Ranko

It does indeed use SSL (well the game server does), and it is NOT vulnerable, yet it fails the general SSL tests, due to poor cyphers etc.   Linky to tool used: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=sunrise.net-7.org&hideResults=on     SL Report: sunrise.net-7.org (74.208.192.215) Assessed on:  Wed Apr 09 19:54:25 UTC 2014 | HIDDEN | Clear cache Scan Another » Summary Overall Rating F If trust issues are ignored: F 0 20 40 60 80 100 Certificate   0 Protocol Support   0 Key Exchange   40 Cipher Strength   60 Documentation: SSL/TLS Deployment Best Practices, SSL Server Rating Guide, and OpenSSL Cookbook. This server is not vulnerable to the Heartbleed attack. (Experimental) This server's certificate is not trusted. Grade set to F. This server supports SSL 2, which is obsolete and insecure. Grade set to F. The server supports only older protocols, but not the current best TLS 1.2. Grade capped to B. There is no support for secure renegotiation.  MORE INFO » The server does not support Forward Secrecy with the reference browsers.  MORE INFO » Authentication Server Key and Certificate #1 Common names local.net-7.org   MISMATCH Alternative names - Prefix handling Not required for subdomains Valid from Fri Nov 17 05:07:49 UTC 2006 Valid until Fri Nov 18 05:07:49 UTC 2016 (expires in 2 years and 7 months) Key RSA 2048 bits Weak key (Debian) No Issuer local.net-7.org   Self-signed Signature algorithm SHA1withRSA Extended Validation No Revocation information None Trusted No   NOT TRUSTED (Why?) Additional Certificates (if supplied) Certificates provided 1 (1122 bytes) Chain issues Contains anchor Certification Paths Path #1: Not trusted (path does not chain to a trusted anchor) 1 Sent by server   Not in trust store local.net-7.org SHA1: 20224156821616d38572ee14b700c0add6bcf4e9 RSA 2048 bits / SHA1withRSA Configuration Protocols TLS 1.2 No TLS 1.1 No TLS 1.0 Yes SSL 3 Yes SSL 2   INSECURE Yes   Cipher Suites (sorted by strength; the server has no preference) SSL_CK_RC4_128_EXPORT40_WITH_MD5 (0x20080)   INSECURE 40 SSL_CK_RC2_128_CBC_EXPORT40_WITH_MD5 (0x40080)   INSECURE 40 SSL_CK_DES_64_CBC_WITH_MD5 (0x60040)   INSECURE 56 TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA (0x9)   WEAK 56 SSL_CK_RC4_128_WITH_MD5 (0x10080)   INSECURE 128 SSL_CK_RC2_128_CBC_WITH_MD5 (0x30080)   INSECURE 128 SSL_CK_IDEA_128_CBC_WITH_MD5 (0x50080)   INSECURE 128 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (0x4) 128 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) 128 TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA (0x7) 128 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f) 128 SSL_CK_DES_192_EDE3_CBC_WITH_MD5 (0x700c0)   INSECURE 112 TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (0xa) 112 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35) 256   Handshake Simulation Android 2.3.7   No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (0x4)   No FS   RC4 128 Android 4.0.4 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Android 4.1.1 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Android 4.2.2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Android 4.3 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Android 4.4.2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 BingBot Dec 2013   No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 BingPreview Dec 2013 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Chrome 33 / Win 7  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Firefox 24.2.0 ESR / Win 7 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Firefox 27 / Win 8  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Googlebot Oct 2013 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5)   No FS   RC4 128 IE 6 / XP   No FS 1   No SNI 2 SSL 3 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (0x4)   No FS   RC4 128 IE 7 / Vista TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 IE 8 / XP   No FS 1   No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (0x4)   No FS   RC4 128 IE 8-10 / Win 7  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 IE 11 / Win 7  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 IE 11 / Win 8.1  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Java 6u45   No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (0x4)   No FS   RC4 128 Java 7u25 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Java 8b132 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 OpenSSL 0.9.8y TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 OpenSSL 1.0.1e TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 Safari 5.1.9 / OS X 10.6.8 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Safari 6 / iOS 6.0.1  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Safari 7 / iOS 7.1  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Safari 6.0.4 / OS X 10.8.4  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Safari 7 / OS X 10.9  R TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f)   No FS 128 Yahoo Slurp Oct 2013 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   No FS 256 YandexBot 3.0   No FS 1   No SNI 2 SSL 3 TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (0xa)   No FS 112 (1) Clients that do not support Forward Secrecy (FS) are excluded when determining support for it. (2) No support for virtual SSL hosting (SNI). Connects to the default site if the server uses SNI. (R) Denotes a reference browser or client, with which we expect better effective security. (All) We use defaults, but some platforms do not use their best protocols and features (e.g., Java 6 & 7, older IE).   Protocol Details Secure Renegotiation Not supported   ACTION NEEDED (more info) Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No Insecure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No BEAST attack Not mitigated server-side (more info)   SSL 3: 0x9, TLS 1.0: 0x9 TLS compression No RC4 Yes (not with TLS 1.1 and newer) (more info) Heartbleed No (more info) Forward Secrecy No   NOT DESIRABLE (more info) Next Protocol Negotiation No Session resumption (caching) Yes Session resumption (tickets) Yes OCSP stapling No Strict Transport Security (HSTS) Unknown Long handshake intolerance No TLS extension intolerance No TLS version intolerance TLS 2.98  SSL 2 handshake compatibility Yes   Miscellaneous Test date Wed Apr 09 19:53:58 UTC 2014 Test duration 27.199 seconds HTTP status code Request failed HTTP server signature Unknown Server hostname u15438806.onlinehome-server.com PCI compliant No FIPS-ready No

Mob (object) death are not logged, nor is who fired on them.   Nor does it log when the object was spawned either, only that is exists (or does'nt).   Now that being said, a player at GM level or higher can see the mob object spawner, and can see how long it takes for an object to spawn and thus can manually force the spawn object to spawn its object (mob).   The only way it can be shown that a player is killing the object is if said player is witnessed directly, either by a player or a staff member.   *** = This is how it was in ST4 and at the time I was one of the mob devs. It might have changed since, but highly unlikely.

yep me too, and it now looks like the server took a nose-dive :(

Not trying to be a pain in the arse here, but wouldnt this be better represented by the Player Advocate, rather than a Dev getting directly involved at this stage in the game? That is after all why the advocate exists.   Personally, I like the buff effects and would prefer them to stay, but by reading the dev's post 'if others are happy with it (happy with it could mean any thing really), than this change is going to occur without the general player-base being informed about it etc, something that the advocate would make public in their respective forum, so that everyone can see this, and if required a vote could be taken.   Not that I'm saying removing it wont happen, but it should occur by the player shoudl go via the advocate (and the dev specifically, should follow Net-7 procedure, and follow this up with the player advocate) before anything is rubber stamped etc.   Just my 2-cents.

Damn it, the one of only two days that alot of us Europeans play the game due to work commitments and the game is down, potentially for several hours (or all weekend should a patch go wrong).   Mind if I ask, why is it game devs always chose to screw over the Europeans rather then the yanks when it comes to potentially dangerous patch times. We have feelings too you know.......

I'd love to suggest if a single entity fullfils the entire month donation requrest they get an ingame 'Net-7' news spot from all the Net-7 beacons...   'Net-7 this month is brought to you by XYZ' in the sexy Net-7 News anchor girls voice... (now awaiting a feminised Pakrat to chime in).

Whilst not in static, I understand your rampage of words being someone who has done the same in the past...   This is all I can say on the matter.   It is a child, who runs his mouth...   But it takes a man, who realises his faults, and apologies for his inner child's actions.   :)   Simply put, we are all adults in this game, and we all run our mouths occasionally in this game, but that said, and we are a small community... We all know each other and forgive our indiscretions…

supported, lag for me is very bad at the moment, and this is only appearing server side and within the forums etc.   TS as well has become almost usable for me.   Plus it is not my end, I use a cable modem connection as well as ADSL and 3G modem, all three are laggy, and its only been 1) since the new proxy and 2) since 1&1 have been having issues.

LOL no, never gonna happen...   Why? If you want to change your class, re-roll a new toon. Why 'cheat' your way to a maxed out TT, or TS.   This game gives the player oppotunities to build and level all classes of the game.   Plus! If you simply 'jumped' your way to a 150 TT, TE or TS you will know nothing about that class, or how it is used, worked or played.   The idea of leveling a toon is not just toi level, but also to learn the class, and its unique skillsets.

Basically Static are going back to the good old days of being what some would call 'unfair sportsmansship' basically me me me, mine mine mine mode :P

Me too, looks like Static are trying to bring back the good old days...   If thats what they want, I'm game for it too :)

Still it would be something nice to have in.   The ability to change text colours for each channel, for example, for colour-blind people or people that dislike a colour.   And the transparency (if this could be done).

If you couldnt make devices, it still allowed you to make that device.   I remember somethign like that from EA live.   Even if you could not make devices or was at the correct level, and you completed the mission where the reward was a device build, you could still select it and build it.