The H4CK3RZ Team

This is a team of all the coders and pro coders to come together and make the best hacks ever. We create programs to hack and control computers over rednet or other ways. Our current project is ProVirus v4

We have a 1.2.3 server without whitelist using this ip:
75.1.215.38:25565
(Sorry, outdated link)

To join, post your IGN here.

Users:				 Rank:

xXm0dzXx				 Owner

This is a side-team of NeXuS, you can find us near the NeXuS building in our server or send me a email like this:

/email send xXm0dzXx H4CK3RZ

in the chat.

If you don't know LUA, I could teach you

Could I join? ;D

Could I join m0dz? IGN: PaymentOption

PaymentOption, on 08 May 2012 - 04:02 AM said:

Could I join m0dz? IGN: PaymentOption

Your already in the server so….. ok :)/>/>

Watch this video of a guy hacking an 8-Bit redstone lock with ComputerCraft. 256 different combinations!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg5OUuDTKeo&feature=BFa&list=PL7E45ED1C154B5197

Can just imagine people making a hacker group against this..

I made a startup stealer from the H4CK3RZ team.

http://pastebin.com/6iKVcpEN

Put it in disk/startup and insert that disk into someone's PC to steal their programs, or bypass the startup.

*rubs face*
The only way that this would be possible is through rom mods. Example; my startup script is impenetrable by any means that a player would possess. Rednet hacking is not possible unless you have a server running on my computer, which requires you to login, which requires you to know my password, because it's not crackable within the means of computercraft (or quick paste programs for that matter). Your startup stealer can't steal a startup that it can't access. When you realize all of these things you realize that computercraft lacks a dimension of realism unobtained so far. In my personal opinion I am DISAPPOINTED that 1.4 brought new turtles. I was hoping for more computer integration that would hopefully open a new exploit. You're just going to have to wait until 1.5 to really do anything prestigious at this point. If not 1.6+.
And if anybody is interested in a defense against these guys and people who know what we know;
http://pastebin.com/fFgGgGJe the startup login code
http://pastebin.com/BNkFCXDV the door code that accompanies it

IGN:jcc10

May I please join?

(I wont CTL+T anything)

What a great idea.!
Could I join, I have a limited knowledge of lua, but you said that you can teach.
I know java, C++ (not fully), and html (duh).
IGN: Emilgardis

1.2.3 server? O_o

KingMachine, on 27 July 2012 - 05:38 AM said:

*rubs face*
The only way that this would be possible is through rom mods. Example; my startup script is impenetrable by any means that a player would possess. Rednet hacking is not possible unless you have a server running on my computer, which requires you to login, which requires you to know my password, because it's not crackable within the means of computercraft (or quick paste programs for that matter). Your startup stealer can't steal a startup that it can't access. When you realize all of these things you realize that computercraft lacks a dimension of realism unobtained so far. In my personal opinion I am DISAPPOINTED that 1.4 brought new turtles. I was hoping for more computer integration that would hopefully open a new exploit. You're just going to have to wait until 1.5 to really do anything prestigious at this point. If not 1.6+.
And if anybody is interested in a defense against these guys and people who know what we know;
http://pastebin.com/fFgGgGJe the startup login code
http://pastebin.com/BNkFCXDV the door code that accompanies it

How does this protect against a disk with a startup file containing

print("open terminal")

or am I missing something.

BigSHinyToys, on 29 July 2012 - 01:07 PM said:

KingMachine, on 27 July 2012 - 05:38 AM said:

*rubs face*
The only way that this would be possible is through rom mods. Example; my startup script is impenetrable by any means that a player would possess. Rednet hacking is not possible unless you have a server running on my computer, which requires you to login, which requires you to know my password, because it's not crackable within the means of computercraft (or quick paste programs for that matter). Your startup stealer can't steal a startup that it can't access. When you realize all of these things you realize that computercraft lacks a dimension of realism unobtained so far. In my personal opinion I am DISAPPOINTED that 1.4 brought new turtles. I was hoping for more computer integration that would hopefully open a new exploit. You're just going to have to wait until 1.5 to really do anything prestigious at this point. If not 1.6+.
And if anybody is interested in a defense against these guys and people who know what we know;
http://pastebin.com/fFgGgGJe the startup login code
http://pastebin.com/BNkFCXDV the door code that accompanies it

How does this protect against a disk with a startup file containing

print("open terminal")

or am I missing something.

You don't need a print :ph34r:/>/>

Best protection imo is have the PW Input PC not directly next to the door and have it send to another PC that opens the door over rednet
It just sends the input PW and the other PC checks it. Done

Pinkishu, on 29 July 2012 - 01:17 PM said:

You don't need a print :ph34r:/>/>

Best protection imo is have the PW Input PC not directly next to the door and have it send to another PC that opens the door over rednet
It just sends the input PW and the other PC checks it. Done

I know it just feels better to ave the program "do something" as you said all you need is for startup to exist on a disk and all locks are by passable.

also while your idea would slow me down some what all i would need to do is change rednet.send() to rednet.broadacst() and wait for the user to open the door then I have there password and user. yes you could encrypt it but all i would need to do is broadcast the encrypted and the door would decrypt it.

BigSHinyToys. The defense for the disk drive is putting it out of reach of other players. There are a multitude of ways to do this.

KingMachine, on 29 July 2012 - 03:07 PM said:

BigSHinyToys. The defense for the disk drive is putting it out of reach of other players. There are a multitude of ways to do this.

I see…

BigSHinyToys, on 29 July 2012 - 01:38 PM said:

Pinkishu, on 29 July 2012 - 01:17 PM said:

You don't need a print :ph34r:/>/>

Best protection imo is have the PW Input PC not directly next to the door and have it send to another PC that opens the door over rednet
It just sends the input PW and the other PC checks it. Done

I know it just feels better to ave the program "do something" as you said all you need is for startup to exist on a disk and all locks are by passable.

also while your idea would slow me down some what all i would need to do is change rednet.send() to rednet.broadacst() and wait for the user to open the door then I have there password and user. yes you could encrypt it but all i would need to do is broadcast the encrypted and the door would decrypt it.

Heh well ofc you should still make sure to have the right program :)/>/> Else you wouldn't even need rednet.broadcast, some kinda file logger would do even

Pinkishu, on 29 July 2012 - 03:22 PM said:

Heh well ofc you should still make sure to have the right program :)/>/> Else you wouldn't even need rednet.broadcast, some kinda file logger would do even

well yes you could file log on the target PC but this leaves evidence one small change is very hard to notice.Most likely i would put a second rednet.send(MyPcID,string) instead of broadcasting as this would bring attention. but this is small changes that are not noticeable a new file called "Ha-Ha-loging_your_pass" would give it away a little bit lol XD

then have a logger on the receiving PC that stores all the received packets in files and allows you to rebroadcast them in order at the right time spacing ect….

but I'm just sneeky :ph34r:/>/>

Wait. So a lock that sends a message back to a server, which authenticates the password then sends back a code, is actually the best setup?

tiin57, on 29 July 2012 - 04:28 PM said:

Wait. So a lock that sends a message back to a server, which authenticates the password then sends back a code, is actually the best setup?

sorta
a computer that sends the user / pass via rednet.send() to a server and then the sever produces a Redstone signal that is inverted to the door and it opens (must be inverted or the door can be opened by a Redstone torch / when sever reset)

yes that would be good option

If you can place a disk drive next to a computer, you can also destroy the computer or the door with your pickaxe. So no "hacking" is necessary :ph34r:/>/>

Wired rednet :ph34r:/>/>

One security measure which I use, and haven't seen mentioned here, is an authenticator. Put your password-checking computer (Controller) in a protected area and only allow it to send messages to (and process from) two computer IDs. Do your best to ensure that nobody has physical access to this computer. Obviously, you must then have an accessible computer (Gate) with one of the approved IDs with which to communicate with the remote, protected, Controller. Just open a Lua interpreter and type

rednet.send(Controller_ID, password)

, this ensures that nobody has tampered with your rednet signals to steal your password. Now for the authenticator. You must carry a single computer at all times to act as your Authenticator, it has the other approved ID. When you want to access a protected area, place it and activate it so that it can send a response to the Controller to let it know that it is present. When the Controller receives your password, it should check for the presence of the Authenticator before finally permitting access to your protected zone. Bonus points if you tokenize your authentication

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

Pinkishu, on 29 July 2012 - 05:22 PM said:

Wired rednet :ph34r:/>/>

Redpower2 is pretty badass for that. I'm currently designing my project around wired rednet for part of the project and then wireless for the administration side.

BigSHinyToys, on 30 July 2012 - 03:16 PM said:

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But… I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

SavinaRoja, on 30 July 2012 - 06:22 PM said:

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But… I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

I've discovered the balance in zone protection. An area of land for the government, unalterable by any player, an area of land only alterable by the owning player. Chests and doors being accessed? Free game. This allows computers to work their magic without being disk drived and without the doors being removed.

SavinaRoja, on 30 July 2012 - 06:22 PM said:

BigSHinyToys, on 30 July 2012 - 03:16 PM said:

I find it interesting how there is two stated for protection

0 people can break / place blocks (in witch case break the door ignore the lock)

1 people can't break / place blocks (in witch case a very simple lock is all you need)

complicating the lock really makes it no more secure. just a odd observation

I don't play on servers that use zone permissions (nor would I wish to, it doesn't feel right). In my mind, nothing is ever fully secure against a hostile player as most determined enemies can eventually overcome all protections. But… I like to close as many insecurities as possible, and ultimately it does prevent some forms of subterfuges. To this end, I employ extensive tesla coil systems within and surrounding any location I wish to secure. You aren't limited to just passive security techniques.

Something can be so secure.. The players must manage their own entry ways. It's not all server side. You can't break the World Guard areas but you can get into a players "area" if you are provided an entry way. If you managed your plot so people couldn't get in then maybe they won't be able to get in? (Redundant I know, but its the truth)

How does zone protection interact with turtles doing things?

ChunLing, on 03 August 2012 - 09:16 PM said:

How does zone protection interact with turtles doing things?

the bukkit port simulates the user using a tool or block modifications for permissions

IGN: infinikiller64
oh god i love turtle warfare, gps hacking, remote controlling, and messing with unprotected rendet programs
for the lulz

In theory, if you had a universal Rednet networking system you could hack remote computers if:
1. You convinced the victim to download a file
2. You send empty parameters in a message to a server to bring it down with errors
3. If someone broadcasts a message to be able to connect to a network and you calculate their relative position and bomb them with turtles