it should be prevented from ever occurring online, but my point is I don't think it's quite as widespread in circuit racing rooms as people like to believe. My guess is it's mostly confined to free-for-all type rooms and drag racing rooms and private lobbies of course. It's not something, at this point anyway, that even crosses my mind when I go online to race.

no-one can trust at opponent is playing fair

For a occasional single lobby race hybrids are nothing, but when you start league race series and series length is 6months or more, you don't want spoil it because some wise a hole thinks at its nice to give some better(longer) hp power peak to car or fixing CS tires grip closer to SH or some similar small tweak what gives him around 1sec of benefits, and busting from replay is almost impossible.

 

[Johnnypenso]

For a occasional single lobby race hybrids are nothing, but when you start league race series and series length is 6months or more, you don't want spoil it because some wise a hole thinks at its nice to give some better(longer) hp power peak to car or fixing CS tires grip closer to SH or some similar small tweak what gives him around 1sec of benefits, and busting from replay is almost impossible.

Maybe there's something I don't know about it, but both of those things will affect PP even with hybriding. PP is a calculation and both of those components are in the calculation. This is one of those "what if" things that I'm not sure ever really happened, just what people think "might happen". Simultaneous restrictions on weight/PP/HP and a quick spec check in the lobby would tell you everyone was at the exact specs they are supposed to be at.

 

[OdeFinn]

Maybe there's something I don't know about it, but both of those things will affect PP even with hybriding. PP is a calculation and both of those components are in the calculation. This is one of those "what if" things that I'm not sure ever really happened, just what people think "might happen". Simultaneous restrictions on weight/PP/HP and a quick spec check in the lobby would tell you everyone was at the exact specs they are supposed to be at.

Problem comes when series regulation allows free tuning under certain PP/HP limit, so legit cars can be running values under PP or HP limits, if you have boosted car to have more HP's and then limiter cutting exceeded HP's to get it under HP limit car will have longer HP peak it shows on lobby as it was exact HP limit but under PP, same can happen on legit cars.
If limit is full power and full PP then it might work as no-one could have only other on limit, but still you can use above way to cheat, leaving your HP under the limit and also PP, there is so many alternate ways using legit parts to have those seen values (on lobby, to others) match and when hybriding you just have wicked power curve and way much better acceleration (still not enough to bust directly).

Series regulations might be possible to set way what gives hint if someone is going on modified car, but this means at you have to allow full tune up on regulated car, and that takes out any series where there is more than one type of cars used, so no more GT500 races, or any other where you want to have grid full of same scale type of cars, but not exact same car.
I believe at same type of cars series can be regulated as it is hard to go in with hacked car data, but still it leaves slightly small possibilities to go in with hacked one. Same car type races can be great, but when there is full variety of GTx00 cars is sad at you can't arrange race series with them, 'coz you can't regulate them on same level by using PP/HP/Weight limit, or maybe using weight as regulating force, but that sounds very stupid way, putting more weight to car and changing it handling character totally different due that extra payload.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Problem comes when series regulation allows free tuning under certain PP/HP limit, so legit cars can be running values under PP or HP limits, if you have boosted car to have more HP's and then limiter cutting exceeded HP's to get it under HP limit car will have longer HP peak it shows on lobby as it was exact HP limit but under PP, same can happen on legit cars.

A spec check that's already in the game will reveal anyone that is under PP or HP. The specs of cars in a series are well known. If you show up with 470HP and 550PP and I show up with 470HP and 547PP obviously I'm cheating. The ability to check this is already in the game.

Add to this that this was already a possibility without hybriding and yet it was of little concern until hybriding. You have always been able to overtune and detune to get an advantage and yet many series (and WRS) run tuning restrictions and as far as I know, cheating wasn't a big issue.

If limit is full power and full PP then it might work as no-one could have only other on limit, but still you can use above way to cheat, leaving your HP under the limit and also PP, there is so many alternate ways using legit parts to have those seen values (on lobby, to others) match and when hybriding you just have wicked power curve and way much better acceleration (still not enough to bust directly).

Same answer as above. If you detune the car you affect it's PP, you can't get around this. It will show up in a spec check.

Series regulations might be possible to set way what gives hint if someone is going on modified car, but this means at you have to allow full tune up on regulated car, and that takes out any series where there is more than one type of cars used, so no more GT500 races, or any other where you want to have grid full of same scale type of cars, but not exact same car.
I believe at same type of cars series can be regulated as it is hard to go in with hacked car data, but still it leaves slightly small possibilities to go in with hacked one. Same car type races can be great, but when there is full variety of GTx00 cars is sad at you can't arrange race series with them, 'coz you can't regulate them on same level by using PP/HP/Weight limit, or maybe using weight as regulating force, but that sounds very stupid way, putting more weight to car and changing it handling character totally different due that extra payload

Again, this was already an issue without hybriding but the new spec check allows you to put all cars on the track and then look at their specs before you start the race. Again, these specs are very specific, and if you show up with more power limiter and a flattened curve, it will show up in the PP calculation.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

What? So you represent the majority of GT players? Funny I never mentioned anybody, I'm not talking about you and your circle of friends, I'm talking about the community in general, who cares if you and some GTPers did their private lobbies and stuff, that didn't stop the vast majority of modders from going online and do their stuff. My statements were never directed at anybody here since I don't know them and I don't care what they do and how they do it, all I'm saying is that I went on public lobbies and saw modders left and right, reported them on a daily basis and I would do it on GT6 too if I had the game, end of story. What you did does not represent the entire modding community.

I never said I did, now did I? You made a blanket statement here "modders aren't smart enough to maintain a low profile, they're always showing off" grouping all modders together saying that we are not smart enough to maintain a low profile. All I said was that, that is just wrong as some of us do maintain a low profile and have no desire to go and show off or create havoc in online lobbies. Like I said, I myself did not even go online at all, in reference to the second part I have bolded in your statement.

 

[OdeFinn]

@Johnnypenso, please read my post again, I understand your point, its answering side of my point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso, please read my post again, I understand your point, its answering side of my point.

I have read it a couple of times. What exactly am I looking for?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I never said I did, now did I? You made a blanket statement here "modders aren't smart enough to maintain a low profile, they're always showing off" grouping all modders together saying that we are not smart enough to maintain a low profile. All I said was that, that is just wrong as some of us do maintain a low profile and have no desire to go and show off or create havoc in online lobbies. Like I said, I myself did not even go online at all, in reference to the second part I have bolded in your statement.

I raced nothing but hybrids online for months and no one was the wiser, so yeah, I kept a pretty low profile too And no, no unfair advantage was gained, mostly motor swaps for sounds and a few chassis swaps for crappy cars but it made them no faster than the original donor car on the chassis I swapped in.

Oops..sorry for the double

 

[OdeFinn]

@Johnnypenso when running regulated serie with comfort soft as example, and high HP limit, there is cases when adding huge HP will hurt driveability of car and you play with ballast to gain grip or just leaving tuning stage lower to keep car driveable, this type of regulations leaves places for easy hybrid usage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso when running regulated serie with comfort soft as example, and high HP limit, there is cases when adding huge HP will hurt driveability of car and you play with ballast to gain grip or just leaving tuning stage lower to keep car driveable, this type of regulations leaves places for easy hybrid usage.

Does anyone run a series with high HP and CS tires? It's already possible to do these things without hybriding. And again, a spec check will reveal any differences in total weight although not weight distribution but that has nothing to do with hybriding it's part of the base game. Still not sure what you're getting at. Maybe a specific example with numbers might help.

 

[nasanu]

few chassis swaps for crappy cars but it made them no faster than the original

So you did the swaps to keep the handling... the same? Then what was the point? I think it is pretty safe to assume you did the swaps to make bad handling cars handle better. This means you did make them faster, though I highly doubt you will have the guts to admit it.

 

[NLxAROSA]

And why could it not be done on the client?

The client can't be trusted because it could be hacked (e.g. have its checks disabled or always return 'valid'), so any validation must take place server side. Furthermore it's also not just an entry check, since memory/data can be changed on the fly when using CFW with the proper tools/utilities. And as @Famine already pointed out, this would be very challenging to do in a pure P2P architecture. To implement this would require PD to roll out a server infrastructure with locations all over the world (e.g you don't want ~150ms of latency because you're sending packets from EU to JP and back to do the checks).

 

[Youngun]

Someone pointed out to me tonight (thanks ray!) that it is now possible to see the HP and weight of other peoples cars in a lobby. That will be very helpful when trying to identify a hacker.

I have to say though, the billions^billions to the power of Billions more computations that have been talked about here seems a bit much.

As @Johnnypenso said, you are only testing one car at a time when it goes online. Not 13hundred something.

When I buy a car and take it to upgrade it, there are only a few options in each category. The garage knows instantly that I can't buy a supercharger for my Integra. Adding a few more parts to the test, like car x needs chassis x does not seem, to me, to be out of the realm of possibility.


T

The thing that people know, and why they hybrid is because Integras can be supercharged just like any k20/k24 engine. Id rather force one on it to create real cars then go under PDs rules for there own game not rules for the automotive game.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So you did the swaps to keep the handling... the same? Then what was the point? I think it is pretty safe to assume you did the swaps to make bad handling cars handle better. This means you did make them faster, though I highly doubt you will have the guts to admit it.

How about we keep the petty insults to ourselves ok? I was very forthcoming about everything I did with hybriding in GT5 (as far as the GTP rules would allow anyway). I've never made any secret of anything I did.

There are many cars in the game that are just not competitive in PP racing. 2-3-4 seconds off the pace. 69' Vette was like that as are hundreds of other cars. Just a made up example but if you take the 69' Vette, motor, drivetrain, and everything else and drop it onto an RX-7 chassis (it had to be the same wheelbase +/- an inch or two, or you couldn't do it) then you'd have the handling of the RX-7 but with the everything else Vette'. The car would not be faster than an RX-7, in fact slower because it would be hampered by a 5 speed and a torque curve that robbed you of HP in PP racing, but you'd be more competitive than with the original Vette chassis.

 

[brianwong]

So you did the swaps to keep the handling... the same? Then what was the point? I think it is pretty safe to assume you did the swaps to make bad handling cars handle better. This means you did make them faster, though I highly doubt you will have the guts to admit it.

Body has no effect on performance.

 

[OdeFinn]

@NLxAROSA, narrow point of view, ideology how car data could be checked on server end is not so hard to apply.

Everything can be hacked, there is no limit at all. Only thing is that who are capable to do so, and what kind of equipments it require.

At this point we just can pray at @FarSideX's nephew gets bored to GT6 and he'll just end hacking of this game, I know at there is nothing what would prevent him to succeed of hacking GT6.

Grin.. you old fart..

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

The client can't be trusted because it could be hacked (e.g. have its checks disabled or always return 'valid'), so any validation must take place server side. Furthermore it's also not just an entry check, since memory/data can be changed on the fly when using CFW with the proper tools/utilities. And as @Famine already pointed out, this would be very challenging to do in a pure P2P architecture. To implement this would require PD to roll out a server infrastructure with locations all over the world (e.g you don't want ~150ms of latency because you're sending packets from EU to JP and back to do the checks).

All things can be hacked including the servers, They could implement a check on the client as part of the main program. Yes it would be possible to hack that as well but it would make it more difficult and would stop it for a while as they would have to figure out how to overcome the new checks not to mention they could vary the flag in each update which would make life difficult for hackers.

 

[NLxAROSA]

@NLxAROSA, narrow point of view, ideology how car data could be checked on server end is not so hard to apply.

Server checks are extremely easy if you have the infrastructure in place (you need dedicated servers). PD would have to roll this out, and as we all know, they're not exactly known for reusing or buying existing technology or patterns, they invent everything themselves. So yes, this will be hard for them, since they never did it before. If this were any other developer, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

I for one would welcome dedicated servers for online, P2P is a very poor model (for the end user anyway, it's nice and cheap for the developer).

Everything can be hacked, there is no limit at all. Only thing is that who are capable to do so, and what kind of equipments it require.

Client has already been hacked and proven unsafe. It's quite easy to have someone mod your save with cash, cars, etc. etc., resign it and send it back to you, right now. That can be done with a few clicks of the mouse and could be done by almost anyone.

Successfully hacking and manipulating a server and making it usable for the grand public is a whole different ballgame. This can not be done by an end user with a few clicks of a mouse (since you can only control traffic between you and the server and not between you and other users like P2P). So far, companies like PunkBuster are doing a pretty good job, but it's an ongoing arms race between hackers and developers.

All things can be hacked including the servers, They could implement a check on the client as part of the main program. Yes it would be possible to hack that as well but it would make it more difficult and would stop it for a while as they would have to figure out how to overcome the new checks not to mention they could vary the flag in each update which would make life difficult for hackers.

See above. Successfully hacking/manipulating a server requires much more resources than applying a crack or modding a save game. Any security consultant will tell you that client-side security is the same as no security at all. It's like keeping the safe and the combination in the same spot. That's why every game has its copy protection cracked and cheats in place and you only see a PSN hack every other few years.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

The point was that it can be done on the client and it is done on the client in many cases. There is always a way around any measure but having tests on the client would be much better than not having them. Sure it is not 100% secure but it is much better and there are ways to make it better still and be on the client side.

To say having client side security is the same as none is far from true. No security means anyone can get in without any effort at all. To use your analogy it would be like leaving the safe door open where as it would be possible to have the key on site but hidden in a different part of the building. If that little key were to move with each seasonal update then even if someone managed to find it once they would have to start all over to find it again 2 weeks later. Most people would just give up and not bother with it. They could also invalidate the save data and possibly more extreme measures for repeat offenders up to bricking their console.

Yes hacking a server is harder than hacking a client, just like it is harder to open the safe when it is locked than it is when it is not. A determined hacker can always find a way in or around

 

[NLxAROSA]

To say having client side security is the same as none is far from true. No security means anyone can get in without any effort at all.

Wrong. Not having security still requires a hacker to know about coding, architecture, etc. However, once he is in, there is no additional knowledge needed to break any security that is present, all he has to do is observe the application behavior. Putting the key in a different place every time does nothing because in the end the application will need to retrieve the key to be able to sign/validate the data. So a hacker doesn't even have to look for it, because the application will do it for him already. E.g in the analogy: just watch the building and see where the owner puts his key. It's that simple.

Yes hacking a server is harder than hacking a client, just like it is harder to open the safe when it is locked than it is when it is not. A determined hacker can always find a way in or around

Again, wrong analogy: Client side hacking is opening a locked safe that has the code attached to it with a PostIt note. Server side hacking is breaking into a bank. Hardly the same and requires a vastly different amount of resources and people.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Wrong. Not having security still requires a hacker to know about coding, architecture, etc. However, once he is in, there is no additional knowledge needed to break any security that is present, all he has to do is observe the application behavior. Putting the key in a different place every time does nothing because in the end the application will need to retrieve the key to be able to sign/validate the data. So a hacker doesn't even have to look for it, because the application will do it for him already. E.g in the analogy: just watch the building and see where the owner puts his key. It's that simple.


Again, wrong analogy: Client side hacking is opening a locked safe that has the code attached to it with a PostIt note. Server side hacking is breaking into a bank. Hardly the same and requires a vastly different amount of resources and people.

ummm. As I said hacking a server is harder than a client but both can be hacked. Also having security on the client is better than not having any security. I don't know your background so I won't presume to know how much you may or may not know about it but just know that I have designed lots and lots of software over the last 20 years or so and I definitely know a thing or two about the way software works, how to hack it and how to add measures to make it harder to hack.

Ideally the software would be bullet proof and hacking would be impossible but that is not reality. Any measure taken to make it harder is better than no measure at all.

Your analogy of a postit note is comical but far from reality.

As for the key location, perhaps I was being to simple in my explanation for you to understand it and I am not going to bother to go deeper into it but trust me it can be done to where it is much more complicated to access than you think. Basically using the safe analogy again you would have to crack the combination to get in once, then a couple of weeks later the combination is changed forcing you to crack it again and this time the method that worked before will not work


Also with no security a hacker can hack with no coding knowledge nor any knowledge of the structure. it just takes longer.

 

[NLxAROSA]

ummm. As I said hacking a server is harder than a client but both can be hacked. Also having security on the client is better than not having any security. I don't know your background so I won't presume to know how much you may or may not know about it but just know that I have designed lots and lots of software over the last 20 years or so and I definitely know a thing or two about the way software works, how to hack it and how to add measures to make it harder to hack.

I architect, design and implement enterprise security (banking, government) software for a living, specialized in digital authentication and authorization. I am also regularly involved in security audits that involve both penetration testing as well as code analysis. Not that it matters, I'm not into pissing contests.

Ideally the software would be bullet proof and hacking would be impossible but that is not reality. Any measure taken to make it harder is better than no measure at all.

No, that's not how it works when it comes to security. Adding a bit of obfuscation is not adding extra security, it's buying extra time at most, which is not added security at all. Added security would be adding a server-side validation and having no direct traffic between clients. E.g. dedicated servers.

Your analogy of a postit note is comical but far from reality.

No, it's not, because that's exactly what you are proposing. Many of my clients make the same mistake and implement/buy 100k+ worth of software only to find out it adds nothing in terms of security in the next security audit. Actually it gives them a false sense of security, which is even more dangerous.

As for the key location, perhaps I was being to simple in my explanation for you to understand it and I am not going to bother to go deeper into it but trust me it can be done to where it is much more complicated to access than you think.

I understand it perfectly. You can't do client-side based security where you store a key (or some other credential) on or accessible by an untrusted client that needs to use that same key. Ask any security expert.

That said, we might be getting a bit off-topic. But I'm quite happy to chat elsewhere. 👍

 

[FarSideX]

@nasanu, wild guess at having some clue of @FarSideX capabilities, hacking from early 80's and some years mental training on around millenium, I'm just wondering why using his skills on GT6

You are guessing correctly. As to why, long story. But in short I have not worked on games in a long, long time, I tinkered with COD for a bit mostly to give me something to do to brush up my OOP with. Most the stuff I have been doing has been with embedded systems. But the COD community is disgusting so I stopped.
I have always been a fan of the GT series, a friend stated that people had been trying unsuccessfully to hybrid for some time. I took a look and just over an hour later I had my first hybrid. So I guess it was because I a) needed something to keep up my OOP skills with b) boredom and c) a little urging from friends. If you know me (and it almost seems like you do) telling me something isn't possible is just motivation to prove that wrong.
I am surprised you remember the name from back then, I rarely bump into anyone any more from those days. Add to that people are using my name, so I tagged an 'X' on the end when OSX was first released.
And I am getting bored of it, PD better counter soon.
I am a little curious as to who are/were though. Did you know me personally or just through my work back then? You mentioned 2600 and later CCing, that wasn't something I did much of due to my location, other than making a tool for obtaining CCs by exploiting Compuserve's dial ups.
Edit: reread your post thought you meant 2600Hz not baud I started with 110 baud, later the 300 baud Pocket Modem was so awesome we could push it to 450 reliably and 600 not so reliably.

One thing is for sure, you're no programmer.

Look, when I say few parts, I mean few parts for a program or database. It means not hundreds of thousands or millions. And the very reason you use a hash is to avoid large calculations. A hash is a long list of stuff reduced to a single number. If anything in that list changes the final number changes. It is perfect for checking car specs.

If you think there is a problem with it then I'd like to hear your explanation. What you have said so far is not valid and frankly does not make sense.

Is it a shame you feel attacking a person is a valid form of expressing your augments. Reminds me of my youth.

Keep saying parts over and over all you like, I get it, I know that is what you are thinking. But I am not referring to a number of parts, I was referring to the number of valid combinations of those parts. You do not seem to be grasping that important difference. And using a hash to check is only useful if the number of available hashes far exceeds the number of valid hashes. As I demonstrated the number of possible valid hashes far exceeds any usable sized hash.

Just because you can not understand the basis of someone's argument does not invalidate it.

The biggest factor in determining how long or how hard it would be is the way the file is structured. I can't be specific because I do not know that info and really have no desire to look into it.

I am a software designer and have did a bit of game programming in the past and I can assure you that given the correct file structure a test that could detect any modification beyond what is allowed in game would not take anywhere near a lifetime, not even the lifetime of a fly. more like a few seconds up to possibly a minute.

Again the file structure is the key as is how the file is used by the system. Assuming a good design that considered this type of problem in advance the test would be pretty fast and it would not have to do a complete test on all the cars. Of course no matter what is done there is always a possibility of hacking. From a programming POV you just have to make it difficult to do and then address hacks as they arise.

I believe having a single hacked car in your garage is valid grounds for not allowing your profile to play online at all. Of course ideally if you get rid of the hacked cars you should be allowed online again but if not then so be it.

There really is no place for using hacked cars online and no excuse for it

I think you are referring to doing a SQL lookup of the car's options and using parent tables to check for validity. No, the data is not arranged that way. It is an encrypted sqlite database but there are no tables linking the parts back to the possible cars, the relationship is one way. Adding the tables required is possible but would be a data size issue given the level of detail GT6 uses. It was probably a decision that had to be made at one point in development concerning size/speed vs security. Rebuilding the dbase to add that functionally on the server only (not clients due to size/speed) would be a far better solution than what the hash people are calling for but does not solve the issue that the client only sends what it wants to send to the server.