These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I want the Ingame Browser back!!!

First post
Author
Lexia Nova
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2017-04-05 13:19:07 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
You COULD get a second monitor, window eve, and not even have to bother alt tabbing.


I mean because making aspects of the game more engaging and fun is too much right? ~Get a second monitor and watch something else!
Ah you cant make this stuff up Lol
Cade Windstalker
#42 - 2017-04-05 13:48:37 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Yeah, the feeling is mutual. I normally have respect for you too but .........................

If those applications were indeed client side then I should be able to access them without using CCP's server. Now I agree there was a setting in the client that allowed players to load their own music into the Jukebox but that was just a client side playlist for an application that could only be accessed in the game on CCP's server.

Same as the IGB, an application that could only be accessed in the game on CCP's server. Both of those applications had to 'Talk' to the server whenever the client activated them.


That doesn't mean these aren't client-side applications. Client-side means the application runs entirely on your local machine. The Eve Online client is, believe it or not, also a Client-side application. That doesn't mean it doesn't authenticate or something similar through CCP's servers, it means it runs on your local machine. In the case of the client what it's doing is rendering the game and presenting information taken from CCP's servers, but it's still a client-side app because everything that it's intended to do (graphics, ect) it does on your local machine. All the assets, like the music for the Jukebox, are also stored on your local machine. An example of a server-side app would be these forums, they don't run at all on your local machine, the page state and background processing are done entirely on a remote server, your computer only displays the final result.

The reason you couldn't run those applications without them "talking" to CCP's servers was because they were designed to run only inside the Eve client and that has to authenticate through CCP's server. They still both run entirely locally, they don't offload anything they do to be processed on a remote server.

For reference you can still find the Eve sound files in the client if you are so inclined. They've always been there in one form or another, the custom audio folder for the old jukebox was just uncompressed and available for players to put things in without the client freaking out about checksums and unauthorized files.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As for the Evelopedia, you are way off base on that. After Evelopedia was activated, Dev's spent very little time with it. The task to keep it updated went to ISD and then later to the playerbase. The main 'out of date' aspect of Evelopedia was the in-game Item Data Base which never got updated because CCP locked those pages and just didn't care about it, just like every other content they've placed within the game. In fact, quite a few of us players had a conversation with CCP here in the forums to get the Epic Arc page unlocked so we could edit and add info to it that CCP forgot to include. The same goes for other pages as well.

Obviously everything is tied in with CCP's server in one way or another, even these forums are tied in with it even though it's a web page on the internet. Why do you think there's no more mega threads allowed on the forums ?
Definitely isn't due to 5 different Dev teams having to spend time updating the forums.


DMC


Some of the pages on the Evelopedia were player and ISD editable, sure, but stuff like the item tables (a substantial fraction of the info on there) were things the devs had to deal with. The same goes for stuff like that Epic Arc page you wanted unlocked, that whole discussion took dev time. Someone at CCP had to oversee the whole ISD/Player administration to deal with vandalism, access rights, and some other stuff that I honestly forget. It's been ages since I tried to do anything with Evelopedia, mostly I remember it being quite locked down for a Wiki.

The forums are being replaced because they run onold and outdated forum software, CCP is not a company that develops or has an interest in developing forum software, and if this is running on what I think it's running on their options in terms of upgrades are pretty much limited to "something not this".
Nicola Romanoff
United Stellar Federation
The Rogue University
#43 - 2017-04-05 14:23:38 UTC
The only thing I used the IGB for was setting routes in dotlan, it was a beautifully easy way to nagivate around and you cannot do that anymore (unless there is another way to do it?)
Cade Windstalker
#44 - 2017-04-05 14:38:24 UTC
Nicola Romanoff wrote:
The only thing I used the IGB for was setting routes in dotlan, it was a beautifully easy way to nagivate around and you cannot do that anymore (unless there is another way to do it?)


Log in to Dotlan and give it the relevant API access and it can set routes (or at least it should be able to assuming the site owner has implemented the relevant API calls). The functionality exists in the Eve API certainly.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#45 - 2017-04-05 15:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vortexo VonBrenner
Chris Wagi wrote:
I want back the ingame Browser!!!

its a mess to ALT-Tab around the screen!!!


That ship has sailed. It would seem highly unlikely that would ever happen. I have found Overwolf works quite well for EvE.


edit: Overwolf

Works very well for EvE.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2017-04-05 19:28:17 UTC
Isn't this one of those redundant threads that needs to be locked?

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2017-04-05 19:31:34 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The forums are being replaced because they run onold and outdated forum software, CCP is not a company that develops or has an interest in developing forum software, and if this is running on what I think it's running on their options in terms of upgrades are pretty much limited to "something not this".


I have been begging them to switch to "something not this" since they put "this" into place.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#48 - 2017-04-05 20:53:58 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
And for those who say the IGB allowed your computer to be susceptible to malicious code, I say get a better security program for your computer.

As someone that actually does understand something about ITSec, your advice is utter bullshit at best and it doesn't fix anything about the underlying problem.

The utter bullshit around here in almost every thread is constantly coming from you. As I said before, I never had any security problems at all when using the IGB and I used it quite extensively when logged into the game. Please post links to forum threads where players claimed their computers were infected by malicious content due to using the IGB.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Seems a lot of people keep saying that and in my 8+ years of playing this game I've never heard of anyone contracting a virus or having a security breach on their computers due to the IGB.

I think CCP removed it for the same reason they removed the in-game jukebox and for the same reason they removed the Evelopedia and for the same reason they're removing these forums.

It's all about downsizing their server's expenditures.


DMC


I have, there used to be a certain class of Jita spammer (probably still is for all I know) that would spam links to malicious websites. There were never very many of them and they tended to get perma-banned pretty quickly, but they definitely existed.

Stuff like the IGB, Jukebox, and Evelopedia were removed not because of serve expense but because of the cost in dev time. All of these things suck fairly large amounts of dev time to keep curated and working relative to their benefit to the community. The Jukebox and IGB are both client side, they cost zero server time. The Evelopedia doesn't cost nearly as much in server resources as you might think, being a static website, it was just a mess for CCP to keep up to date and curated.

Oh and as for the idea that you can just "get a better security program" just no, that's not how any of this works. The whole point of a vulnerability is that it gets someone around your firewall and your anti-virus, and if the attacker is remotely clever about it they can then disable or hobble them so whatever they've done won't be detected. Assuming they've even done something, rather than just running some malicious code in the IGB without actually installing anything permanent. It can just sit there and scrape passwords or whatever and nothing will show up on your next virus scan.

The idea that something as old and held together with duct tape as the IGB could have its security concerns removed just by running AV software is ridiculous.

Another great example of utter bullshit. There was very little Dev time spent on the Jukebox, the IGB and Evelopedia after they were implemented. Also none of those applications were client side, only the control settings for those applications were client side.

As for players computers being infected by malicious content due to the IGB, please post links to examples of that actually happening to Eve Players. I've been an active member of these forums for almost 8 years and I've never once seen any thread claiming that issue.

Some of you people are really quite gullible and will believe anything CCP says. Guess you don't realize the age old meme of Soon™ actually pertains to Dev's and their claims here in Eve.


DMC


It's fairly obvious that you don't understand anything at all about software engineering, so instead of talking about things you have zero clue about, why don't you just shut up?

It gets dangerous when people like you "educate" others about IT-security. That makes the job of the people that actually do have a clue about IT-security harder, because we have to set the record straight and educate people about all the bullshit they believe in because of people like you.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2017-04-05 23:54:09 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:

It's fairly obvious that you don't understand anything at all about software engineering, so instead of talking about things you have zero clue about, why don't you just shut up?

It gets dangerous when people like you "educate" others about IT-security. That makes the job of the people that actually do have a clue about IT-security harder, because we have to set the record straight and educate people about all the bullshit they believe in because of people like you.

What's dangerous is people like you running around shooting off your mouth like Chicken Little saying 'The Sky Is Falling', either produce some proof to back up your claim that the IGB allowed player computers to become infected by malicious content or take your own advice and STFU.

By the way, doesn't matter what you say your profession is, if you can't prove it to be true then it's just a bunch of BS.


DMC
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#50 - 2017-04-06 00:40:37 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:


I've played for five years on a laptop while sitting on my couch. Now I need to buy multiple monitors to play properly, just because CCP didn't want to patch the in game browser? Last I checked it's hard to set up multiple monitors in front of me on a couch.


Ever upgraded an ingame browser?


Being a developer for EVE online isn't my job, so no. If I told my boss I was going to scrap a system in my company instead of replacing it with something better, he'd be less than happy, to say the least.
Ranzabar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2017-04-06 00:46:05 UTC
Can we tie it down nice and tight? If it leaks me out and lets ads or worse in, No. I don't see the upside with the in-game browser

Abide

Oraac Ensor
#52 - 2017-04-06 01:08:30 UTC
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Chris Wagi wrote:
I want back the ingame Browser!!!

its a mess to ALT-Tab around the screen!!!


That ship has sailed. It would seem highly unlikely that would ever happen. I have found Overwolf works quite well for EvE.


edit: Overwolf

Works very well for EvE.

I tried Overwolf immediately after the IGB was removed.

It was horrible.

Very cumbersome to use and also plastered a gigantic yellow frame counter at top left of my screen which I could find no way of removing.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2017-04-06 01:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Some of you people are really quite gullible and will believe anything CCP says. Guess you don't realize the age old meme of Soon™ actually pertains to Dev's and their claims here in Eve.


DMC

The IGB used a version of Chromium 3, modified specifically to work in the client. It wasn't trivial to update it (can't find that quote at the moment).

So there were more than just security issues. However on the security vulnerabilities, look through this list:

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1224/product_id-15031/opec-1/Google-Chrome.html

Keeping software patched is important for security, even if you don't have direct stats on the number of infections/etc. that may have resulted from IGB use.

However, there was also the fact that most people never used the IGB:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6271564#post6271564

and that much of the functionality it was used for was replaced by CREST:

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/bidding-farewell-to-the-in-game-browser/

When you look at the performance of the IGB compared to more modern browsers:

https://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1058007
https://www.reddit.com/r/evetech/comments/2njvtn/ingame_browser_and_javascript_xpost_from_reve/

Not only in terms of speed, but also functionality it was a piece of bespoke crap.

Unfortunately, possibly because of its poor performance and vulnerabilities, not enough people used it to cause CCP to care.

For one, I'm glad they have left browser development up to companies that develop browsers and instead, focus on the game.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Cade Windstalker
#54 - 2017-04-06 02:31:09 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
What's dangerous is people like you running around shooting off your mouth like Chicken Little saying 'The Sky Is Falling', either produce some proof to back up your claim that the IGB allowed player computers to become infected by malicious content or take your own advice and STFU.

By the way, doesn't matter what you say your profession is, if you can't prove it to be true then it's just a bunch of BS.


DMC


No one is shooting their mouth off here, we're trying to educate you on why old and outdated web-browsers are the equivalent of taking all the locks off your doors and windows at home. Sure, you might not get robbed, but you've just made yourself a *much* easier target for it.

Since none of us have the IGB in front of us to pen-test for your amusement you're going to have to trust a bit of outside knowledge here, because it's highly unlikely even if the IGB *did* result directly in someone's account getting compromised that they would be aware of what caused it or that CCP would publicize the fact. Combine that with the prohibition against talking about support tickets and it's highly unlikely that you'll find a direct link between a compromised account and the IGB.

Shae has about the closest you're going to get to proof in that they actually remember what the core of the IGB was made from. To add a bit to what they've written according to the relevant wiki article Chromium 3 was release 28 May 2009. That puts it at around the same time as Internet Explorer 7.

That means it's vulnerable to [just about every single vulnerability listed on CVE Details with a Score of 9 or greater](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=1224&product_id=15031&version_id=&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=1&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=9&cvssscoremax=0&year=0&month=0&cweid=0&order=1&trc=59&sha=c8c867bdf88d1afa3b2f9977dd88fbfd8f8a44bb) of which all but one use the words "Arbitrary Code" to describe what they could be used for.

That essentially means that if I can exploit that vulnerability through your machine I can do just about anything I want to with it, at which point your Eve password is the least of your worries, I can get that, anything in your email like bank info and credit cards, add your machine to a bot net, and all sorts of other fun things.

Do you get that this isn't BS, this isn't rampant paranoia, and this isn't anyone making stuff up to justify a decision. I'm sure plenty of people at CCP were sad to see the IGB go, but I doubt any of them wanted to be in charge of trying to keep the damned thing up to date either.

"Piece of bespoke crap" pretty much sums it up.
Elmund Egivand
Sebestacny Circle
#55 - 2017-04-06 03:47:36 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Chris Wagi wrote:
I want back the ingame Browser!!!

its a mess to ALT-Tab around the screen!!!


That ship has sailed. It would seem highly unlikely that would ever happen. I have found Overwolf works quite well for EvE.


edit: Overwolf

Works very well for EvE.

I tried Overwolf immediately after the IGB was removed.

It was horrible.

Very cumbersome to use and also plastered a gigantic yellow frame counter at top left of my screen which I could find no way of removing.


Overwolf in its current incarnation is actually pretty nice to use. The yellow frame counter you could remove in the settings menu.

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.

Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#56 - 2017-04-06 06:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:

It's fairly obvious that you don't understand anything at all about software engineering, so instead of talking about things you have zero clue about, why don't you just shut up?

It gets dangerous when people like you "educate" others about IT-security. That makes the job of the people that actually do have a clue about IT-security harder, because we have to set the record straight and educate people about all the bullshit they believe in because of people like you.

What's dangerous is people like you running around shooting off your mouth like Chicken Little saying 'The Sky Is Falling', either produce some proof to back up your claim that the IGB allowed player computers to become infected by malicious content or take your own advice and STFU.

By the way, doesn't matter what you say your profession is, if you can't prove it to be true then it's just a bunch of BS.


DMC

You're one of those classic backseat drivers of the internet. Spread their "knowledge" all around but have absolutely nothing to back it up when they get called out by the people with real knowledge that see their crap for what it really is.
One of these classic "you should use language X" people that can never show any code whatsoever.
That you think jukebox and IGB took no dev time just for existing tells every half-arsed SE that your entire opinion on the subject is nothing but thin air and smoke and can be disregarded as "person talking without having the slightest clue".

I'm a renowned security researcher and you're just a talker talking about things you don't understand anything about. Trying to educate people like you is like talking to a wall, thus I won't even bother with it. It's not my problem what you believe in, but don't spread your non-existent "knowledge" all around and make others believe your crap. It's one thing putting yourself at risk, another thing entirely when you draw others along with you.
Just because you're one of the lucky few that aren't affected by a specific vulnerability doesn't magically make that vulnerability disappear. If there's a zero-day in the wild that's actively exploited and say 1% of the vulnerable users are actively getting exploited, that doesn't make it any safer for the remaining 99%.

And a word about your "security software". Not only is that in pretty much every case useless and a waste of money, it's even working against you and makes it easier for an active attacker. Those security products (especially virus scanners) give you a tiny green icon that tells you all is fine and you're protected, but that's about it. For being security products, they're ridiculed with zero-days, written by developers that have little regard for actual security. It's the psychological effect you pay for, not actual security.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#57 - 2017-04-06 09:27:28 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Alexander Bor wrote:
Chris Wagi wrote:
I want back the ingame Browser!!!

its a mess to ALT-Tab around the screen!!!


It is not safe. The wise decision of CCP to remove it.

Seems a lot of people keep saying that and in my 8+ years of playing this game I've never heard of anyone contracting a virus or having a security breach on their computers due to the IGB.

I think CCP removed it for the same reason they removed the in-game jukebox and for the same reason they removed the Evelopedia and for the same reason they're removing these forums.

It's all about downsizing their server's expenditures.


DMC


i think ya got this one wrong, nothing to do with trying to save cash on servers, jukebox was local so no load on any servers, Evelopedia and these forums would run on a a single VM.

they're not getting rid of the forums anyway, they're upgrading/re-designing them.

IGB was handy, it is missed, but i get why they ended support for it and i'm on the side of better to be safe than sorry, plus CCP wouldn't release information on attempted and succesful attacks on peoples machines.

perhaps it did happen and it played a big part in the decision to remove it.
Aves Asio
#58 - 2017-04-06 11:09:10 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


However, there was also the fact that most people never used the IGB:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6271564#post6271564


This is bullshit.

Everyone and i mean EVERYONE used the igb at least once to look at funny pics and gifs.

ccp lies about statistics every time it suits them.
Cade Windstalker
#59 - 2017-04-06 13:48:34 UTC
Aves Asio wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


However, there was also the fact that most people never used the IGB:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6271564#post6271564


This is bullshit.

Everyone and i mean EVERYONE used the igb at least once to look at funny pics and gifs.

ccp lies about statistics every time it suits them.


You have literally zero way to prove this.

Maybe your little corner of the game uses it a lot, personally I used it a little for a few management apps, but I pretty much never used it to view random links people posted.

On top of that CCP have no reason to lie about usage, if tons of people actually were using the IGB then they'd have an incentive to keep it around.

The only alternative I can think of is that you're both right, and CCP's stats are contaminated by alts driving down their statistics, but the only solution to that is to connect everyone's alt accounts to their mains and I don't see that going over well. I also find it highly unlikely, considering the stats CCP have collected from the playerbase show the average number of accounts per player is less than 2.
Aves Asio
#60 - 2017-04-06 14:19:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You have literally zero way to prove this.


You also have zero way of proving that it wasnt being used, posts from devs that say the feature they are removing isnt being used doesnt have much weight.

You are basically telling me that you have never clicked on a pic link in local and that you dont know anyone who has done the same.