Too many clicks?!

[SamH]

I was trying to get into one of my servers. It was full. I tried a few times to grab the next seat available. Then I get a message: "Too many clicks. Wait 40 seconds"

Screw that! It's my damn server! I'm logging in with my admin password! Fine! BE like that! I'll go to one of my OTHER servers and check on that for now! First attempt: "Too many clicks, wait 1 minute." WHAT!?!?

NO deal! That's not okay! If I'm admin, and I'm accessing MY server, I want IN! Do I HAVE to go onto the server window, and BUMP someone who probably doesn't deserve it, to gain immediate access to my server? I sure as hell hope not!

I'm not just a SMALL amount annoyed that this "feature" is present. If it has to be, it has to be better!

[xapexcivicx]

I don't think that admins should count to the server population. If the server is full and they are needed, they are screwed =/

[filur]

It's even better to lag out from a server, try to rejoin and get "username online", try again and get too many clicks. :Eyecrazy:

[PLAYLIFE]

It's even better to lag out from a server, try to rejoin and get "username online", try again and get too many clicks. :Eyecrazy:

lol

[Rappa Z]

sry bad post

[Rappa Z]

i :bananadea when this happens

[Vendetta]

Yeah, these feature annoys the hell out of me. I vote take it out.

[filur]

I don't think that admins should count to the server population. If the server is full and they are needed, they are screwed =/

Guess this would need completely dynamic number of max connections, you could have 45 admins wanting to join a full server etc.

[(SaM)]

Sam (cool name), it's just a feature that prevents excessive data requests from the server. If you keep clicking it, it keeps asking for info from the server wich uses bandwidth. It has nothing to do with amount of players so you dont have to kick someone. Just dont click too much and be patient. :)

[Becky Rose]

"Too many clicks. Wait 40 seconds"
I've seen that message before but I think the purpose is actually to prevent too many server list refreshes/joins. To prevent a denial of service attack on the master server..

[SamH]

I've seen that message before but I think the purpose is actually to prevent too many server list refreshes/joins. To prevent a denial of service attack on the master server..
As I said, I think that if the feature has to be there, it has to be better. No server admins are going to be trying to crash either theirs OR the master server. Are they? And if they were, they're toast on S2, surely.

[shim]

this feature isnt in the demo, then why is it on S2 servers?

[(SaM)]

Its a protection for the masterserver as well. It doesnt matter if you're a racer or an admin, if you click too much you'll get slapped for it. :shy:

[SamH]

Yep, I realise it's a "defence mechanism".. but I don't think it should apply to server admins. If they're desperate to get on their own server, I'm sure there's typically a very good reason. I don't think my home connection is exactly capable of a concerted DoS on anyone's connection, least of all the LFS master server. Accomodation should be made for admins trying to access their own servers, IMO.

[ajp71]

I'm guessing that there is no way LFS is going to know your a server admin?

[filur]

As ajp71 almost says, no part of the system knows you're an admin besides your server, which you need a masterserver connection to get on.

[SamH]

I think it does. The whole issue seems to revolve around the master server acting as an intermediary between me and my server. I'm submitting my request, along with my password, to the master server. The master server is then negotiating access with the game server.

I believe, therefore, that the master server is aware of my admin status when it receives a response from the game server. If it isn't, then it could be coded to be.

[filur]

I think it does. The whole issue seems to revolve around the master server acting as an intermediary between me and my server. I'm submitting my request, along with my password, to the master server. The master server is then negotiating access with the game server.

I believe, therefore, that the master server is aware of my admin status when it receives a response from the game server. If it isn't, then it could be coded to be.

I really doubt it, the entire admin system should work perfectly on a LAN without the master server too i'd guess, which would make it silly to put the actual password exchange/check in several places.

AFAIK the master server just provides you with an IP/port.

[SamH]

If all the master server is doing is providing me with an IP/port, then I don't think the DoS argument exactly stands, and I think the whole "protection" thing should be abandoned. Compared with the rest of the flow of data occuring around LFS, a request for an IP/port to a server is a seriously negligible exchange of data.

If it is, instead, the GAME server giving the "stop it you're killing me. Sit out for 40 seconds" order, rather than the master server, then bingo. My server knows who I am. It knows I'm the boss. It knows that, in MY case, a DoS is definitely not in progress.

[EDIT to add:]I'm extremely conscious of the fact that all I seem to be doing is bitching about one aspect of something I'm otherwise very much impressed by. It really has got my goat though. I don't like getting my wrist slapped for wanting on my own server.

Perhaps, to turn the thing around, if there was a queue system:

"Server full. Reserve seat? Yes/No"

Then, when a seat on the server becomes available, you're automatically given passage. If you've already joined another server, you forfeit the seat. If not, you're in. Now there's no DoS.

[filur]

If all the master server is doing is providing me with an IP/port, then I don't think the DoS argument exactly stands, and I think the whole "protection" thing should be abandoned. Compared with the rest of the flow of data occuring around LFS, a request for an IP/port to a server is a seriously negligible exchange of data.

Not if you're accepting 10,000 connections per second, just like a webserver can get completely bogged down from just replying/trying to reply with error messages to thousands of invalid requests, or a router getting confused from a few hundred thousand pings.

[SamH]

Not if you're accepting 10,000 connections per second, just like a webserver can get completely bogged down from just replying/trying to reply with error messages to thousands of invalid requests, or a router getting confused from a few hundred thousand pings.

Nope, I don't see it. The interaction is far from a fat packet air biscuit scenario. That's an entirely different kind of DoS. The one we're talking about is generated from within the LFS client itself. It's entirely managed within the LFS code. Different scenario entirely.

[filur]

Nope, I don't see it. The interaction is far from a fat packet air biscuit scenario. That's an entirely different kind of DoS. The one we're talking about is generated from within the LFS client itself. It's entirely managed within the LFS code. Different scenario entirely.

The first idea of how to bring the master server down would probably be to emulate how LFS talks to the master server, and repeat it alot, network activity is extremely simple to recreate.

[SamH]

I honestly think that if you wanted to DoS the master server, doing it by emulating repeated attempts to join a separate server in a list of online servers retrieved by the master server... is a rather obtuse way of going about it, and probably one of the least likely to have an effective impact. Beyond that, I wouldn't really like to start a discussion on what MIGHT be effective. You never know who might be listening :Looking_a

[SamH]

Sorry.. I don't disagree with you entirely. But it would have to be a profound number of clicks per second. My issue is with getting spanked for one click every 4 to 8 seconds. That's NOT a DoS.

[filur]

Sorry.. I don't disagree with you entirely. But it would have to be a profound number of clicks per second. My issue is with getting spanked for one click every 4 to 8 seconds. That's NOT a DoS.

Yeah the threshold seems absurdly low, but if the purpose is to prevent a DoS attack and with enough clicks the server just stops responding, i guess it's a solid system.

DoS isn't about stealing lots of continous bandwidth in kB/s, it's about generating so much activity that eventually all the server is doing is responding to bogus requests, occupying connection slots.

[colcob]

If I recall correctly, the reason we have the 'too many clicks' system is because a DOS by this method was actually carried out with some degree of success a long while back. So there isn't much point in arguing it can't happen.

But I thoroughly agree that some method of allowing admins access to their full servers would be a necessary feature.

[Albieg]

I don't know if there is the possibility to do it (the README of the dedicated server doesn't mention it), but the ability to reserve one or more slots only for administration purposes would be nice. If I was the admin of a dedicated server I would enable it even at the cost of an available seat.

[Scawen]

I had to implement this when someone wrote a program to check if several people were online. His program imitated the game, and sent several "user online" queries in extremely close succession, each requiring a text reply from the master server. And those bursts were repeated at regular intervals. He and his friends started using this program to see who was online and with just those few people, the master server was already being battered to some extent, giving out large rapid bursts of information every few seconds.

The master server is very important so I don't want it to be abused by "mates checking" sort of programs, or "list of games checkers" either. So I've had to set the time delay down a bit. You are allowed around 8 requests per minute, and that seems enough. It also stops people doing constant list of games refreshes, which can be quite pointless but the sort of thing you can do unconsciously while wating for something, which loads not only the master but also the hosts.

Anyway that's a different subject from allowing one admin to join a full host, which I have now noted as a request.

[Hyperactive]

It has been suggested months ago: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=3336 :)

[XRRoy]

It has been suggested months ago: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=3336 :)
the devs don't read everything posted here:smileypul

[ajp71]

I have no problem with the too many clicks system except I would like to see the number of laps in a race. If you know a server's name can you not connect straight to it by going Multiplayer > join specific game?

[colcob]

Did you know that you can see the number of laps and the drivers in the server just by clicking on the '?' in the server listings?

[SamH]

...allowing one admin to join a full host, which I have now noted as a request.
:thumb:
If this is implemented, it will resolve my problem.

[ajp71]

Did you know that you can see the number of laps and the drivers in the server just by clicking on the '?' in the server listings?

Which counts as one of the 8 data transfers a minute meaning you can only quickly look at 6 servers (1 click for list + 1 for join).

[Lucasinio]

Hmm, i may have an idea. Once a driver press Join, and the room is full, it puts you onto a waiting list. Then each consecutive person that joins, goes on the list, just further down. Then, when a space is free, the person at the top of the list is then into the game.

Hopefully this makes sense. :scratchch

What do you think?

[SamH]

Hmm, i may have an idea. Once a driver press Join, and the room is full, it puts you onto a waiting list. Then each consecutive person that joins, goes on the list, just further down. Then, when a space is free, the person at the top of the list is then into the game.

Hopefully this makes sense. :scratchch

What do you think?

Perhaps, to turn the thing around, if there was a queue system:

"Server full. Reserve seat? Yes/No"

Then, when a seat on the server becomes available, you're automatically given passage. If you've already joined another server, you forfeit the seat. If not, you're in.
Great minds think alike ;)

[Doorman]

I had to implement this when someone wrote a program to check if several people were online. His program imitated the game, and sent several "user online" queries in extremely close succession, each requiring a text reply from the master server. And those bursts were repeated at regular intervals. He and his friends started using this program to see who was online and with just those few people, the master server was already being battered to some extent, giving out large rapid bursts of information every few seconds.

The master server is very important so I don't want it to be abused by "mates checking" sort of programs, or "list of games checkers" either. So I've had to set the time delay down a bit. You are allowed around 8 requests per minute, and that seems enough. It also stops people doing constant list of games refreshes, which can be quite pointless but the sort of thing you can do unconsciously while wating for something, which loads not only the master but also the hosts.

Anyway that's a different subject from allowing one admin to join a full host, which I have now noted as a request.

Therein lies the difference between LFS and GTL/GTR :thumb: