DOS attack on UT2003 Server Ports!

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-12-2003, 04:11 AM

Hello,

I've been experiencing a DOS attack on UDP 7777, 7778, 7787, and 7788 when I free up these ports to host UT2003. I happens about an hour after hosting the game.

This problem is also documented here:

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/280544

As per the above article, I change the port= under [URL] in the server.ini but, the server fails to load if the port is anything but 7777. Changing "Douplink" to false, lets the server app load, but it then does not advertise the server...

In short, I am asking for a way to change the port on UT2003 and have it also advertise on gamespy and the master server or for the DOS acceptability to be fixed

.

*Also, does anyone know the server command line phrase to load an invasion game and map?*

Cheers!

Ted H.
www.DrunkenWarriors.com

**elmuerte** · 03-12-2003, 05:13 AM

Every serivce is vulnerable to a DoS attack, every computer connected to the internet even. There is no way to protect yourself against a DoS attack except using some wirecutters.

give some log lines etc. UT2003 can run on any port

PS. what gives you the idea your server is being DoS'ed

legacy-Tigsman · 03-12-2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by DrunkenWarriors
*Also, does anyone know the server command line phrase to load an invasion game and map?*

Cheers!

Ted H.
www.DrunkenWarriors.com

ucc server Maps=DM-TrainingDay?game=SkaarjPack.Invasion

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-12-2003, 12:50 PM

It was actually quite simple...

I just DMZ'd the server and used ZoneAlarm to capture IP's with the server down after my router kept crashing for 3 days in a row...(all on a hunch)

I received about 1000 net bios, handshake, probes, etc to the UT2003 port range in about 4 hours. No ther ports were touched.

BTW is there a way I can change the port # and still advetise on the master server? Simply changing the port # in the ini causes the server ap to fail to load.

Cheers!

Ted

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-12-2003, 01:18 PM

DOH!

I forgot to add the important detail that tipped me off it was a dos attack! :bulb:

The server panel actually said in constant repeat mode:

"UDP Packet Overload"

The UDP or 3 letter abbreviation I am unsure of... but it did say
"XXX Packet Overload"

This is what prompted me to DMZ and capture IP's.

Cheers!

Ted

**legacy-jaydee116** · 03-12-2003, 01:53 PM

Same problem here. I have a hunch this maybe the "lag" problem people are seeing with V2199. Players are complaining about lagg and leaving my server ever since I installed V2199. No probs at all with V2186 was a good solid version. I don't belive the patch itself is to blame, but have a theory someone is trying to make Epic understand their servers are vulnerable and DOS attacking them. Now that it has been spammed around that the Unreal game engine has security problems they are going to be a haven for DOS attacks. My UT2003 server is going to be shut down once I get home. I should have shut it off this morning once I notices it getting hammered. Bah.....

**elmuerte** · 03-12-2003, 03:23 PM

UT2003 uses UDP packets for communication, just tell you firewall to shut up about it. It's not a DoS attack, it's players trying to play on your server,

**legacy-jaydee116** · 03-12-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by El_Muerte_[TDS]
UT2003 uses UDP packets for communication, just tell you firewall to shut up about it. It's not a DoS attack, it's players trying to play on your server,

Even when there are no players on?

Possibly another problem then. I am going to shut it down and monitor that system for a few days and see whats up.... Only thing that system does is run the UT server though. Only reason I can think of that players are having bad lagg and leaving. All started when I upgraded to V2199 with the downloaded dedicated server...

**elmuerte** · 03-13-2003, 03:47 AM

even when there are no players on them, the server details are also transfered via UDP packets, and after you uplinked to the master server it takes a little while before it becomes visible. When it's visible people will start to query your server for details

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-13-2003, 03:49 PM

4000+ port scans, netbios attempts, and probes in 4 hours when the server is down are just gamers trying to connect?

All to one specific port range?

I wish we were that popular. LOL

Its a DOS attack. Even my ISP thinks so =)

The Creators of UT2003 need to get on the ball and make their game less susceptible to this kind of stuff.

If your network, router, or server is crashing alot, My suggestion for you is to DMZ your server and use ZoneAlarm (free DL) to collect IP's that port scan. After it maxes out the log file size, you soon see what I mean. :bulb:

Get ZA here: www.zonelabs.com

Cheers!

Ted H.
www.DrunkenWarriors.com

**elmuerte** · 03-13-2003, 05:10 PM

Well it looks like you made some enemy script kiddies, and they appear to try every "tool" out there in order to get you from the internet.
UT2003 has nothing do to with NetBIOS, but NetBIOS uses UDP as network protocol for some uses.

And there's nothing that Epic can do to protect you against attacks. That's the toll you pay from being connected to the internet. All Epic can do is make sure their software doesn't contain security holes that can be abused.

And I don't call 1000+/hour connection attempts a DoS. It could be a attack, but not a DoS (unless you are on a modem ofcourse

)

legacy-Tigsman · 03-13-2003, 05:33 PM

a couple of things.

#1, any good router will allow you to log incoming and outgoing traffic. Linksys BEFRS41 does.

#2, I too get quite a few hits in just af ew minutes of logging on ports 7777-7788.

Although I think this might be traffic from the master browser of ut2k3, I am wondering if there is a way.. to remove a server from the master list so it cant be browsed or searched on, but, still allow users to connect to your server if they have you in their favorites. Now this does mean not getting a N/A in the remote client favs list. But at least so far, i dont think thats possible.

If my presumption is correct about the traffic being master server browser related, Epic has some coding issues cause there is no reason to get all that search traffic if you have a private server. Especially if your private friends only get a N/A in their favs list if your server is totally disconnect from the master server. Thats wrong.

T

legacy-Drunken Clong · 03-13-2003, 06:05 PM

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/280544

http://www.security.nnov.ru/search/d...asp?docid=3998

http://www.pivx.com/kristovich/adv/mk001/

The most in depth:
http://www.securitybugware.org/Other/5974.html

Dear Mr. The Death,

If you'd care to follow the link in the first post (also here), and these others, you'd see that this actually IS a DDoS exploit in the engine, and that Epic has been notified of it as of at LEAST July of 2002, and specifically that it still existed in UT2k3 as of November 2002. I agree that Epic should be responsible to keep their software from having security holes, but there is still no patch fixing the issue even after all this time.

Also, to go into a little more depth on the issue, the problems only started when the UT2k3 server first went up. After a day of it running, the old router (a Siemens) started crashing for no reason. It was upgraded to a Linksys (and no more crashing), but the Neverwinter Nights server that's also behind it was still experiencing some serious lag when it shouldn't have. After starting up Zone Alarm and DMZ'ing that PC, we saw immediately all these different probes, handshake reqs, netbios, etc., on the UT ports (and no others).

Once the server was shut down, the probes slowly abated after about 4 hours. Now, once the server is put back up after a day sitting there with ZA watching and no traffic on those ports or any others not specifically in use, BAM!, within 10 minutes it starts all over again. This has been repeated several times now with the same results each time. I think that pretty much proves that it's the game drawing in the attack once it gets advertised on the master server, don't you? Hell, half the posts complaining about lag with the 2199 patch are probably experiencing the same thing. Maybe even more than that.

I sure hope they fix it soon!

legacy-PUTZ · 03-13-2003, 06:33 PM

do what I am doing Boycotting anything with based on teh UT2003 Game engne..
once no pne play there crap and no one buys there ****, there realize just how much of teh gaming community they have pissed off and turned away fom any with teh name "EPIC" in it.. simple solution for some simple minded UT2003 Game engine coders.....

I dumped Epic and am running Qcke again, it's network play while some almost 4 + years behind, teh so called " New Online Gaming experiece from Epic" Totally blows them out of the water.. Quake even plays great for th eusers connecting with a 3300 baud modem, there no lag isues and things are nice and smooth,,

epic is gonna play hell ith that " Minuim Online game hardware and the 33.6 modem connection" Yeah right Just how **CKing stupid do you have to be , to know there anit no way in hell that minium online hardware line is gonna get it.. Epic is so ****ed..

Just Boycott, shut down your servers delete the UT2003 Game from yuor Hard drives and load up any old ID software online game and have fun... the way it's suppose to be...

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-13-2003, 08:39 PM

Oh man...

You guy are in trouble now... My esteemed Web Monkey, CLONG, is posting now.

Putz may have a point.

I hope the makers of UT2003 have an army of attourneys.

Cheers!

Ted H.
www.DrunkenWarriors.com

**elmuerte** · 03-14-2003, 06:33 AM

Let's get things straight, there's a major diffirence in a DoS and a DDoS.

But in both cases, if you are the target there's nothing you can do about it.
The unreal engine used to have a couple of bugs that allowed it to be used to start a DDoS attack to an other machine.

UT2003 version 2199 an Unreal Tournament version 440 should have been fixed.

legacy-Drunken Clong · 03-14-2003, 04:29 PM

Yes, it should've been fixed in 2199, and also somewhere in the first several patches since the release date, but it wasn't.

**elmuerte** · 03-14-2003, 06:52 PM

what gives you the impression that it's not fixed ?

legacy-wanparty.ch · 03-14-2003, 09:09 PM

intresting discussion...

1 -> you can stop DDos and other attacks by getting a decent firewall. sonic or netscreen should do. problem is since server patch 2199 i as a client sometimes recieve a hell of a lot of udp packets from my server (i had to set the threashold to 10 000 a second) otherwise on certain maps i wasnt able to connect. seems to be a packet broadcast storm initiated by the server and not a bunch of script kiddies

2 -> i am adament that the prior server patches to 2199 ran more stable (even if 2199 was supposed to be a fix patch). we have clan members recieving lag in the middle of the game for no reason at all. this only started since server patch 2199. my server is housed at a peering datahouse (100mbit upload) so don't blame the lag on a server connection bottleneck.

3 -> PUTZ suggestion stinks:down: i love the game and playing sour puss isnt gonna fix our problem...

4-> El_Muerte_[TDS] keep up the good work, what would epic do without your knowledge:up:

moral of the story: instead of only criticing lets find a solution, lets be honest there is no online game out there running so smooth with such little bandwidth...

legacy-Drunken Clong · 03-15-2003, 04:54 AM

How about the fact that the server was patched to 2199, and all that stuff was still happening? It's exactly what was documented as being the result of the security flaw.

P.S. Another firewall wouldn't help in this case since the exploit is carried out on the ports used by UT2k3, so they'd have to be open anyway. It's the excess traffic and slamming that hiccups the server app and bottleneck of the connection.

**elmuerte** · 03-15-2003, 07:26 AM

What happends ?
Does your server crash because as a result of the attack?
Does the server participate in DDoS attacks to other hosts?
Does your server filled up with ghost players ?
Does your client crash on an invalid Unreal URL ?

No ?
Well sounds to me that it's fixed.

The only thing you see it people trying to abuse the security flauws that used to be in there. But with no result.

Your server IS vulerable to DoS attacks, and always will. Even if you don't run an UT2003 server you are vulnerable to DoS attacks. There is no way to protect yourself from being subject to a DoS attack (except from not connecting to the internet)

If you want to know more about what DoS and DDoS are and how they are used, go to this website:
http://www.denialinfo.com/

legacy-DrunkenWarriors · 03-15-2003, 04:19 PM

El Muerte,

You are being jerk. All we want his help here, not to be patronized.

Does your server crash because as a result of the attack?

YES

And it crashes my router and the 2 other servers on my network.

Changing the ports totally fixes this.

Cheers!

Ted

**elmuerte** · 03-15-2003, 05:35 PM

With "server" I mean the "UT2003 server" not the actual machine.

In the past several years running UT servers I received a lot of complaints concerning DoS attacks and stuff like it.
100% of those complaints were from paranoid people.

So, does the UT2003 server crash or does the operating system crash because of the attack ?
If it's the later, then you might want to check the drivers and various OS settings.

I've succesfully tested my test server with various attacks on the UT2003 server, including a DoS attack of 60MBit and it didn't crash, it was just in denail of service because of the massive data to process.

legacy-PUTZ · 03-17-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote: I've succesfully tested my test server with various attacks on the UT2003 server, including a DoS attack of 60MBit and it didn't crash, it was just in denail of service because of the massive data to process.

__________________

Bull****, Now you got a server serval post Back, when asked if this crap happens to you in another post here in the admin section, you stated "I DON"T RUN A UT2003 SERVER"

See YOU LIKE EPIC ARE A LYING BASTARD<>> SCREW EPIC>> BOYCOTT EPIC GAMES PLAY ANYTHING BUT EPIC AND YOU WILL HAVE FUN! AND PEOPLES WILL USE YOUR SERVER AS WELL.

legacy-PUTZ · 03-17-2003, 12:13 PM

El_Muerte_[TDS]
nuff said =)

Your French aren't you... coward!. momies boy....Oh help me there gonna kick my ass!.. your a PANSEY.. and a prick!

legacy-wanparty.ch · 03-17-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by PUTZ
El_Muerte_[TDS]
nuff said =)

Your French aren't you... coward!. momies boy....Oh help me there gonna kick my ass!.. your a PANSEY.. and a prick!

hey putz...

let me guess you are "wicked sick" at the moment

**elmuerte** · 03-17-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by PUTZ

Bull****, Now you got a server serval post Back, when asked if this crap happens to you in another post here in the admin section, you stated "I DON"T RUN A UT2003 SERVER"

I don't run any public servers, only test servers to test my stuff.

Edit, I've looked it up.
In the thread Administering VS playing I said:

don't do either of them

I don't Admin servers and I don't play the game. It doesn't say I don't run servers. For once get your facts straight.

legacy-wanparty.ch · 03-18-2003, 01:48 PM

yo El_Muerte_[TDS]

i happen to be one of the poor admins with the LAG problem. let me put it this way, i dont have lag to my server (housed externally) but certain clan members do

and before we start loosing clan members i need to find a solution.

question 1:

we use custom maps, custom skins, utsecure and Mapvote. could this constellation have an influence on the fps performance by certain players ???

PS. the server and the connection is more than optimal.

question 2:

i have a MaxInternetClientRate=10000.0 set for the clients.
i allow 12 players on a 100mbit connection. sometimes i read in the postings that decreasing the connection is better WHY could u explain that to me

thanx and keep up the good work

**elmuerte** · 03-18-2003, 04:50 PM

I've heard some intresting things, if every player upgrades to 2199 (and the server) the lag would be much less or even not there.
not sure about this tho.

MaxInternetClientRate=10000 (no dots in there)
is more that enough, only Invasion generates more than 10000b/s

legacy-wanparty.ch · 03-18-2003, 08:12 PM

thanx for the info m8

btw i installed the beta patch 2217 and shiiiitttt...

that patch is not recomendable. picture freezes, weapons dont shoot and all funny and weird things happening. i suggest staying away from it:down:

**legacy-XeNoSiS** · 03-27-2003, 11:57 AM

I can confirm a few things. I run two VERY popular BR/IG/LG/135 Spd Servers and can relate to a lot of complaints addressed in these forums.

1. It seems that the further we go with updated patches the more bulky the code/features get, and the less problems are resolved. I see a lot of asthetic changes that in my opinion are meant to distract the user from underlying problems with network play. While they are fun and neat to look at, I would rather do without until perfomance issues are addressed.

2. We have tried and number of different patches since 2199 and have about a 20% increase in lag complaints. Normally I dismiss 50% of these due to the average complainer, and another 30% for people with personal ISP issues. However, recently a number of people that NEVER complained before and are personal friends of mine are seeing similar problems with lag, packetloss, and skipping.

3. Now.. I am not going to place the fault on the server itself, because not everyone has the problem. But I can't seem to find any consistancy with the issues. It isn't version related, the lines aren't over utilized, the clients haven't changed settings, etc. etc. etc. As an admin, it is incredibly frustrating to address each one of these legitimate complaints with no recourse. I work with LAN/WAN networks for a living, and normally consider myself able to resolve any issues. This has me frustrated because I am unable to find consistancy in the problems even though it is consistant with certain users.

4. We run a number of different mutators, actors, etc. that might impact server peformance as well. So I can't completely eliminate the possibility of those either. One concern that I have is that one user is recently complaining that our server is sending packets to his network even when he is not connected to the server. Again, I am going to have to load up a packet sniffer and look into it in more detail. But if it turns out to be ANYTHING UT2003 related I am going to come back and point fingers.

5. One of EPIC's biggest mistakes is the .INI editing for server admin's. There should be some sort of automatic network test tool that calibrates your .INI for you. AND there should be some sort of gui to help out.
If anyone makes mention of the WebAdmin as beign a gui for configuring the .INI you get shot.

j/k
What I mean is that, all these extra lines of information in the dedicated server .INI are not needed. Admin's shouldn't be forced to perform calculations on what their "Epic Ideal" ClientRate and NetTickRate should be. The server admins are untimately the ones that keep your game alive. So don't arm us with retarded tools and piss poor documentation.
Don't point me to unrealadmin.org either. I am tired of people answering my posts with that web url like it is "the answer".

Anyways, I am just a troubled admin. I might just rebuild the box with 2199 and see what happens. It helps to get this off my chest. I hope for smoother netplay in the future.

**legacy-dP^Dark_Wizard** · 04-10-2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by XeNoSiS
I can confirm a few things. I run two VERY popular BR/IG/LG/135 Spd Servers and can relate to a lot of complaints addressed in these forums.

1. It seems that the further we go with updated patches the more bulky the code/features get, and the less problems are resolved. I see a lot of asthetic changes that in my opinion are meant to distract the user from underlying problems with network play. While they are fun and neat to look at, I would rather do without until perfomance issues are addressed.

2. We have tried and number of different patches since 2199 and have about a 20% increase in lag complaints. Normally I dismiss 50% of these due to the average complainer, and another 30% for people with personal ISP issues. However, recently a number of people that NEVER complained before and are personal friends of mine are seeing similar problems with lag, packetloss, and skipping.

3. Now.. I am not going to place the fault on the server itself, because not everyone has the problem. But I can't seem to find any consistancy with the issues. It isn't version related, the lines aren't over utilized, the clients haven't changed settings, etc. etc. etc. As an admin, it is incredibly frustrating to address each one of these legitimate complaints with no recourse. I work with LAN/WAN networks for a living, and normally consider myself able to resolve any issues. This has me frustrated because I am unable to find consistancy in the problems even though it is consistant with certain users.

4. We run a number of different mutators, actors, etc. that might impact server peformance as well. So I can't completely eliminate the possibility of those either. One concern that I have is that one user is recently complaining that our server is sending packets to his network even when he is not connected to the server. Again, I am going to have to load up a packet sniffer and look into it in more detail. But if it turns out to be ANYTHING UT2003 related I am going to come back and point fingers.

5. One of EPIC's biggest mistakes is the .INI editing for server admin's. There should be some sort of automatic network test tool that calibrates your .INI for you. AND there should be some sort of gui to help out.
If anyone makes mention of the WebAdmin as beign a gui for configuring the .INI you get shot. j/k
What I mean is that, all these extra lines of information in the dedicated server .INI are not needed. Admin's shouldn't be forced to perform calculations on what their "Epic Ideal" ClientRate and NetTickRate should be. The server admins are untimately the ones that keep your game alive. So don't arm us with retarded tools and piss poor documentation.
Don't point me to unrealadmin.org either. I am tired of people answering my posts with that web url like it is "the answer".

Anyways, I am just a troubled admin. I might just rebuild the box with 2199 and see what happens. It helps to get this off my chest. I hope for smoother netplay in the future.

Any resolve? I see this alot as well with servers and even more so lately. It is getting very frustrating and I am also an admin of a server and tried everything at my disposal and still no luck.

**legacy-TheQuixote** · 04-16-2003, 03:18 AM

I’ve been having network issues as a client since 2199, some of which where ISP related but once I got those sorted out I found there were some UT2K3 specific issues. On some servers I would get sudden F6 ping spikes (and shot lag to go with it) from 80’s to 300+, as well as all sorts of no weapon fire and other issues normally blamed on packet loss. What tipped me off that something was weird was just reconnecting to the server fixed it for a while i.e. not an ISP problem. I also noticed that when this happened it usually only happened to me so it wasn’t a server over load issue. Next thing I tried was going out and pinging the server from outside of UT2K3 when one of these mystery lag bubbles occurred. Ping to the server would be 60-100 while the in game ping would be 300+

Then I ran across this on another forum

http://www.provinggrounds.com/forums...26&topic=36065

The first thing I tried was putting my comp in the DMZ which didn’t affect anything. The next thing I tried was taking my router out of the loop and so far the unexplained lag issues seem to have disappeared. The no fire issue is A LOT less frequent with out the router as well. I haven’t worked at this enough to be sure it’s the router and I hope I don’t send you searching for a white elephant but I would start asking people that have lag problems if and what type of router they are using.

Mines a BEFSR41 linksys 4 port cable/DSL router

**legacy-RockD** · 04-16-2003, 12:19 PM

Some of what TheQuioxte said makes sense. Here's my 2 cents:

I am also a server admin, for several different games, including UT2003 (recent). I have been watching with intense interest, this issue about possible 2199-related lag and it appears that the jury might still be out. I never had any of the aforementioned problems when serving the original UT.

But concerning routers: I used to use that little Linksys 4-port Router. I've also used a few others like it (they use similar technology in their hardware) and they all suffered from the same problem to varying degrees... I was able to play games, but I had problems serving games.

After much packet-sniffing and interactions with the router manufacturers, here's what I learned.

Servers create a LOT of traffic in/out of the router... a lot more than just being an online player. The router has some built-in memory to buffer things up until it can handle them. Once those memory buffers fill up, the router has no choice but to drop over-flow packets on the floor because it has no place to put them.

In TCP (web-browsing uses TCP) dropping packets on the floor doesn't matter much because TCP is a connection-based protocol and the sender will just re-send the packets... their delivery is guaranteed.

But games are UDP-based, which is a connectionless-based protocol. The packets are NOT guaranteed delivery... they are basically sent out into space and the receiver better be there to catch them.

Now, when you overflow the router from the Internet side, it has to drop the overflow packets on the floor (no choice), and the game server and players start to have problems, which gets manifested as teleporting, shot-loss, lag, disconnection-kicks, all sorts of nasty stuff.

I went to a PC-based router and I never had the problem again. Some players do experience a little lag from time to time due to upstream issues beyond my control, but none of the crap they were getting when going thru those little stand-alone routers.

I haven't had my 2199 game-server up long enough to glean anything about its particular operating characteristics for myself, so I'm just taking all your words for it. I just wanted to shed some light on possible router-load issues.

So, if there is something about 2199 resulting in unnecessarily increased traffic (for whatever reason) I can see why it would wreak havoc with servers.

I hope they fix it soon. Maybe we should stick with 2186? Is there a problem with that solution?

Rock D.

**legacy-SpazzTic** · 04-16-2003, 12:27 PM

You, my friend have given me the most reasonable explanation to date.

My servers are hooked to a 7200, so I haven`t experienced these problems...but I have been keeping up on whats been happening with these consumer-level routers. I have to say with all of these theories flying around -- yours just makes sense.

lol, usually the simpler explanation is the right one...

Cheers!

**legacy-Orion Pax** · 04-17-2003, 07:35 PM

Well TheQuixote I too have a BEFSR41 4 port cable/dsl router and mine gives me no trouble. But I do allways have mine in DMZ mode. I will give port forwarding a try. All though I have to admit this is my 3rd one. The very first one was faulty before I got it. Then my second one died finally before a year was up. So I went and got a new one and exchanged my old one for a new one and sold it to my best friend for the amount of the last one i bought....which was $55. Was on sale. But I will give it a try and see what I get!

**legacy-TheQuixote** · 04-17-2003, 08:14 PM

Friend of mine has the exact same router, no problems for him as well. After more thorough testing I have confirmed that removing the router does solve my unexplained lag issues. The only differences between my friends and my set up is he has a different ISP than I do, and he’s on a much older firmware version than I am (I’m at 1.44.?)

I’m thinking (and likely in error) there’s a combination of factors that don’t cause this problem, but keep the server from reestablishing a good connection after a normal network hitch occurs. In my case the router is easiest link to single out but may not necessarily be the cause. I think this because with the router in the loop, when the connection “goes bad” it rarely fixes it self during the game. But reconnecting to the server seems to reset the connection and it works fine until another hitch occurs. But without the router everything runs fine. I tried port forwarding and DMZ which diddn’t affect anything..

**legacy-RockD** · 04-17-2003, 08:40 PM

Yes, I had ALL those same problems when I was using my Linksys Router (same model). I've had friends who used the SAME router and they all had problems too... but ONLY when serving games.

So I tried other models... Netgear, SMC... they had the same problems to varying degrees. I think your evidence is right in front of you... you bypass the router and everything works great.

I'm not saying this happens with EVERY router (I certainly haven't tried every one of them), but since their technology is "of the same order", I would stay away from the little stand-alone jobs for serving games since my record has been 0-for-3.

There are other solutions to the router problem. You should look into them. Got a spare PC laying around? What I use at my home is documented here:

www.rockshq.com

I've got a few years of game-serving experience so I'm not just blowing hot air. Use what works, stay away from what doesn't work. You can buy Sygate for a lot less than a router.

Good luck to you. I hope you can work it out.

Rock D.

legacy-CoreyZ · 04-18-2003, 12:06 PM

speaking of server's can i host a ut2003 sever even if i got a fire wall and no ports open? becus i dont know how to open port's

legacy-Kilcin · 04-18-2003, 02:24 PM

Generally if you don't have the game ports open, no one will be able to log into your server.

What kind of firewall do you have? Some allow to set a particular program as an a llowed server and automatically open up the ports it requires. If your's doesn't do that, you can always got to the maker's page and see if the have instructions on how to open ports.

Edit:

NM