RAZBAM malicious code

[mosshunt]

Now we have the proof of module sabotage, and clearly ED know about it (I did so they must have).

What has happened is illegal under the consumer protection act, I 'am concerned that the products I have brought all have similar malicious code built into them, and yes under UK law that is malicious code.

What is even more concerning and subject to my complaint, is that ED themselves advise to bypass AV detection to allow the third party malicious code to run on our machines.

I want to know what measures ED are taking to ensure there products are fit for purpose and do not contain any malicious code? My licence is from ED not RB so I frankly do not care about the legal issue being an excuse.

[Troll Norris]

Send those files to your antivirus provider to test. They will find nothing. Your statement is pure demagogy.

[bignewy]

Originally posted by mosshunt:

Now we have the proof of module sabotage, and clearly ED know about it (I did so they must have).

What has happened is illegal under the consumer protection act, I 'am concerned that the products I have brought all have similar malicious code built into them, and yes under UK law that is malicious code.

What is even more concerning and subject to my complaint, is that ED themselves advise to bypass AV detection to allow the third party malicious code to run on our machines.

I want to know what measures ED are taking to ensure there products are fit for purpose and do not contain any malicious code? My licence is from ED not RB so I frankly do not care about the legal issue being an excuse.

RAZBAM radar on the F-15E was an issue created by time and date. It was fixed by Eagle Dynamics.

Many antivirus have problems with the protection used in DCS for some files, it has nothing to do with RAZBAM modules alone, this can happen for any.

Over protective antivirus create performance issues and flag false positives.
Send any file you think is a problem to your antivirus provider for checking.

thank you

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

there's lots of things to be unhappy about the current "situation" and/or aspects of some of the players involved but we need to be reasonable and realistic here.

Yes, some risk is present when downloading "stuff" but attacks are more likely to come from mods than modules.

There is advice from some to remove DCS directories from AV but the responsibility lies on the user to actually do this/or not.

im not currently convinced that the code "trap" by a Razbam contractor was "dangerous" especially when all parties (afaik) were aware of it.

*any* game dev has the capability to do "bad" things but in a game like DCS, with all its pros and cons, isnt likely to.

i wouldnt put DCS on any pc that had any NATO top secret plans present but thats hardly likely.

[mosshunt]

Malicious code is malicious code its got nothing to do with NATO or any security.

ED need to provide a statement as to how they are going to prevent subcontractors installing malicious code into products they sell on Steam and via their own platform.

[spike2071]

What proof? Genuinely asking.

[mosshunt]

The coder for the radar has publicly admitted he did it as he was not being paid by RB, this is an absolute massive failure on behalf of ED, whom are ultimately responsible for the product.

There is a screenshot of this on ED forums but you can get it off DC yourself.

And yes thanks for fixing the radar ED, but you need to make sure that this can not happen again. Having abandonware modules is bad enough.

[stburr91]

It sounds like the OP is saying that creating code that expires on a time, and date is in violation of the consumer protection act in the UK. The OP also seems to deem this as "malicious code".

I don't know if either of those views are true, but they seem like valid concerns.

[spike2071]

Originally posted by mosshunt:

The coder for the radar has publicly admitted he did it as he was not being paid by RB, this is an absolute massive failure on behalf of ED, whom are ultimately responsible for the product.

There is a screenshot of this on ED forums but you can get it off DC yourself.

And yes thanks for fixing the radar ED, but you need to make sure that this can not happen again. Having abandonware modules is bad enough.

They were made aware of the issue and fixed it in the next patch. It was essentially a bug. It didn't intentionally brick the system, steal passwords, etc.

But you can easily test your "multiple modules have malicious code" concerns yourself. Roll back to a build from a year or two ago and see if all the modules still work. If modules don't work because they weren't updated with a "new timebomb date" or whatever, then you have proof that multiple modules have "malicious" code built into them.

Or just go Offline, set your computer's date to a year or two in the future, and see if anything breaks. Not sure if that would work on Steam (I don't think you can really go Offline on Steam), but it should work on Standalone.

I'm curious to know the results.

I do remember back in 2020 that ED mentioned about 5% of the playerbase still played on versions 1.5 or 1.2, which were several years old at that point. I don't recall anyone complaining that their modules stopped working. I know I played on an older build for about 6 months back at that time because the most recent build had some serious flaws. I never had an issue with modules that stopped working on the 6-month-older build.

[Delta Dagger]

Originally posted by stburr91:

It sounds like the OP is saying that creating code that expires on a time, and date is in violation of the consumer protection act in the UK. The OP also seems to deem this as "malicious code".

I don't know if either of those views are true, but they seem like valid concerns.

That would be up for a court to decide on whether it's malicious. I'm not familiar with UK Law, so maybe it's a clear breach? I can't say with certainty. But, the funny thing is that none of these 'abuses' almost ever see court dates unless it's widespread enough.

The issue was addressed, though. It wasn't done out of a desire to harm consumers, but rather to ensure RB paid that developer.

[stburr91]

Originally posted by MiG-21bis Fishbed-L:

Originally posted by stburr91:

It sounds like the OP is saying that creating code that expires on a time, and date is in violation of the consumer protection act in the UK. The OP also seems to deem this as "malicious code".

I don't know if either of those views are true, but they seem like valid concerns.

That would be up for a court to decide on whether it's malicious. I'm not familiar with UK Law, so maybe it's a clear breach? I can't say with certainty. But, the funny thing is that none of these 'abuses' almost ever see court dates unless it's widespread enough.

The issue was addressed, though. It wasn't done out of a desire to harm consumers, but rather to ensure RB paid that developer.

If the code was written to fail at a certain date, I guess it could violate some consumer protections laws, but as you say, that would be for a court to decide.

[Delta Dagger]

Originally posted by stburr91:

Originally posted by MiG-21bis Fishbed-L:

That would be up for a court to decide on whether it's malicious. I'm not familiar with UK Law, so maybe it's a clear breach? I can't say with certainty. But, the funny thing is that none of these 'abuses' almost ever see court dates unless it's widespread enough.

The issue was addressed, though. It wasn't done out of a desire to harm consumers, but rather to ensure RB paid that developer.

If the code was written to fail at a certain date, I guess it could violate some consumer protections laws, but as you say, that would be for a court to decide.

Yeah, absolutely. It's not some outside chance, either. But, alas, we aren't lawyers, I'm betting.

[sergio.e.samayoa]

Malicious code? Jezz!
Did such "malicious code" destroyed your disk, installed ransom, stolen your bank's password or taken one of your kidneys?

I wonder why some people do a big deal about a freaking computer GAME.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

I think it's good to be aware of and discuss this issue as although mostly harmless in this case does open up the thought, rightly or wrongly, about the ease (or not) that a truly malicious piece of code could be implemented by a disgruntled party.

it's interesting but not yet pitchfork worthy imho.

[Troll Norris]

It mostly looks like expiration of digital sign. Because for myself it happened suddenly in the middle of day after no patch or definition update.

[shittiest offlane teammate]

Originally posted by mosshunt:

Now we have the proof of module sabotage, and clearly ED know about it (I did so they must have).

What has happened is illegal under the consumer protection act, I 'am concerned that the products I have brought all have similar malicious code built into them, and yes under UK law that is malicious code.

What is even more concerning and subject to my complaint, is that ED themselves advise to bypass AV detection to allow the third party malicious code to run on our machines.

I want to know what measures ED are taking to ensure there products are fit for purpose and do not contain any malicious code? My licence is from ED not RB so I frankly do not care about the legal issue being an excuse.

No wonder there was a point my antivirus has blocked my F15E files. Im using Mcafee. Is it dangerous to keep the F15 files in my com?