[solved] BATTLEOPENEX was undocumented

[gajop]

Problem: Authenticity of spring static downloads (due to MITM attacks and what not)
Solution: Create a certificate and then just sign all the static downloads.

[zerver]

security risk? i don't see a big difference between typing in an url, download a program, run it and run a lobby which (maybe asks before) downloads a program and runs it.

There is a difference. With the manual download, you can see where the link points, while with an automatic download system you usually have no clue who uploaded it.

Yeah, to have the files signed by the author might be the solution. Or only allow engines compiled by buildbot, uploaded from springrts.com/dl.

[p4wl]

Hello everyone,

what happened to that documentation? If i read the thread correctly, it was documented at some time? The protocol description currently doesn't include BATTLEOPENEX. Also, the 'eb' flag isn't mentioned in the comatibility flags list.

BATTLEOPENED contains the following:

Sent by the server to all registered users, when a new battle has been opened. ( Compatibility-Flag need: 'eb' )

Is that correct?
ZKL sends 'eb' but receives BATTLEOPENEDEX instead of BATTLEOPENED as far as i can see.

Furthermore, the TASSERVER command sent by springrts.com:8200 indicates 0.36 as lobby protocol version, but seems to understand 0.37. What is correct?

Is springrts.com:8200 the only lobby server availalable?

Best regards,
-P-

[abma]

doc was wrong, i've fixed it, thx!

eb and BATTLEOPENEDEX is deprecated. use cl and improved BATTLEOPEN.

uberserver understands 0.36 and most of 0.37 but not all. version wasn't set to 0.37 as it would break some clients.

i don't know about other noteworthy servers, also uberserver is the only up to date / maintained lobby server implementation.

also current lobby server already annoys in MOTD about missing / wrong compatibility flags.