I’m not going to reiterate what as already been said.
When did I ever mention that you were deleting the script? You can easily rehook the event in another script leaving your original completely faulty. It won’t even work anymore, but it doesn’t need to be deleted. I think you need to read what I said before telling me to read what I already have.
I don’t need to give code snippets if there is already tons on this forum. Simply look up how exploiters tinker with the games they do, and you’ll find what I’m talking about.
You can’t trust the client at all. Just build good securities on the server and don’t rely on clients too heavily. I thought this was common sense in the development field.
I believe I have already proved my point enough so continuing would just be conjecture.
Read the title of the topic. question, why are you telling me about the protection of the script, if the topic is a question about protecting the script from DELETION
Did you read anything beyond the title?
if you didn’t understand everything I said before:
If you knew you were right, why make the post? Seems a bit redundant.
This post is about deletion, and you’re relying on the client to report to the server the existing status of the locks script. What I said can still apply to that.
You asked for a method so I gave. Calm down, or just don’t ask.
No longer wishing to reply if I’m going to be treated unfairly when giving the needed information. My only intention was to be helpful.
I thought there was a way, to get object:GetFullName() after deleting this object, but as I see, there is no such way.
I asked you for a method to only send data after deleting the original LocalScript.
evidence
I always mentioned and emphasized exactly the removal of LocalScript. But you made up something to yourself that I asked for any method of circumvention, but no, I always asked, “can you get around my code by removing the script?” Show me one post of mine where I said: “name any method of bypassing the protection”.
Right off the bat about that:
But before these words were written such words:
If you read the post in order, you can logically understand that I immediately dismissed the idea of disconnection
Given what I wrote at the beginning, and having read the entire post, you might have realized that the question at the end is directly related to the text at the beginning(and also to the title of the topic)
That is, one would have thought about that don’t need to suggest to me the method of disabling the script, because I myself said about this method
I concluded that you have not read the topic because you constantly tried to explain to me that you can not trust the client. Although I wrote in the post itself that you can’t trust
Qoute
You tried to explain to me that it is impossible to protect a completely local script, although I also wrote about it in the post.
Qoute
If you read the topic, then why did you try to explain to me that you can not trust the client and the local script is not fully protected? Considering that I said it myself.
==
I have nothing against you trying to write me any information, but please don’t write to me about something I’ve already written.
Don’t make me out to be guilty of something.
How do I respond to being told 100 times what I said?
Imagine that I’m about to start proving to you that you can’t trust a client, and I’ll prove it long and hard, even though you yourself know everything very well.
I get everything you’re saying. I have read your post, and I’ve looked at your code. What’s the point of clicking on a topic when I’m not going to bother reading it?
As others have posted here, I don’t think it’s safe because anything can be done to any local script at anytime.
I understand the initial goal of this is to see if you can protect this one script from being deleted by simply deleting the script, but as I (and I believe a few others here when I was reading earlier) mentioned that there is ways to edit the script through memory during runtime to effectively delete it.
In a sense, this type of protection wouldn’t be very practical and as you mentioned would probably be quite pointless given the fact that there are other ways to disable it.
I still firmly believe that disabling this script still essentially deletes it’s purpose and therefore answers the post itself quite well, even given you’re already written “dismiss” section on your OG post. If you begin to answer the questions before other people do, that’s when your post becomes a bit redundant, which is why I also said that.
Regardless, it is what it is and no matter how someone tries to explain it, it will either be accepted or tossed depending on your viewpoint. Have a good day.
the point is that this is purely an experiment and I’m literally telling: “so look, I’m giving you artificial conditions and you can only delete the script. just imagine that you can only delete and nothing else, then how will you do it and will you succeed?”
but if you get out of the artificial conditional, then yes, my defense is empty(makes no sense/ has no application in the real game)
I see where you are going with this, yes technically it protects the script, though it is easily bypassed. All they have to do is disable the script, and have something copying the name.
local event = game.ReplicatedStorage.RemoteEvent
script:GetPropertyChangedSignal("Name"):Connect(function()
event:FireServer(script:GetFullName())
end)
Doing this your script won’t run but it is still passing the check. However, no matter what way you argue there is a way to bypass it. I am aware you just want to see if you can protect it, which in a way you can, with non experienced exploiters. Good idea in theory, you would be great at making server sided and it seems like you also like technical things as same as me. Good job on what you have, sadly it won’t fully be protected. Have a good day.
PS. I recommend closing the topic whenever you feel is necessary, anti exploit topics go on forever and just arguments and get bumped.
Just to quote myself, for better understanding (I don’t know if you read it)
Why I have not yet closed the topic:
I have a feeling that it is still possible to find out where an object is even though it has been deleted.
The way I see the server-client work:
As soon as something changes in an object (name, position, whatever) after that goes to send this data to the client, the client receives it, and applies it to locally existing with the same index objects.
For example, even if you delete an object with “:Destroy()” you can continue to read any changes in the name of the object, that is, despite the fact that the object no longer exists, it still exists somewhere in the system. Because you can read its new name, but at the same time, if you get it :GetFullName it will display only the name of the object, it turns out that even after deletion, the object still exists somewhere, and you can say “object.Parent = nil”,
But after the server sends data about the new location of the object, locally it will not move anywhere (because the object was removed), but the data still comes somewhere, and probably theoretically it can be detected and thus bypass my protection.
That is correct, it is in the garbage collector which an exploiter can access with getgc(), or they can parent it to the Nil workspace, which they also have access too.
Decent answer, good reasoning.
If you can provide me with nothing more than the words “it doesn’t work”, don’t reply to this topic again, so as not to make it pointlessly long.
Can open any topic related to protection in this forum, and just answer: “It doesn’t work”
Why prove something with examples/scripts/videos if you can just say it doesn’t work…
But if I ask you to explain to me where the hole in my code is, and for what reason it wont work, then you will just walk away saying: it doesn’t work.
Thank you for helping me understand what I knew before you said that.
The reason I think you didn’t read the topic is because you were telling me what I myself mentioned in my topic.
The question is, why would I need to explain what I understand?
What was written in the topic itself when I first created it:
“I was being disrespectful to you” - can you stop making things up?
You answered me with this:
confirming that you haven’t even read my script.
I understand that you’re not going to read it, because it’s easier to make something up.
That’s why I explain how the script works:
LocalScript:GetFullName is sent to the server, the server is constantly randomly throws the LocalScript from folder to folder, therefore, if the LocalScript is removed, you can no longer read it “:GetFullName”, so the server will immediately detect the removal
The thing is that the exploiter doesn’t tell you what script it is, but he, instead, uses cheats to find all local scripts, such as remotespyevent (which is for remote events)
At first, I came up with very silly ways to defend, but when I fully realized that cheaters can do anything, I went into reflection, and punching everything in a row.
You can’t disable check.
The server checks every second to see if the signal is back.
If not, it kicks you.
or did you mean something else?
I’ve calmed down, let me apologize, I’ll explain this better, the server checks for the remote event, if it is not fired then it kicks the player, BUT exploiters can fire any remote event they want
Which means this would only harm script-kiddies and people with lag