Scam Alert - Please Becareful

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Because there is financials at stake and they want to be sure anything they do on your apparent behest is done with a more ironclad verification, so you can't come back on them.

And that's not the case here?

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Seems to me it would be a good thing for scripters to be verified so as to be able to authenticate their works. Isn't there copyrights involved?

Nope

[EliseAnne85]

23 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Again, why the obsession with llTextBox?

My reason for saying IITextBox should be modified to have text entered by owner only and then have a separate IITextBox no modify script for gifts that is about gift instructions only and cannot be over-ridden by someone writing anything is because SL wants to go into the modern world.  The modern world of younger people has changed.  The modern world of younger people is that they grew up on the phone and the vast majority are NOT geeks, not to mention perhaps never even owning a computer before should they decide to buy one because they like SL after being on mobile for awhile.  And, thus they are totally naive like newborns.  

If the world changes, why shouldn't components of virtual worlds to avoid a potential catastrophy?  

Why such defense of a script that could be so easily re-written? 

Plus, there really isn't a *need* for scripts to be modify.  The object can copy and modify fine with no modify scripts.  I use only NO MODIFY scripts but my objects are copy/mod.  The problem is that it reads no modify in inventory if the object contains no modify scripts.  And, that kind of *looks* weird.   

If someone could put a text box prompt where the people are about to loose their inventory if they don't enter password could be disastrous.  

Edited April 16, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Istelathis]

Perhaps just make it mandatory for new users to attend an SL class on the multiple ways their accounts can be compromised 🤣 A yearly brush up class for everyone else.

 

If you do not attend the class, you are sent to the cornfield to be consumed by a variety of monsters.  

Also they will be fed to the volcano, as to please the SL gods to provide us with a good season of crops.

We must make this so!

/me hopes no one takes this seriously.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Istelathis
Volcano suggestion and pic added

[Arielle Popstar]

5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Nope

Ok so then why do you have an issue with a proposed requirement to have POIF? Do you not feel that those who do are much less likely to risk using their scripts to run a Phishing scam?

[Solar Legion]

If you honestly think the Text Box is "official looking" .... It is beyond time to go through that open door and pack it in.

This is a function that has existed for the majority of the time Second Life has been around. It is a function everyone has seen in use at least once - if you're going to claim you have not, sit down and peddle those wares elsewhere.

I do so love how every single excuse in the playbook is now being dragged out in a desperate attempt to frame this as an actual problem that needs a solution .... Beyond the ones we already have in place, such as the simple fact that no TPV or even Linden Lab will use such a dialog in the manner this thread has been covering.

Someone got hooked thanks to being distracted - that is indeed bad. They need to do what they can to recover their account.

If some of you are really so adamant on your stances ... Just petition Linden Lab to shut Second Life down entirely and be done with it - everyone will be "protected" then, now won't they?

[CaithLynnSayes]

20 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok but then certain unnamed people will complain it will fetter the options for new people coming to S/L...

I don't mind being named.

 

Wait wait wait... Can you hear that...? I think it's an approaching @Dyna Mole With a padlock in her hand...

 

This thread has ran it's course. We're getting nowhere except:

[Ayashe Ninetails]

5 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

Why such defense of a script that could be so easily re-written? 

llTextBox isn't a script. It's a function that can be used inside scripts (scripts that are used for all kinds of different purposes).

I could be very wrong here, but I don't think there's a single agreed-upon script for anything in SL, is there? There are like a million versions of unpackers, even - all written by different people.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

This is a function that has existed for the majority of the time Second Life has been around. It is a function everyone has seen in use at least once - if you're going to claim you have not, sit down and peddle those wares elsewhere.

Oh I thought someone said it has only worked since 2012. That is barely half of the time.

Quote

I do so love how every single excuse in the playbook is now being dragged out in a desperate attempt to frame this as an actual problem that needs a solution .... Beyond the ones we already have in place, such as the simple fact that no TPV or even Linden Lab will use such a dialog in the manner this thread has been covering.

Well would be good if LL would put up another blog with actual pics of the authorized dialogue boxes they do use. Just so everybody is educated.

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

I don't mind being named.

 

Wait wait wait... Can you hear that...? I think it's an approaching @Dyna Mole With a padlock in her hand...

 

This thread has ran it's course. We're getting nowhere except:

 

I think it'd be premature at this point and would only result in copycat threads like that other one involving bots.

[EliseAnne85]

8 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

llTextBox isn't a script. It's a function that can be used inside scripts (scripts that are used for all kinds of different purposes).

It's a function for Gift Givers and a function for those who own the object, and others in this thread have said it can be modified (re-written).  So, how about a re-write - IIGiftRecipient.  And, the other IIOwnerObjectText (or something)  If it isn't used for those two purposes only - giving gifts and the owner modifying THEIR object - what other use does it have than to be exploited?  

Edited April 16, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Solar Legion]

There is no need to put up another blog post showcasing the official dialog boxes - if it looks like the llTextBox input, it is not "official".

There is also no need to "rewrite" the function as these dialogs do not look anything whatsoever like the actual, Viewer based inputs that would be used for such information.

...

Anyone got a drink? An edible perhaps?

[Ayashe Ninetails]

4 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

It's a function for Gift Givers

No, it isn't. I linked the LSL Wiki page yesterday. It's a general function you could use to generate a text box for *any* type of input. It theoretically could be used for inputting color values, names for gifts, names for security features, names for RLV controls, body commands/controls, gaming functions (say if someone created a Pictionary-type game and you'd input your guess into a text box for convenience), etc. It could be used for absolutely anything someone could come up with.

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

It's a function for Gift Givers and a function for those who own the object, and others in this thread have said it can be modified (re-written).  So, how about a re-write - IIGiftRecipient.  And, the other IIOwnerObjectText (or something)  If it isn't used for those two purposes only - giving gifts and the owner modifying THEIR object - what other use does it have than to be exploited?  

Suggestion box, guest book, security system used by a renter but owned by the landlord, searching for an item in a vendor...

[Ayashe Ninetails]

4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

...

Anyone got a drink? An edible perhaps?

Lmao, I'll take a mudslide, please.

[EliseAnne85]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

It could be used for absolutely anything someone could come up with.

I know, but I see that as the problem, especially with articles I've read about the younger generation.  

But, I got a life to lead too and don't want to keep going over the same thing I've said already.

If people will enable MFA, it's tedious, they are going to have to learn to deal with that.

[Innula Zenovka]

38 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

My reason for saying IITextBox should be modified to have text entered by owner only and then have a separate IITextBox no modify script for gifts that is about gift instructions only and cannot be over-ridden by someone writing anything is because SL wants to go into the modern world.  The modern world of younger people has changed.  The modern world of younger people is that they grew up on the phone and the vast majority are NOT geeks, not to mention perhaps never even owning a computer before should they decide to buy one because they like SL after being on mobile for awhile.  And, thus they are totally naive like newborns.  

If the world changes, why shouldn't components of virtual worlds to avoid a potential catastrophy?  

Why such defense of a script that could be so easily re-written? 

Plus, there really isn't a *need* for scripts to be modify.  The object can copy and modify fine with no modify scripts.  I use only NO MODIFY scripts but my objects are copy/mod.  The problem is that it reads no modify in inventory if the object contains no modify scripts.  And, that kind of *looks* weird.   

If someone could put a text box prompt where the people are about to loose their inventory if they don't enter password could be disastrous.  

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're proposing.

As things stand, anyone can write and save a script on the lines of

integer iChannel;
integer iHandle;
key kToucher;
default
{
    touch_end(integer num_detected)
    {
        llListenRemove(iHandle);
        iChannel = (integer)(1000+llFrand(9999999.0));
        kToucher = llDetectedKey(0);
        iHandle = llListen(iChannel,"", kToucher, "");
        llTextBox(kToucher, "Please enter some text here, and then touch \"Submit\"", iChannel);
    }

    listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message)
    {
        llListenRemove(iHandle);
        llRegionSayTo(kToucher,0,"You entered: "+message);
    }
}

They can, of course, substitute anything they like in place of "Please enter some text here, and then touch \"Submit\"", and they can do anything they like with the response, depending on whether they want to make a gift vendor, trick you into revealing your password, add a name to an access list, or tint the wall of your Linden Home bedroom a custom colour.

What are you suggesting?

Edited April 16, 2023 by Innula Zenovka

[Solar Legion]

I see we're doubling down on the "think of the children" angle ("younger people") ... No, younger users aren't going to be so easily taken in by such a dialog box as they're by and large used to such things as spoofing attempts. and will be on guard/paying slightly more attention.

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

If people will enable MFA, it's tedious, they are going to have to learn to deal with that.

That's life. Don't waste time plugging dozens of small leaks at the bottom of the food chain.  Identify a big one at the top and close it.  

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 4/13/2023 at 8:47 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Combination of cleaning out account and closing/deleting to make tracing more difficult.

It doesn't work when LL never completely deletes the account.

https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000135218-i-want-to-cancel-my-account-

https://lindenlab.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/31000152533-i-want-to-reactivate-my-account-#:~:text=In many cases%2C you can,the self service reactivation option.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

I see we're doubling down on the "think of the children" angle ("younger people") ... No, younger users aren't going to be so easily taken in by such a dialog box as they're by and large used to such things as spoofing attempts. and will be on guard/paying slightly more attention.

This is what I'm thinking, too. Also, younger people tend to already have it hammered into their heads that *insert entity here* (game dev, moderators, Twitch, social media site, Apple, Steam, apps, etc.) will never ask for your password and to never enter it inside said application beyond the initial login prompts.

[Qie Niangao]

17 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

What are you suggesting?

Indeed. I lost track at PIOF. What was the original proposal there? Who was supposed to have PIOF? Everyone who responds to llTextBox? or anybody owning an object that wants to emit the llTextBox? Or the scripter who… well, which stage of script creation? Saving and compiling the script? inserting it in an object? setting it run-enabled? How much hassle should we impose on creators who might want to use a script in their products?

Besides having dubious benefit, the whole idea seems completely disconnected from reality, so I must be missing the thread here.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Qie Niangao

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Indeed. I lost track at PIOF. What was the original proposal there? Who was supposed to have PIOF? Everyone who responds to llTextBox? or anybody owning an object that wants to emit a the llTextBox? Or the scripter who… well, which stage of script creation? Saving and compiling the script? inserting it in an object? setting it run-enabled? How much hassle should we impose on creators who might want to use a script in their products?

Besides having dubious benefit, the whole idea seems completely disconnected from reality, so I must be missing the thread here.

Because LL has a POIF precedent for Mesh uploading so it is not a stretch to include the requirement for someone wanting to use such a script to query residents for information, considering the possibility of it being used for nefarious purposes.

[Love Zhaoying]

Reminder that llTextBox() is soooo bogus for password stealing, it doesn't even obscure the password / replace it with '*' as you type it - UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE VALID PASSWORD ENTRY MECHANISM. If you are fooled by it, you are a "computer illiterate", not just "distracted". 

[EliseAnne85]

25 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

I see we're doubling down on the "think of the children" angle ("younger people") ... No, younger users aren't going to be so easily taken in by such a dialog box as they're by and large used to such things as spoofing attempts. and will be on guard/paying slightly more attention.

Oh really, and most younger people own some kind of crypto to which almost all wallets and/or blockchains except Bitcoin have been hacked.  I believe the two other cryptos that were based on the code of Bitcoin were also not hacked.  However, not so for all the blockchains not based on Bitcoin's code - all those were hacked.  

I was thinking LL or, of course, it's subsidiary, Tilia, could offer us a wallet to store our Linden offline from our account - but almost all popular and main wallets on the web have been hacked, as well as all the main blockchains that were other than Bitcoin.  Kids fell for that right and left.  

I don't have a lot of time right now, but forging a path to a safe wallet off of SL viewers is something I'd like to see SL go in the path of, in spite of how many web-based "wallets" have been hacked in the past.  That's the past, I'm saying let's go forward and get us as hack-free a wallet as possible where we can store our lindens.

 

[Qie Niangao]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Because LL has a POIF precedent for Mesh uploading so it is not a stretch to include the requirement for someone wanting to use such a script to query residents for information, considering the possibility of it being used for nefarious purposes.

But who is this "someone wanting to use such a script to query residents"? The owner of the object running the script? That's possible, I guess, and personally I don't particularly care if people without PIOF can't run scripts anymore, but it seems a little extreme.