EVE General Discussion

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.



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The forums are being replaced because they run onold and outdated forum software, CCP is not a company that develops or has an interest in developing forum software, and if this is running on what I think it's running on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".

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.

Isn't this one of those redundant threads that needs to be locked?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.