Maybe we can have it where it's not a requirement for vb.org staff to review hacks. But when a staff member tests a hack for security and there are no flaws it can be labeled as validated or something along those lines...
That wouldn't work in my opinion. You could label the hacks that you have tested (checked for security means you can not miss 1 line of coding), but in the view of the members all hacks without the Verified tag would be unverified and not trusted.
It would take us forever to install and test every released hack, and then you want us to go over the code and find all the bugs? Do you relize how much that would hold up new hack releases?
It is up to the author to verify his code, bug test, and fix his security holes. This has been discussed for a long time and always ends up at the same place, not enough people for the project, and the ones willing have little free time as it is.
Ok so on a good week 10 new hacks are released. So hypothetically a team of 10 or-so hack moderators could easily check through hacks with a delay as small as 24 hours. As for older hacks they could do with authors checking them through and then re-submitting. It wouldn't mean that vb.org endorse the hack they have just rated it...
the only validated hacks imo should be regged vb.com all others use at own risk because i hack the hack alot of times so wouldnt make any sense to validate them
03-28-2005, 06:40 AM
Linear Mode
