These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Expose API log via API
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nik W
Critical Mass Inc.
#1 - 2012-05-09 18:11:23 UTC
So, we have this new tool, eveskunk.com which is utilizing API keys in an intuitive way to expose Alliance mails to the world. I think it's a funny idea, and TBH wish I thought of it first.

There is currently no real counter to it other than posting alliance mails to a forum then linking the forum post, or using Jabber etc.

No one is doing anything wrong, but in true Eve fashion there should be a counter to everything, at least in my opinion.

There should be a way for a corp or alliance to view who is accessing keys that expose corp or alliance information. That way corps or alliances who are smart/willing are able to mitigate the issue. Those that don't protect themselves become victims. It's the Eve way, applied to meta gaming.
Louis Vitton
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-05-10 07:55:04 UTC
Nik W wrote:
So,
There should be a way for a corp or alliance to view who is accessing keys that expose corp or alliance information. That way corps or alliances who are smart/willing are able to mitigate the issue. Those that don't protect themselves become victims. It's the Eve way, applied to meta gaming.

This is not the eve style to have big brother watching.
It is on the alliance or corperation to not recuite people who maybe do that kinda stuff or expose their API with out care.

IT IS ALL ABOUT WHO TO TRUST
Nik W
Critical Mass Inc.
#3 - 2012-05-10 15:32:04 UTC
Louis Vitton wrote:
Nik W wrote:
So,
There should be a way for a corp or alliance to view who is accessing keys that expose corp or alliance information. That way corps or alliances who are smart/willing are able to mitigate the issue. Those that don't protect themselves become victims. It's the Eve way, applied to meta gaming.

This is not the eve style to have big brother watching.
It is on the alliance or corperation to not recuite people who maybe do that kinda stuff or expose their API with out care.

IT IS ALL ABOUT WHO TO TRUST



http://www.eveskunk.com/?allianceID=1727758877

Nice work on recruiting, bro. You know as well as I do it's virtually impossible to recruit without risking recruiting a spy. But that's an acceptable part of the game. I have no problem with spies.

The difference is now they don't need to even play the game to spy. Plug in an API key and go have lunch. Log in for 5 minutes twice a week to not show up as obviously inactive...That's pretty lame.

Remember why CCP only made the skill queue 24h? They want people to log in and play. If you choose to be a spy, then you should need to play the game as a spy.

Also, my proposal would only protect alliances that are proactive in protecting themselves. It's not "big brother" - it's giving people tools. As I said, I believe eveskunk is fair play, people using tools provided to them. All I'm asking for is a tool to counter it.
NickyYo
modro
The Initiative.
#4 - 2012-05-10 15:36:12 UTC  |  Edited by: NickyYo
Nik W wrote:
Louis Vitton wrote:
Nik W wrote:
So,
There should be a way for a corp or alliance to view who is accessing keys that expose corp or alliance information. That way corps or alliances who are smart/willing are able to mitigate the issue. Those that don't protect themselves become victims. It's the Eve way, applied to meta gaming.

This is not the eve style to have big brother watching.
It is on the alliance or corperation to not recuite people who maybe do that kinda stuff or expose their API with out care.

IT IS ALL ABOUT WHO TO TRUST



http://www.eveskunk.com/?allianceID=1727758877

Nice work on recruiting, bro. You know as well as I do it's virtually impossible to recruit without risking recruiting a spy. But that's an acceptable part of the game. I have no problem with spies.

The difference is now they don't need to even play the game to spy. Plug in an API key and go have lunch. Log in for 5 minutes twice a week to not show up as obviously inactive...That's pretty lame.

Remember why CCP only made the skill queue 24h? They want people to log in and play. If you choose to be a spy, then you should need to play the game as a spy.

Also, my proposal would only protect alliances that are proactive in protecting themselves. It's not "big brother" - it's giving people tools. As I said, I believe eveskunk is fair play, people using tools provided to them. All I'm asking for is a tool to counter it.


Only read your first line, but i will say this.
You have a spy in your alliance remove them... before they could still read your mails now it's just a little more easier :)
If anything eveskunk will make spying more difficult by forcing alliances to be more carefull!

..
Nik W
Critical Mass Inc.
#5 - 2012-05-10 15:49:08 UTC
NickyYo wrote:

Only read your first line, but i will say this.



Only read your first line, and completely missed the point of your post.

Funny how that happens. Roll
Louis Vitton
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-05-11 00:19:43 UTC
Your idea wont happen.
It is on the alliance who they recuit and to watch them.
also what has prob happened with that website is that someone has gotten an API from another program or out of a database. And then used it their.
Even if someone put it in themselfs thats their choice and the alliance doesnt get to watch and say you did that wrong get out. Its part of meta gaming and alliances such as PL are very good at it.
Eve is meant to replicate life and free will!
here is an example of what eve want http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I&feature=plcp
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-05-11 07:54:20 UTC
Kick the people you suspect one by one, post corp mails after each kick, when they stop showing on the site you've found your man

...

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#8 - 2012-05-11 18:53:44 UTC
*sigh* the OP's point about eveskunk is completely and irrelevant and is clouding the discussion.

That said, it sounds perfectly reasonable to have API access stats in the API. While the need for it might not have been as evident 'till recently, there's no reason that there shouldn't be an AccessLog API call too.
Nik W
Critical Mass Inc.
#9 - 2012-05-11 20:40:18 UTC
mxzf wrote:
*sigh* the OP's point about eveskunk is completely and irrelevant and is clouding the discussion.

That said, it sounds perfectly reasonable to have API access stats in the API. While the need for it might not have been as evident 'till recently, there's no reason that there shouldn't be an AccessLog API call too.


Indeed, I should not have brought eveskunk specifically in to the conversation. It pulled focus in the wrong direction.