wire_expression2_concmd_whitelist (filters for concmd)

[-HP-]

Hi there, I'm some people!

I'd like a blacklist too, because with a whitelist you'd have to constantly add new commands when somone needs them. It's not that hard, can't you just do it?

Also, is the white/blacklist clientside or serverside?

[TomyLobo]

I moved this thread to e2 development.

@HP: You don't need to add new commands when someone needs them but when YOU need them






Documentation of the concmd blocking mechanism follows:

If wire_expression2_concmd is 0, everything is blocked.
Otherwise, if wire_expression2_concmd_whitelist is empty, everything is allowed.
Otherwise, all comma-separated parts of wire_expression2_concmd_whitelist are examined:
If any of them matches the start of the command, it passes, otherwise it is blocked.
The whitelist entries have to match word-wise.

Example matches:
"say" matches "say hello" but not "say_team"
"ulx kick" would match "ulx kick Mingebag" but not "ulx kickban Mingebag"

All console variables related to blocking are on the client.

[Nikita]

I know something worse than kill, quit and disconnect.
-snip-
In a loop.

Imagine what happens to your pc >=D

[TomyLobo]

don't post such things, Nikita

but pretty much proving my point in favour of a whitelist, that you cannot ever know all exploitable commands.
I wasn't even aware of these

[Drunkie]

don't post such things, Nikita

but pretty much proving my point in favour of a whitelist, that you cannot ever know all exploitable commands.
I wasn't even aware of these

I agree with the whitelist idea, a black list cant cover all of the exploitable commands effectively.

[ColinSSX]

don't post such things, Nikita

but pretty much proving my point in favour of a whitelist, that you cannot ever know all exploitable commands.
I wasn't even aware of these

I see your point, go with only the whitelist then.

I still recommend making wire_expression2_concmd 2 follow the whitelist and leaving wire_expression2_concmd 1 alone.

[TomyLobo]

wire_expression2_concmd 0
=> allow nothing

wire_expression2_concmd 1
wire_expression2_concmd_whitelist ""
=> allow everything (=previous wire_expression2_concmd 1 behaviour)

wire_expression2_concmd 1
wire_expression2_concmd_whitelist say
=> allow only "say"

I forgot to mention that. I assumed people read SVN log messages...

[Nikita]

Ah sorry bout that. Looks like admins will finally feel somewhat safe and allow concmds.

Advent of admin bots?

Hey that's an idea. Why not make a possible exception for admin? Though then they'd still be tricked into stuff then... Actually, never mind. I don't want some ping-nazi chip banning me from a nice server :P

Having concmd more common would give some interesting results. A gravity/friction randomiser chip for example. Or chatbots. Lots and lots of chatbots.

[TomyLobo]

Ah sorry bout that. Looks like admins will finally feel somewhat safe and allow concmds.

Advent of admin bots?

Hey that's an idea. Why not make a possible exception for admin? Though then they'd still be tricked into stuff then... Actually, never mind. I don't want some ping-nazi chip banning me from a nice server :P

Having concmd more common would give some interesting results. A gravity/friction randomiser chip for example. Or chatbots. Lots and lots of chatbots.

admins? this is a CLIENT-SIDE option
YOU can turn it on for YOUR client
the admin has no say in this.

[Nikita]

Hmm. I should learn to read.