Message boards : Number crunching : It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2805 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 1:20:41 UTC
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:25:43 UTC

ID: 2805 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LP

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 54,460
RAC: 0
Message 2809 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 1:42:44 UTC

I don't know... I have 4851.04 sitting in "pending" right now.

It is possible that someone had a massive amount of wu's queued, ran them and didn't upload the results until now.


ID: 2809 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2811 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 1:56:41 UTC - in response to Message 2809.  
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:25:51 UTC

ID: 2811 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LP

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 54,460
RAC: 0
Message 2812 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 2:00:43 UTC
Last modified: 30 Sep 2004, 2:06:48 UTC

Did you notice this by just looking through the points here?
I'm just curious how you knew that.
edit..
Nevermind.. I think I see what you're talking about.


ID: 2812 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2814 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 2:10:13 UTC - in response to Message 2812.  
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:25:33 UTC

ID: 2814 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LP

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 54,460
RAC: 0
Message 2815 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 2:18:19 UTC

Well, hopefully that's not the case. Maybe it was a validator glitch?

We should all be re-set to zero soon anyway.
ID: 2815 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2816 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 2:25:36 UTC - in response to Message 2815.  
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:25:17 UTC

ID: 2816 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Doris and Jens

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 4
Credit: 498,638
RAC: 0
Message 2823 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 5:54:07 UTC

I saw some people who try to cheat the BOINC system in last year, but there was no success until now. All strange looking credit issues where bugs at least. So I didn't really believe in cheating now.

There are some small issues where people may think to use them for cheating, but all are easy to check on server side and possible easy to fix if needed.

For my feeling it is totally okay not to post the username related to the problem you see, but this may make it difficulty for the admins to have a quick view. I would suggest, if you see a very strange looking issue with the credit system and don't want to post more details, you may send a quick mail to the project admins.

In any case it may be usefully for the BOINC developers and project admins to know about problems and bugs in the software.

And you can be sure, the BOINC software is basicly very safe against cheating. And if someone think he find a way, it will be closed quickly.



Greetings from Bremen/Germany
Jens Seidler
ID: 2823 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2829 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 6:13:17 UTC - in response to Message 2823.  
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:25:05 UTC

ID: 2829 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rsbriggs

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 14
Credit: 168,153
RAC: 0
Message 2851 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 10:32:36 UTC

Michael
Are you sure you aren't jumping the gun a bit here ?
Maybe one of the validator servers had a stuck queue ?

I guess from the numbers you quoted that someone with a total credit similar to yours jumped ahead by 3k and you want to know why.
Maybe the admins will have an explanation and we can stop panicking.



ID: 2851 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 209
Credit: 1,482,496
RAC: 0
Message 2874 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 15:00:22 UTC
Last modified: 23 Oct 2004, 20:30:09 UTC

ID: 2874 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Christian Weisse

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 13
Credit: 64,615
RAC: 0
Message 2879 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 15:58:08 UTC

I second what Krunching-keith, PCZ, LP said.

U only need some big queue and once done upload and report.
Booooooommmmmm look at these stats :)

I wouldn't mind if the validator credits my 1300 credits pending at once

Checking boincstats.com I don't see any suspicious numbers.


Anyway I dont see any possibility to cheat on Boinc. Proof me if I am wrong.
ID: 2879 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Ingleside

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 36
Credit: 78,199
RAC: 0
Message 2883 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 16:41:04 UTC - in response to Message 2805.  

Well, didn't calculate for all, but the highest RAC is 1505 and based on computer-info the machines is capable of 4671 CS/day, while Michael Berger has RAC 744 and machines capable of 883 CS/day. Granted some of the computers is possibly doublets, but still a quick look on available info doesn't show anything unreasonable with any of the top-20.

Also, a long wu is from the look of things giving 70-100 CS, therefore 2800 CS is roughly 30 results. It's therefore not unreasonable someone either reported all todays results, or a couple of other users reported their results so the wu could be validated in a couple of minutes.

Cross-checking with Top Computers, the highest RAC is 432.13, and this doesn't seem unreasonable for a computer capable of 707 CS/day...

So nothing indicates any cheating. :)
ID: 2883 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 209
Credit: 1,482,496
RAC: 0
Message 2886 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 17:13:32 UTC - in response to Message 2883.  
Last modified: 23 Oct 2004, 20:29:36 UTC

ID: 2886 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 2919 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 21:05:40 UTC
Last modified: 21 Nov 2004, 12:24:30 UTC

ID: 2919 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ric

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 190
Credit: 649,637
RAC: 0
Message 2924 - Posted: 30 Sep 2004, 22:29:27 UTC - in response to Message 2919.  

An answer?

I don't have one.

>Also, no new computers were added by the participant.

This is what we all can SEE. If the participant was adding hosts AND doing a merge, the participants total amount of hosts will NOT increase.
Supposed the merge has be done over the account page.

It looks like the satisfaction giving explanation would not be found

or the answer is so simple, we cant see it:

Perhaps a participant was doing some legal tests him/her self and wasn't aware of the issue of it... LHC was still beta at the time and the partitian was taking this for true.

who knows..


It is possible that someone had a massive amount of wu's queued, ran them and didn't upload the results until now.


This looks like the most fitting answer.

I'm not sure, if enough facts are given for classifying this issue as a cheat.

ID: 2924 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 209
Credit: 1,482,496
RAC: 0
Message 2930 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 1:05:35 UTC - in response to Message 2919.  
Last modified: 23 Oct 2004, 20:29:00 UTC

ID: 2930 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Pete49

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 35
Credit: 250,303
RAC: 0
Message 2935 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 2:21:10 UTC - in response to Message 2919.  

> Has anyone observed or received credits equaling 2.5 times current RAC or
> observed or received credits equaling 13.5% or more of the current total
> credits without adding any new computers?
>
>

My RAC = 150.59; for the 24 hr period ending 8pm EDST (0000 UTC) today I received 391.44 credits. received credits:RAC = 2.599

The 391 credits represent a fraction over 20% increase in my total credits.

I have not added any computers in the last 72 hours.

Currently I have 59 results pending representing 613 claimed credits.

Currently I am running 9 hosts, all single cpu. 7 are LHC only but not 24/7
3 are 24/7 but only 20% resource share for LHC.



-P

ID: 2935 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Pete49

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 35
Credit: 250,303
RAC: 0
Message 2936 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 2:57:12 UTC - in response to Message 2930.  
Last modified: 1 Oct 2004, 3:02:06 UTC

> If one user got 2800 then two other users must also get that much.

Not true! Maybe 100 other users could have gotten average of 28 each.

It is folly to assume that every one of Mr. 2800's WU were matched with the same one or two users.
ID: 2936 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 209
Credit: 1,482,496
RAC: 0
Message 2940 - Posted: 1 Oct 2004, 3:39:06 UTC - in response to Message 2936.  
Last modified: 23 Oct 2004, 20:27:43 UTC

ID: 2940 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC


©2020 CERN