Is this a valid warning?

[Autumn Xomotron]

I got passed a notecard through a group, and its a scary warning.

 

SoulSeize is back out in SL. For those of you who are unaware of what this is, it is basically a way (usually a HUD) for someone to retain control of your Avi forcing it to perform animations at will. It will ask the victim ONCE to allow it to animate their Avatar, and from then on will retain the permission forever. There is no way to revoke the permissions (not by relogging or any other way .
DON'T ACCEPT a random request from anyone to animate your avatar you DON'T know. Pls pass this information out

 

I don't want to pass along rumours, so want to check the validity before sharing it.  

 

Cheers

Autumn

[Perrie Juran]

---

Autumn Xomotron wrote:

I got passed a notecard through a group, and its a scary warning.

 

SoulSeize is back out in SL. For those of you who are unaware of what this is, it is basically a way (usually a HUD) for someone to retain control of your Avi forcing it to perform animations at will. It will ask the victim ONCE to allow it to animate their Avatar, and from then on will retain the permission forever. There is no way to revoke the permissions (not by relogging or any other way .

DON'T ACCEPT a random request from anyone to animate your avatar you DON'T know. Pls pass this information out

 

I don't want to pass along rumours, so want to check the validity before sharing it.  

 

Cheers

Autumn

---

A very touchy subject.

Yes this is possible.

The limit will be the person will need to be on the same SIM as you to exert the control.

Please excuse if I don't post all the documentation.  This topic has been in the past the subject of some very, very lengthy discussions.

Personally I'd rather not be promulgating how this is done.

The advice to not accept random animations from people you don't know is a good one.

Fortunately, a$$hats like this are rare creatures in SL.

 

 

[Autumn Xomotron]

thank you so much for responding so quickly Perrie  

 

It will just make me leery of accepting animation requests from anyone but close friends.  Sad, because I've had some cute hugs given to me from new joins excited about their new "hug & kiss" HUD.

*hugs the cute martian for being so helpful*

Autumn

[Perrie Juran]

---

Autumn Xomotron wrote:

thank you so much for responding so quickly Perrie

 

 

It will just make me leery of accepting animation requests from anyone but close friends.  Sad, because I've had some cute hugs given to me from new joins excited about their new "hug & kiss" HUD.

*hugs the cute martian for being so helpful*

Autumn

---

Your very welcome.

Linden Labs refusal to deal with this issue is a very sore point in my book.  But there is not much more I really want to say about it.

My suggestion, if you are concerned but don't want to appear unfriendly, use your own hugger and offer your own hug in response.  You don't need to give detailed explanations if they ask.  Just that you prefer to use your own.

But like I said, fortunately the a$$hats who would do this are rare creatures in SL.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Autumn Xomotron wrote:

It will just make me leery of accepting animation requests from anyone but close friends.

---

That's a wise policy.  Last night a friend told me she was going shopping for a surprise gift for me.  A few minutes later I got a drop down message that <xyz> product was requesting permission to be accepted.  I didn't recognize the merchant (who turns out to be rather well known...lol...I don't get out much), so I first IM'd my friend and asked if that was from her.  I don't click to accept ~anything~ unless I know who it's from.

Thank you for the warning of this particular form of griefing; I had not heard of it before.

[Tex Monday]

---

Autumn Xomotron wrote:

I got passed a notecard through a group, and its a scary warning.

 

SoulSeize is back out in SL. For those of you who are unaware of what this is, it is basically a way (usually a HUD) for someone to retain control of your Avi forcing it to perform animations at will. It will ask the victim ONCE to allow it to animate their Avatar, and from then on will retain the permission forever. There is no way to revoke the permissions (not by relogging or any other way .

DON'T ACCEPT a random request from anyone to animate your avatar you DON'T know. Pls pass this information out

 

I don't want to pass along rumours, so want to check the validity before sharing it.  

 

Cheers

Autumn

---

I agree with everyone else..it's better to err on the side of caution. This goes not only for random animations, but for friendship requests, products or anything else from someone you don't know. I've been very lucky in my 4 years here that I've never had any problems..of course, that could change tomorrow...:matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

 

[Qie Niangao]

Once one figures out who or what is causing trouble, it's easy to get rid of the offending attachments, friends, etc... but permissions last forever, and that's just a lazy implementation. I very much doubt that the Lab will go back and fix the existing permissions system, so I'm hoping they get it right with the new eXperience Permissions, whenever it finally arrives, and then maybe we can migrate much of old permissions to the new system.  We'll see.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

Once one figures out who or what is causing trouble, it's easy to get rid of the offending attachments, friends, etc... but permissions last forever, and that's just a lazy implementation. I very much doubt that the Lab will go back and fix the existing permissions system, so I'm hoping they get it right with the new eXperience Permissions, whenever it finally arrives, and then maybe we can migrate much of old permissions to the new system.  We'll see.

---

The issue here with this object/function is that there is no persitent "stop animating me" command available like you'd have with an Intan or other Dance Ball.

I've sent you a private message.

[Qie Niangao]

This is kind of complicated. A danceball isn't necessarily relinquishing permission to animate an avatar. Rather, on request, it simply stops animating an avatar. We wouldn't mind if it retained that permission as long as it doesn't try to animate us when we don't want it to. Indeed, that would be a nice feature--one fewer click to start dancing again--but it's not a very common feature because a script can only retain permissions for one avatar at a time, so retaining a whole library of retained avatar permissions would mean having a whole library of separate scripts, too.

I'm somehow reminded of something from the earliest days of the MacOS (long before OS X) for which multitasking was "cooperative" instead of "pre-emptive". What's needed in order for users to have the desired control over script-retained permissions is a pre-emptive revocation that doesn't rely on the script's cooperation to take effect.

Incidentally, there are some TPVs that kind of fake such a revocation, specifically for viewer-local effects such as animation. That's probably better than nothing, but it's inherently limited, so folks really shouldn't have to rely on that functionality.

[Senobia Xenga]

It's a HUD.

 

And it's true.

 

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Soul-Seize-Hud-Control-Someone-Permanently-No-RLV-Needed-No-Collar-Needed-No-Attachments-Needed/4297337

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

This is kind of complicated. A danceball isn't necessarily relinquishing permission to animate an avatar. Rather, on request, it simply

stops

animating an avatar. We wouldn't mind if it retained that permission as long as it doesn't try to animate us when we don't want it to. Indeed, that would be a nice feature--one fewer click to start dancing again--but it's not a very common feature because a script can only retain permissions for one avatar at a time, so retaining a whole library of retained avatar permissions would mean having a whole library of separate scripts, too.

I'm somehow reminded of something from the earliest days of the MacOS (long before OS X) for which multitasking was "cooperative" instead of "pre-emptive". What's needed in order for users to have the desired control over script-retained permissions is a pre-emptive revocation that doesn't rely on the script's cooperation to take effect.

Incidentally, there are some TPVs that kind of fake such a revocation, specifically for viewer-local effects such as animation. That's probably better than nothing, but it's inherently limited, so folks really shouldn't have to rely on that functionality.

---

Thank you for clarifying.

[Innula Zenovka]

We had a lengthy discussion about this a couple of years back:  Revoking Permissions.   It's perfectly genuine.

The exploit has been around for as long as I've been in SL -- I remember being warned about it soon after I started -- and it's a nuisance, certainly, but the grid hasn't come to an end because of it.

The thing to remember, I think, is that, while the object certainly retains permissions, the owner and you have to be on the same sim,  so, if anyone does get caught, they should try to avoid the troll, preferably complaining about him to venue owners in the hope of getting him banned from their sims at least, and ARing him for harassment, in hope of getting him banned all together.

 

[Leia36]

We have been discussing this inworld and there is a fix in Firestorm.

Preferences>Firestorm>Protection and click the radio button under the Revoke Permissions section, then when you sit or stand, all permissions are revoked. Many thanks t Damiel for the help :heart:

[Sy Beck]

---

Leia36 wrote:

We have been discussing this inworld and there is a fix in Firestorm.

Preferences>Firestorm>Protection and click the radio button under the Revoke Permissions section, then when you sit or stand, all permissions are revoked. Many thanks t Damiel for the help :heart:

---

Is this correct though, it kinda contradicts what Qie said in his post above.  I thought permissions could never be revoked and that the FS feature was another version of "stop all animations".  I would be happy to see that you're correct though.

[Vania Chaplin]

Yep, I heard this inworld too, and was thinking exactly this: does this revoke perms, or simply stop animations? In the JIRA above, it seems that it is not posible to revoke permissions.

[Tex Monday]

---

Senobia Xenga wrote:

It's a HUD.

 

And it's true.

 

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Soul-Seize-Hud-Control-Someone-Permanently-No-RLV-Needed-No-Collar-Needed-No-Attachments-Needed/4297337

---

That's scary if it actually works.

although, I had a similar (I think) experience many years ago. I was in this BDSM sim and this woman and I pi**ed each other off. I wasn't running RLV, but she was able to attach some kind of carriage to my AV. I complained that I wasn't running RLV, she said that there were other ways to attach things besides that. Eventually, she decided to remove it. I think she was using some kind of "magic wand", I don't remember it was so long ago.

Never went back to the sim and never saw the b**ch again. Bothered the heck out of me....

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Leia36 wrote:

We have been discussing this inworld and there is a fix in Firestorm.

Preferences>Firestorm>Protection and click the radio button under the Revoke Permissions section, then when you sit or stand, all permissions are revoked. Many thanks t Damiel for the help :heart:

---

I am sorry, but I am not convinced.   

If you look at the thread I referenced, and particularly the post where someone reports on experiments he did, you will see that he he was always able to reanimate his friend immediately, no matter what his friend did with the viewer tools in Phoenix (which I assume are the same in Firestorm).     That tallies with how I've always understood the permissions system to work, too.

This is an extract from the account of the experiment:

---

1)  When the sub is in an animation, there is no Stand button for them to stop the animation.  So "Revoke On Stand" did not work.

2)  To try "Revoke On Sit", I rezzed a chair, put him into an animation and he tried to sit in it.  Sitting in the chair overrode the band animation and the sit animation in the chair worked.  Standing from the chair did NOT put him back in the band animation, however, I was able to immediately put him back in the bands animation simply by clicking the animation button in the band manu.

3)  Next, I put him into an animation and he sat in the chair again to activate the chairs animation.  I then clicked the bands animation and it overrode the chairs animation and put him back into the animation I selected.  Once I put him in the band animation, the Stand option disappeared from his screen.

4)  Revoke on Stand and Sit did NOT revoke the permissions of the band

---

 

I would advise people not to rely on viewer tools to free themselves from this device until someone's demonstrated that the viewer tools actually do this.  I don't think they revoke permissions that you've explicitly granted through an animation request dialog.   I might be wrong, but I wouldn't risk relying on them.

 

[Leia36]

Fair enough Innula I will pass that onthanks

[Talarus Luan]

Getting through the basics:

1) Yes, it is real, at least in theory. I know there are implementations of it, and they still work, because I made a "proof of concept" ages ago. Verified today that  it still works.

2) It is nothing to get worked up over. More damage is done from fretting and worrying about it than the tool actually generates. The chances of any resident actually being griefer by this particular tool are quite low. That said, it is against the ToS (Harassment), and can be dealth with via normal channels -- AR, ban, etc.

3) Viewers can NOT "revoke" the perms, since they are stored with script state server-side. Until LL gets around to fixing this in a way which doesn't cause the whole Jenga tower to come crashing down (yeah, they tried.. it was a mess), it's just something we're going to have to live with. That said, it is possible to use a scripted attachment that "blacklists" specific animations, but it has to work via like an AO -- via polling, and isn't terribly efficient. Viewers *can* be programmed to do something similar to tell the simulator to "stop animating me" for specific or all animations.

So, the upshot is, yes, it exists, yes it can happen, no, it's not likely to happen to the vast majority of residents, and it isn't worth freaking out over, ruining your SL experience by never trusting any dance ball, hug attachment, or sitting on any (potentially scripted) prim in the entirety of SL. In fact, the whole reason griefers do it is because of people's third-degree reactions to it and things like it. The best policy is just to laugh it off.. AR them, and if you have the ability, ban em from the estate.

Remember, griefers are in it for the lulz.. don't give em any and they will get bored and go away. (In fact, I get far more lulz out of them than they can ever hope to get from me )

[Autumn Xomotron]

Thanks everyone for replying to this post.  I hope LL eventually "plugs this hole".  I'm not going to worry about it.  Like one said, the person who is using this hud has to be on the same SIM, and the few places I hang out, I know the owners and could get the PITA banned.

Enjoy your SL!

Autumn

[Christin73]

I have gotten it in several group notices. It is always a good idea NOT to accept any request to animate or object unless you know the person sending it and have talked about it before they send it. Just keeps you out of trouble that way.

[jwenting]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Leia36 wrote:

We have been discussing this inworld and there is a fix in Firestorm.

Preferences>Firestorm>Protection and click the radio button under the Revoke Permissions section, then when you sit or stand, all permissions are revoked. Many thanks t Damiel for the help :heart:

---

Is this correct though, it kinda contradicts what Qie said in his post above.  I thought permissions could never be revoked and that the FS feature was another version of "stop all animations".  I would be happy to see that you're correct though.

---

it will terminate the animation but won't revoke the permission, so the griefer can just force it on you again, and again, and again.

[Melita Magic]

Wow...didn't know about this. A lot more people have been asking my av for hugs lately. I haven't noticed any problems though.

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

. A lot more people have been asking my av for hugs lately.

---

 

Bragging or complaining?:smileywink:

[Melita Magic]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

. A lot more people have been asking my av for hugs lately.

---

 

Bragging or complaining?:smileywink:

---

For once, neither. LOL