gg... it looks like we're screwed.
I was talking to my friend while we were in Clan Cell about the new update. The blizzard sysop who idles there had the nerve to disconnect us. Screw you, Blizzard.
Hdx: You forgot to mention SSHR and JSTR.

I bet 20$ e-money to Warrior that the only people who are going to get it are either skywing, UL, or hdx.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160344#msg160344 date=1162341596]
I bet 20$ e-money to Warrior that the only people who are going to get it are either skywing, UL, or hdx.
[/quote]

Speak for yourself.

Seems a bit odd that W2BN would be left out of the group that was affected

The question isn't  "can bnls be fixed". it's will skywing update it so people can abuse it.

[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=15929.msg160369#msg160369 date=1162361071]
The question isn't  "can bnls be fixed". it's will skywing update it so people can abuse it.
[/quote]

Abuse?

This is lame, by the time i always fix one of the patchs a new one comes out so that i have no time to work on my project (only because i have limited time), im about to give up..

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=15929.msg160373#msg160373 date=1162368124]
This is lame, by the time i always fix one of the patchs a new one comes out so that i have no time to work on my project (only because i have limited time), im about to give up..
[/quote]

... on?

If you mean by what, then i mean by the random projects i've always just worked on over the years, advancing the same projects over and over as a progress but only as personal use.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=15929.msg160367#msg160367 date=1162359735]
Honestly, I dont think there's an "easy way" around this...better start using War3 for your bots and don't be stupid and make a floodbot (for anyone out there)

I don't think that's really do-able, Shadow
[/quote]

but theres alrdy massload/flood bots out there that support war3/d2/war2  o.O

[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=15929.msg160398#msg160398 date=1162402815]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=15929.msg160367#msg160367 date=1162359735]
Honestly, I dont think there's an "easy way" around this...better start using War3 for your bots and don't be stupid and make a floodbot (for anyone out there)

I don't think that's really do-able, Shadow
[/quote]

but theres alrdy massload/flood bots out there that support war3/d2/war2  o.O


[/quote]

Yes, but as there are way fewer cd-keys for those clients.. and those cd-keys are much harder to generate, I don't think w3/w2/d2 loading will become a problem. But then again, there is absolutely no guarantee bnet won't lockdown those clients in the future. I don't think they will though, because they know they need to still keep some bots allowed for the network to live. If they locked out all the bots, all the non-gamers would leave bnet, and all the gamers would be pissed because they could no longer effectively moderate their channel.

has battle.net realized they need some bots to thrive hmm?

on the other hand they could jus be preparing for the update of the rest and getting ready to screw battle.net once and for all.

Okay, we get the general idea why blizzard is doing this,
now how about we acually work on fixing this! ATM I say we should do what Ringo is doing to connect with starcraft, until we find a permanent solution.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160401#msg160401 date=1162412956]
now how about we acually work on fixing this!
[/quote]

You don't understand how complicated these things are. You talk like it should be a no brainer. FYI, people are working very hard on this atm.

I'm just saying...... skeptical/l2k-shadow are acting like how to fix it isn't important, and why blizzard did this is

[quote author=NetNX link=topic=15929.msg160387#msg160387 date=1162398415]
Well even if it was possible it would not be a practical method for distribution. The idea being that you would need to distribute 'Starcraft.exe' with your bot for it to work. I don't know if you remeber all that drama a few months back with stealthbot getting threatened for carrying and distributing hashes (known now to be a prank). Having a user written library that is not technically the property of blizzard.

@Kp, do you really think blizzard would do that too us? I mean they have never tried before... Worst i'd expect would be an account/cdkey ban.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? Do you not realize all bots have always needed starcraft.exe, and there has never been a problem with people getting it themselves? I don't see what you were trying to get at in your first statement.

Brew you can't even read a hex dump for christ sakes..You just want ringo to hand over his method so you can go back to your post on the source and take credit for it.

http://www.radracer.us/ts_ben/forum/v2/viewtopic.php?t=557

"Don't worry, Fleet-, RaidenMZX and I are working on this problem! Please be patient!"

In a time when the community is actually comming together to work on something you're only worrying about looking cool in front of your 2 friends.

The only thing you're doing is hanging over this thread waiting for someone to throw you the answer. Get real and try to do something.

By hooking SC.exe I believe he is actually loading starcraft up to do the revision at login. Correct me if im wrong.

something about using sc's window from wat he told me

[quote author=Skeptical link=topic=15929.msg160405#msg160405 date=1162415439]
Brew you can't even read a hex dump for christ sakes..You just want ringo to hand over his method so you can go back to your post on the source and take credit for it.

http://www.radracer.us/ts_ben/forum/v2/viewtopic.php?t=557

"Don't worry, Fleet-, RaidenMZX and I are working on this problem! Please be patient!"

In a time when the community is actually comming together to work on something you're only worrying about looking cool in front of your 2 friends.

The only thing you're doing is hanging over this thread waiting for someone to throw you the answer. Get real and try to do something.

By hooking SC.exe I believe he is actually loading starcraft up to do the revision at login. Correct me if im wrong.
[/quote]

let's not get into a fleet- vs shadow war hur
and what makes you think I can't read a hex dump?
And if you re-read my last post you would see i said he should release IT not the source......

theres a delete button for your posts , please clik it

[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=15929.msg160408#msg160408 date=1162416437]
theres a delete button for your posts , please clik it
[/quote]
Thank you for your contribution, Thieves.

better yet, click on ur profile , look at the end of ur menu and click "delete this account"  , you'll win a prize!!

[4:35:17 PM] MysT_DooM has been forum squelched.

Anyways, what about using a pointer? I'm not an expert at this (i'm a total noob) but I believe that you could execute starcraft.exe for the duration of the login and make a refrence to the login sequence subs and be able to use it to construct the proper packets to login, although I bet somebody already thought of this...

[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=15929.msg160408#msg160408 date=1162416437]
theres a delete button for your posts , please clik it
[/quote]

I don't get it

Anyways, where can I get a decompiler?
That's the only fool-proof plan to get bots working again...

"Don't worry, Fleet-, RaidenMZX and I are working on this problem! Please be patient!"

LOLOLOL

I have devised a solution for logging onto bnet with the affected clients.  However, I am not going to disclose any details because I feel that battle.net is a better place without the floods/loads etc that come along with loading starcraft.  I feel that someone else may solve this issue, but I think they should use caution before releasing any information about this patch.

I'm sure you do

[quote author=rob link=topic=15929.msg160416#msg160416 date=1162419840]
I have devised a solution for logging onto bnet with the affected clients.  However, I am not going to disclose any details because I feel that battle.net is a better place without the floods/loads etc that come along with loading starcraft.  I feel that someone else may solve this issue, but I think they should use caution before releasing any information about this patch.
[/quote]

Somehow I highly doubt what you just said could be considered truth. I am sure that anyone with a real solution would not keep it a secret the way you did. What I mean when I say, "the way you did", is that you claim to have a solution and you come and mention it on the forums and you say how you will not tell anyone about how your solution works. Why even bring that up? How much more irrelevant can you get to this issue?

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160417#msg160417 date=1162420554]
I'm sure you do
[/quote]

Haven't found that delete button yet?

Also, what's with the sarcastic remark? How are you to know whether or not he has found a way. With your limited knowledge in programming, I don't believe you have the right to challenge the claims of other individuals.

Could easily be Starcraft.exe proxied through a bot like Ringo did...

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=15929.msg160423#msg160423 date=1162421836]
Could easily be Starcraft.exe proxied through a bot like Ringo did...
[/quote]

Exactly what I was going to say. rob's so-called solution could very well be just what Ringo tried. It actually sounds like a good temporary solution.

[quote author=FrostWraith link=topic=15929.msg160420#msg160420 date=1162420882]
[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160417#msg160417 date=1162420554]
I'm sure you do
[/quote]

Haven't found that delete button yet?

Also, what's with the sarcastic remark? How are you to know whether or not he has found a way. With your limited knowledge in programming, I don't believe you have the right to challenge the claims of other individuals.
[/quote]

What Yegg said

Anyways, I found a working decompiler, and I was able to acually decompile starcraft.exe!
sad part is, it's in asm. I *THINK* I've found the bnet functions, so far I found a few mentions of "0x0f" and a case select, I think I found the parse chat sub

*edit*

    }
    (save)0xda;
    (save)eax;
    (save)6551872;
    L0040FF62();
    M0063fa28 = 4;
    M0063eefc = GetTickCount() + 7000;
    eax = 0xc;
    L0048BF70();
            ^here
I found the connection part!!!!
just imagine, if I could find the checkrevision sub, we could find the prociedures they changed, anybody have an outdated starcraft.exe i could compare it with?

[quote author=RealityRipple link=topic=15929.msg160428#msg160428 date=1162423279]
That would be nice... Also, would someone mind documenting the changes in CheckRevision? It's always nice to have a map of the territory you're going to explore, even if the map's sketchy.
[/quote]

did anyone notice how I'm acually trying to do that all the while

yes!! exactly one revision down!

http://ftp.blizzard.com/pub/starcraft/patches/PC/

Reinstall SC, download SC-113f.exe, and patch it. You can then get the correct version yourself :)

allright :p
anyways, even though this has nothing to do with this, what is SWAR? I found it while digging around, no clue why its mixed in with bnet connection code:

M00689c4c = L004D1B90("Starcraft\SWAR\lang\statwire.cpp", 0x163);

maybe it's backwards... RAW fileS. I don't know... Could also be a different abbreviation for Starcraft: brood WAR

shit my decompiler crashed again...... i have a feeling this is gonna take a while -.-

Well, you have fun with that... my laptop battery is dying, my house is having power problems... so I'll be gone for a day or so. Good luck, guys!

Thanks! Cya around, Ripple!

Brew, nice effort, but you are looking at something that has nothing to do with this topic.

I'm trying to find the send 0x51 sub in starcraft.exe
It would be so much easier if my decompiler didn't suck

Woah wtf happened
this topic @ major split

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160340#msg160340 date=1162339764]
gg... it looks like we're screwed.
I was talking to my friend while we were in Clan Cell about the new update. The blizzard sysop who idles there had the nerve to disconnect us. Screw you, Blizzard.
Hdx: You forgot to mention SSHR and JSTR.
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160401#msg160401 date=1162412956]
Okay, we get the general idea why blizzard is doing this,
now how about we acually work on fixing this! ATM I say we should do what Ringo is doing to connect with starcraft, until we find a permanent solution.
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160411#msg160411 date=1162417246]
[4:35:17 PM] MysT_DooM has been forum squelched.

Anyways, what about using a pointer? I'm not an expert at this (i'm a total noob) but I believe that you could execute starcraft.exe for the duration of the login and make a refrence to the login sequence subs and be able to use it to construct the proper packets to login, although I bet somebody already thought of this...
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160414#msg160414 date=1162418502]
I don't get it

Anyways, where can I get a decompiler?
That's the only fool-proof plan to get bots working again...
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160426#msg160426 date=1162422790]
[quote author=FrostWraith link=topic=15929.msg160420#msg160420 date=1162420882]
[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160417#msg160417 date=1162420554]
I'm sure you do
[/quote]

Haven't found that delete button yet?

Also, what's with the sarcastic remark? How are you to know whether or not he has found a way. With your limited knowledge in programming, I don't believe you have the right to challenge the claims of other individuals.
[/quote]

What Yegg said

Anyways, I found a working decompiler, and I was able to acually decompile starcraft.exe!
sad part is, it's in asm. I *THINK* I've found the bnet functions, so far I found a few mentions of "0x0f" and a case select, I think I found the parse chat sub

*edit*

    }
    (save)0xda;
    (save)eax;
    (save)6551872;
    L0040FF62();
    M0063fa28 = 4;
    M0063eefc = GetTickCount() + 7000;
    eax = 0xc;
    L0048BF70();
            ^here
I found the connection part!!!!
just imagine, if I could find the checkrevision sub, we could find the prociedures they changed, anybody have an outdated starcraft.exe i could compare it with?
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160435#msg160435 date=1162424894]
shit my decompiler crashed again...... i have a feeling this is gonna take a while -.-
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160433#msg160433 date=1162424677]
allright :p
anyways, even though this has nothing to do with this, what is SWAR? I found it while digging around, no clue why its mixed in with bnet connection code:

M00689c4c = L004D1B90("Starcraft\SWAR\lang\statwire.cpp", 0x163);
[/quote]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160443#msg160443 date=1162427468]
I'm trying to find the send 0x51 sub in starcraft.exe
It would be so much easier if my decompiler didn't suck
[/quote]


and...

[quote author=Skeptical link=topic=15942.msg160405#msg160405 date=1162415439]
Brew you can't even read a hex dump for christ sakes..You just want ringo to hand over his method so you can go back to your post on the source and take credit for it.
[/quote]

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=15942.msg160415#msg160415 date=1162419467]
"Don't worry, Fleet-, RaidenMZX and I are working on this problem! Please be patient!"

LOLOLOL
[/quote]

[quote author=FrostWraith link=topic=15942.msg160420#msg160420 date=1162420882]
Haven't found that delete button yet?

Also, what's with the sarcastic remark? How are you to know whether or not he has found a way. With your limited knowledge in programming, I don't believe you have the right to challenge the claims of other individuals.
[/quote]

[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=15942.msg160408#msg160408 date=1162416437]
theres a delete button for your posts , please clik it
[/quote]

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15942.msg160412#msg160412 date=1162417701]
[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=15929.msg160408#msg160408 date=1162416437]
theres a delete button for your posts , please clik it
[/quote]
[/quote]

[quote author=Hdx]
But I agree with UL/KP, you are a compleet and utter moron.
[/quote]

[quote author=UserLoser]
You are a moron, just please leave the forums.
[/quote]

[quote author=Ringo]
Brew, if you want reall help, go see a shrink Oo
Your a waste bandwidth, and wasteing power, overall contributing to global warming!
Please stop now.!
[/quote]

[quote author=Kp]
I think you're a retard too, but I'm trying real hard to be polite so I'll say it in unclear terms instead.
[/quote]

Can't you take a hint? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO THE FUCK AWAY.


this message has been brought to you by the botdev community.

wow you actually wasted alot of time getting all those qoutes? sad times =(



EDIT:

[code]

Valhalla Legends Forum  |  Who's Online   

User  Time  Action
    Mystical  07:16:15 PM Viewing Who's Online.
    l2k-Shadow  07:16:14 PM Viewing the board Battle.net Bot Development.
    Guest  07:16:10 PM Viewing the topic lockdown-IX86-XX.mpq Update?.
    Guest  07:16:08 PM Viewing the topic Sent to Void.
    topaz  07:15:50 PM Viewing BreW's profile.
  ^ tisk tisk lol
[/code]

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15942.msg160414#msg160414 date=1162418502]
I don't get it

Anyways, where can I get a decompiler?
That's the only fool-proof plan to get bots working again...
[/quote]

You think decompiling is fool-proof? I've watched one of the most brilliant minds on these forums, MyndFyre, take like a whole year's worth of free time just to LOG IN to World of WarCraft by decompiling. Now, when Blizzard is intentionally TRYING to break bot's it's going to be even harder.

EDIT -
Ah, good job, seem's like you've already verbally beaten him into oblivion. :)


@UL: Does LoserBot or whatever it's called work correctly?

[quote author=topaz link=topic=15942.msg160456#msg160456 date=1162437072][quote author=Kp]
I think you're a retard too, but I'm trying real hard to be polite so I'll say it in unclear terms instead.
[/quote]Can't you take a hint? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO THE FUCK AWAY.
[/quote]

Don't put words in my mouth.

[quote author=Kp]
I don't like brew.
[/quote]

I used a program to figure out why I kept getting an error everytime I logged in it seems like some werid dll is getting injected here is the log
[quote]
11/2 02:50:05.406  Connecting to Battle.net...
11/2 02:50:05.672  Trying to load ws2_32.dll
11/2 02:50:05.672      querying gateway
11/2 02:50:05.735      searching for the fastest server
11/2 02:50:05.782      connected to server
11/2 02:50:05.797  Connected to server 63.240.202.131
11/2 02:50:05.797      Validating ID
11/2 02:50:05.829      requesting latest version
11/2 02:50:06.393  user has unknown version
11/2 02:50:07.505  Disconnecting from server
11/2 02:50:07.520  Could not connect to Battle.net
[/quote]
Can somebody please tell me what ws2_32.dll is and why its getting injected to cause b.net to error me out.

DeTaiLs: do you use any hacks or no-cd cracks, or anything that edits the memory or files of your game in any way?

[quote author=RealityRipple link=topic=15929.msg160480#msg160480 date=1162454750]
DeTaiLs: do you use any hacks or no-cd cracks, or anything that edits the memory or files of your game in any way?
[/quote]
I just posted a log of what is all getting loaded into b.net when I login, do you see any hacks or No-cd cracks being loaded, To answer your question no.

[quote author=Savior link=topic=15929.msg160482#msg160482 date=1162455055]
Wow.

[3:01:16 AM] -- Savior#2 [16ms] has joined the channel using Diablo II (Open Character).
[3:01:19 AM] <Savior#2> ?trigger
[3:01:19 AM] <Savior> The bot's current trigger is " . " (Alt + 046)
[3:01:20 AM] <wackoisgod> please share with us non-programmer type what the all seeing eye is ?
[3:01:20 AM] <Savior#2> gg
[3:01:23 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:01:37 AM] <Savior#2> yay
[3:01:44 AM] <Savior#2> my account makers will be online soon
[3:01:45 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:01:51 AM] <wackoisgod> lol
[3:02:28 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:02:32 AM] <Savior#2> I am so happy
[3:02:32 AM] <Savior#2> lol
[3:03:33 AM] <From aspiering#3@Blizzard> you should make sure the man is not watch when you annouce what you are going to do
[3:03:33 AM] <Savior#2> see watch
[3:03:37 AM] <Savior#2> .rc
[3:03:50 AM] Savior was banned by a Battle.net representative.
[3:03:50 AM] a Battle.net representative kicked you out of the channel!
[3:03:50 AM] -- Joined channel: The Void --
[3:03:50 AM] If you experience extreme lag in The Void, try selecting 'Disable Void View' from the Window menu.
[3:03:50 AM] This channel does not have chat privileges.
[3:03:50 AM] You are banned from that channel.

Wow.

Edit: Now I am ipbanned :'(

[/quote]

...................
plz stop trying to make up shit, it doesn't help. not to mention that this post has nothing to do with the new checkrevision.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160490#msg160490 date=1162498264]
[quote author=Savior link=topic=15929.msg160482#msg160482 date=1162455055]
Wow.

[3:01:16 AM] -- Savior#2 [16ms] has joined the channel using Diablo II (Open Character).
[3:01:19 AM] <Savior#2> ?trigger
[3:01:19 AM] <Savior> The bot's current trigger is " . " (Alt + 046)
[3:01:20 AM] <wackoisgod> please share with us non-programmer type what the all seeing eye is ?
[3:01:20 AM] <Savior#2> gg
[3:01:23 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:01:37 AM] <Savior#2> yay
[3:01:44 AM] <Savior#2> my account makers will be online soon
[3:01:45 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:01:51 AM] <wackoisgod> lol
[3:02:28 AM] <Savior#2> :D
[3:02:32 AM] <Savior#2> I am so happy
[3:02:32 AM] <Savior#2> lol
[3:03:33 AM] <From aspiering#3@Blizzard> you should make sure the man is not watch when you annouce what you are going to do
[3:03:33 AM] <Savior#2> see watch
[3:03:37 AM] <Savior#2> .rc
[3:03:50 AM] Savior was banned by a Battle.net representative.
[3:03:50 AM] a Battle.net representative kicked you out of the channel!
[3:03:50 AM] -- Joined channel: The Void --
[3:03:50 AM] If you experience extreme lag in The Void, try selecting 'Disable Void View' from the Window menu.
[3:03:50 AM] This channel does not have chat privileges.
[3:03:50 AM] You are banned from that channel.

Wow.

Edit: Now I am ipbanned :'(

[/quote]

...................
plz stop trying to make up shit, it doesn't help. not to mention that this post has nothing to do with the new checkrevision.
[/quote]

Did anyone else notice the #3@blizzard name, also did anyone notice that it never says what client Savior is using, and notice the time frames from when the bot was banned by a rep, and right before how he reconnected the bot. Nothing in that entire log makes no real sense, or furbishes any proof at all, so why did you post it in this thread and not the one below this thread?

What if its his own bot? He chooses what to display from the content of the packets.

Your correct, if it's his bot than he does have the ability to copy + paste any parts of the chat he wants.

[Quote]
[3:03:50 AM] Savior was banned by a Battle.net representative.
[3:03:50 AM] a Battle.net representative kicked you out of the channel!
[3:03:50 AM] -- Joined channel: The Void --
[3:03:50 AM] If you experience extreme lag in The Void, try selecting 'Disable Void View' from the Window menu.
[3:03:50 AM] This channel does not have chat privileges.
[3:03:50 AM] You are banned from that channel.
[/quote]

So basically he cut and pasted in 2 chat logs from 2 different chat screens? Because if he didn't why does Savior#2 see what Savior is doing? Savior was the bot that was banned and sent to The Void, but why does Savior#2 show himself as being banned and sent to The Void?

I was in the channel at the time Savior was banned.  I too have logs showing him being banned.

Something productive!
As for Savior, I believe his and robs bullshit should be moved to the arguement topic split....

Well its not bullshit, its a legit fix, and I too have accomplished a login using it. Stop flaming...

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160506#msg160506 date=1162511377]
Something productive!
As for Savior, I believe his and robs bullshit should be moved to the arguement topic split....
[/quote]

You're an idiot - he probably has figured it out, its much the same as it was before. This time, you just have to have SC open for the dll to check its memory.

[quote author=topaz link=topic=15929.msg160508#msg160508 date=1162511682]
[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160506#msg160506 date=1162511377]
Something productive!
As for Savior, I believe his and robs bullshit should be moved to the arguement topic split....
[/quote]

You're an idiot - he probably has figured it out, its much the same as it was before. This time, you just have to have SC open for the dll to check its memory.
[/quote]

Topaz, he came into clan cell before, and I asked him a few questions about how he got it... I don't want to waste time posting logs, but if you really want them just ask :P
I made him look like a complete idiot. -.-
Trust me, he's just using the new sbfix.

Did any of you notice how all of the Clan Krew related people are claiming that Savior's "fix" is real? Why doesn't he release a screenshot of his bot? Or how about sharing how he "fixed" it with us? How about even releasing this bot to the public.

Can you morons please shut the fuck about that crap, this thread is about reversing the new changes.

Yes, you can download the mpq from bnftp and extract the dll and run the function, but this requires starcraft to be running for you to connect your bot and is not good enough.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160516#msg160516 date=1162516565]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you just spoof the memory hash ? It is just a value in a packet after all..
[/quote]

Lmao

No.

can we get back on the subject now,

I think that the new checkreivison only asks for a memory hash, to verify the correct verison of starcraft, and a value such as that might be the same for everybody... kind of like the client token, it's just the gettickcount() value + 7000.

Then what is the seed value (old ValueString) for?

What is the hashing method?

Is there any proof of any of this or are you just making up crap, post packet logs.

notice how i put "think" in bold print...

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=15929.msg160522#msg160522 date=1162517896]
Then what is the seed value (old ValueString) for?

What is the hashing method?

Is there any proof of any of this or are you just making up crap, post packet logs.
[/quote]

He's just repeating after what Myndfyre said earlier, what a tool...

this is "immature".

I think brew has unresolved issues...Cant accept the fact that his bot no longer works.  As far as my fix, its valid and works, and no it does not require starcraft to be open.  It happens that savior has also determined a similar method.

I respect saviors decision to keep this private.  I cant say that the rest of the community would do the same.

brilliant!!!!!!! we need more smart ppl like warz

rob: plz go jump off a cliff, then come back and post... ty
trust me, that savior kid can't code if his life depended on it.... i asked him if he used a hook on starcraft, and he got really confused. i asked him what a window hook is, and he said "a function that returns the value of a hook on the active window"

rob, you are not brilliant... (not i removed the 'solution' he's using out of disgust for floodbots)

And 'Savior' was logging onto a pvpgn server, thus the retarded @blizzard name.

warz I feel you.  Can you please IM me so we can work this out?

Somehow I think that rob has a "cheap" solution to the problem, although I could be wrong, and I think that Brew should stop posting because I really don't see the relevance in his posts.

I'd like to learn something from this post. I enjoy reading these kinds of threads to see the work people are putting into this to solve new issues as they come about. I don't enjoy seeing useless and idiotic posts in between every intelligent post.

No, what's immature are these, and the rest of your 66 posts that happen to all be USELESS.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160533#msg160533 date=1162520406]
i'm acually attempting to be intelligent though
just ask ringo, that's a huge step for me
[/quote]

Maybe you are trying to act intelligent, but I'm not very convinced. Anyways, I'm going to stop making posts like this, I'd like to not fill up this thread any further with useless posts.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160533#msg160533 date=1162520406]
i'm acually attempting to be intelligent though
just ask ringo, that's a huge step for me
[/quote]
brew, stop trying to make out i am your friend, you have been in my auto ban lists for months, hell i even add'ed anti brew checks in my ops.. gtfo

That last post definately helped us get closer to fixing bots.
and no, I don't want to be your friend. I'm just saying you know how much of an idiot I am...

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160538#msg160538 date=1162522709]
That last post definately helped us get closer to fixing bots.
[/quote]
This is a bot dev forum, not a bot support forum and your making this topic hard to read through.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160538#msg160538 date=1162522709]
and no, I don't want to be your friend. I'm just saying you know how much of an idiot I am...
[/quote]
I dont think anyone needs to be told, everyone is well aware.  ::)
Please just stop posting untill you have some factual infomation.

This is not good, lol.  Blizz is clearly trying to restrict all 3rd party clients from connecting to bnet. 
This isn't about stopping warrers, when was the last time u seen a big load?
I think the function should be given out, not everyone wants to use stealthbot.  Some need winbots / account creators etc...
If blizzard wanted to they could release there own chatbot or not change the checkrevision, but no, they clearly want not even a chatbot to connect to bnet.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=15948.msg160540#msg160540 date=1162526607]
This is not good, lol. Blizz is clearly trying to restrict all 3rd party clients from connecting to bnet.
This isn't about stopping warrers, when was the last time u seen a big load?
I think the function should be given out, not everyone wants to use stealthbot. Some need winbots / account creators etc...
If blizzard wanted to they could release there own chatbot or not change the checkrevision, but no, they clearly want not even a chatbot to connect to bnet.
[/quote]

No.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=15948.msg160540#msg160540 date=1162526607]
This is not good, lol.  Blizz is clearly trying to restrict all 3rd party clients from connecting to bnet. 
This isn't about stopping warrers, when was the last time u seen a big load?
I think the function should be given out, not everyone wants to use stealthbot.  Some need winbots / account creators etc...
If blizzard wanted to they could release there own chatbot or not change the checkrevision, but no, they clearly want not even a chatbot to connect to bnet.
[/quote]

You're like BreW but even dumber.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15948.msg160536#msg160536 date=1162521869]
topaz, what is your problem with me? i find all your posts useless too.
[/quote]

Because all you've done is repeat after people or make up shit based on what people have already said. Every time you post, you make it more difficult to read the topic with your threadcrapping.

Look, just take the hint. At least ten people who frequent Botdev think you're annoying, ignorant, and/or retarded. Delete all your posts and then delete your account.

I know that I'm not liked by many people here either, but I'm not stupid.

https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/index.php?action=profile;u=3095;sa=deleteAccount

[quote author=replaced link=topic=15948.msg160540#msg160540 date=1162526607]
need winbots
[/quote]..............................

topaz > brew > replaced

Wow.  A nobody posts what could easily be a fake log from a bot nobody has ever heard of with absolutely no information at all.  I KNOW HOW TO DO IT NOW!!!

Me too thanks!! that was great help =)

I've been looking for starcraft for mac for about a month now, anyone have it?

The mac and pc versions are on the same disc.

[quote author=heRo link=topic=15929.msg160561#msg160561 date=1162573784]
I've been looking for starcraft for mac for about a month now, anyone have it?
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=15929.msg160556#msg160556 date=1162563872]
You can logon using PMAC, in case anyone doesn't know...  This is the 'super secret solution' everyone is going on about.  This is also how SBFix.exe works.  You need mac hashes though, good luck finding them.

Whether they're going to patch pmac or not, I have no idea.  I don't think they're having big problems with cheaters on mac.
[/quote]
Why not just boost the chances of it getting patched by posting it on vL forums? thanks! I wouldn't be suprised to find that they are constantly watching any threads posted about this... but whatever

Because, despite your idiotic and misdirected self-importance, blizzard doesn't really care about chat bots or flood bots or spam bots... They are concerned about the ability to play their games fairly, that is the sole purpose of this update.

This is apparently not a community supporting battle.net bot development (as the name suggests) but a place to boast about how you've figured out something that nobody else has?  Get a grip.

You do make a valid point, but I was under the impression that the update was for both bots and hacks. It was meant to stop any 3rd party applications from being on their servers.

Also, I find your comments a bit uncalled for as I never made any hostile judgments towards you nor did I intend on getting a negative response. I simply stated the fact that Blizzard is watching this thread. I know this because after rob made his statement, he instantly had blizzard reps in his channel waiting for someone to screw up, first of all being Savior whom got his account banned for using the bot...  I was not boasting about anything either, I posted those previous threads to display that we had the connection because for some reason people thought it was fake. I'm not stating that our fix is the best logical way to do it, but it works for now and it would have been nice if we didn't post about it, and that was my rebuttal.

[3:03:33 AM] <From aspiering#3@Blizzard> you should make sure the man is not watch when you annouce what you are going to do

So apparently battle.net reps use multiple accounts, can't spell "aspiring" or "announce", call themselves "the man", and say things like "is not watch"

Do I really have to point this out?  Can we please move on?

I don't mind moving on, and yes I understand the circumstances very well, and it was a battle.net representative. I'm not sure why there were so many typos or even why the name was on #3. It was, however, a real rep and it was on an official battle.net server. Sorry for prolonging this.

Battle.net names are Name.Support@blizzard.

[quote author=LordNevar link=topic=15929.msg160572#msg160572 date=1162580197]
Battle.net names are Name.Support@blizzard.
[/quote]

Watch it there...just because you guys have not ever seen a sysop or special guest does not mean this person is non existant.  From my past experiences, sysops have been around on multiple instances of their name (i.e. I've seen sysop that was a #3 also IIRC back in former WoW chat channel).  The .Support@Blizzard is just for technical support employees.

Yeah, I've seen NoSpam#3 SysOp#3 nothing new, but a name like that, I dunno, but blizzard watching these forums, laugh! they don't get paid to watch forums they have nothing to do with nor probley care about basicly there just doing there job, going on with there day and dealing with what they see or hear from techical support and there own forum support, its not like there attentionally going out to search forums to find somthing to do.

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=15929.msg160580#msg160580 date=1162594109]
Yeah, I've seen NoSpam#3 SysOp#3 nothing new, but a name like that, I dunno, but blizzard watching these forums, laugh! they don't get paid to watch forums they have nothing to do with nor probley care about basicly there just doing there job, going on with there day and dealing with what they see or hear from techical support and there own forum support, its not like there attentionally going out to search forums to find somthing to do.
[/quote]

Hmm, are you sure? :P  IIRC, they used to roam around BlizzHackers.com and watch what people did about D2 things and make changes server side... until Blizzard finally decided to send a takedown request

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=15929.msg160580#msg160580 date=1162594109]
Yeah, I've seen NoSpam#3 SysOp#3 nothing new, but a name like that, I dunno, but blizzard watching these forums, laugh! they don't get paid to watch forums they have nothing to do with nor probley care about basicly there just doing there job, going on with there day and dealing with what they see or hear from techical support and there own forum support, its not like there attentionally going out to search forums to find somthing to do.
[/quote]
As UL said they do roam some webpages mostly relateing to hacks and the likes, one of them used to actually post on bh.com regularly.

BreW > *

LOL you guys don't know brew, hes a moron. Don't respond to him or he will just keep coming back and back.
Ignoring him is the only option, unless you enjoy arguing with him...because he will NEVER stop.

Hey brew you little dipshit stfu and leave these people alone they hate you, there is no need to piss them off and give yourself a lower self image.

slit your wrists.
understand?

Much Love
Dope

Alex it's kids like you who make vl look stupid

vL is vL this is battle.net Bot Development most of us arn't here or have anything to do with the vL clan.

Actually it makes a lot of sense.

Luke without yoda would be useless...  Much like you :P   get it now?

i still dont get it

BreW, you still don't seem to realize you're a complete moron, so I'm going to say it plainly.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160619#msg160619 date=1162610624]
it's the only thing we've got atm
[/quote]

You're not part of any we. You're just a you, and by that I mean useless idiot who contributes nothing to any of the topics said idiot posts in.

Uhm... alot of these post need to be trashed so we can read what needs to be read cleanly. =)

This is the 'argument component'

so this is what VL forum members are reduced to? sad...

lmfao.

Try decompiling the dll inside the lockdown MPQ you noob.
Actually, just delete all the source code you've leeched and leave us alone.

esran wtf, you don't know me.

And I bet he's thankful for it. You're saying that StarCraft hasn't been changed. Correct. And you're saying you're decompiling it trying to find out what was changed? What the fuck, man? Go DIAF.

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160631#msg160631 date=1162615489]
[quote author=topaz link=topic=15929.msg160609#msg160609 date=1162607956]
[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160604#msg160604 date=1162606006]
Does anyone have the ver-PMAC-?.mpq files? I'd like them please.
[/quote]

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-PMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-XMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-IX86-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n.zip

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n-d.zip

Edit: Included lockdown-IX86-n.zip and its dlls.

[/quote]
Any chance you have the .dll's for PMAC?
[/quote]

are you blind or something?

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15929.msg160632#msg160632 date=1162615555]
[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160631#msg160631 date=1162615489]
[quote author=topaz link=topic=15929.msg160609#msg160609 date=1162607956]
[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160604#msg160604 date=1162606006]
Does anyone have the ver-PMAC-?.mpq files? I'd like them please.
[/quote]

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-PMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-XMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-IX86-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n.zip

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n-d.zip

Edit: Included lockdown-IX86-n.zip and its dlls.

[/quote]
Any chance you have the .dll's for PMAC?
[/quote]

are you blind or something?
[/quote]
Are you? Only zip that is included with .dll's is for lockdown.

[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15929.msg160611#msg160611 date=1162608666]
bnftp.exe
[code]echo off
mkdir lockdown-IX86-##.mpq
cd lockdown-IX86-##.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-00.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-01.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-02.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-03.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-04.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-05.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-06.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-07.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-08.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-09.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-10.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-11.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-12.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-13.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-14.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-15.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-16.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-17.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-18.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-19.mpq

cd ..
mkdir ver-IX86-#.mpq
cd ver-IX86-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-7.mpq


cd ..
mkdir ver-PMAC-#.mpq
cd ver-PMAC-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-7.mpq


cd ..
mkdir ver-XMAC-#.mpq
cd ver-XMAC-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-7.mpq

cd ..[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Here ya go inner..

[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=15929.msg160634#msg160634 date=1162615738]
[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15929.msg160611#msg160611 date=1162608666]
bnftp.exe
[code]echo off
mkdir lockdown-IX86-##.mpq
cd lockdown-IX86-##.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-00.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-01.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-02.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-03.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-04.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-05.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-06.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-07.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-08.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-09.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-10.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-11.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-12.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-13.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-14.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-15.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-16.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-17.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-18.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net lockdown-IX86-19.mpq

cd ..
mkdir ver-IX86-#.mpq
cd ver-IX86-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-IX86-7.mpq


cd ..
mkdir ver-PMAC-#.mpq
cd ver-PMAC-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-PMAC-7.mpq


cd ..
mkdir ver-XMAC-#.mpq
cd ver-XMAC-#.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-0.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-1.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-2.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-3.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-4.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-5.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-6.mpq
"../bnftp" uswest.battle.net ver-XMAC-7.mpq

cd ..[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Here ya go inner..
[/quote]
Wow.. I said the .DLL not the .mpq

This thread was originally designated "argument component," but I've since switched to using it as a dumping ground for posts that, while not worthy of Trash Can, are not helpful in the thread discussing the new version checking mechanism.  I am also leaving in some otherwise Trash-worthy posts (mostly BreW's) for purposes of public shaming.  That said, I am monitoring both threads.  Posts which have no redeeming value will be Trashed or deleted.  Posts which have at least some redeeming value may be moved between threads as appropriate.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winmpq

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160635#msg160635 date=1162615801]
[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=15929.msg160634#msg160634 date=1162615738]
[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15929.msg160611#msg160611 date=1162608666]
bnftp.exe
[code]echo off
[choped the damned block]
cd ..[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Here ya go inner..
[/quote]
Wow.. I said the .DLL not the .mpq
[/quote]
Extract them?
WinMPQ <--

[quote author=l)ragon link=topic=15929.msg160638#msg160638 date=1162615876]
[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160635#msg160635 date=1162615801]
[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=15929.msg160634#msg160634 date=1162615738]
[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15929.msg160611#msg160611 date=1162608666]
bnftp.exe
[code]echo off
[choped the damned block]
cd ..[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Here ya go inner..
[/quote]
Wow.. I said the .DLL not the .mpq
[/quote]
Extract them?
WinMPQ <--
[/quote]
When I try to load the MAC one's the program stops responding, hm?

try
https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/index.php?topic=15918.0

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160640#msg160640 date=1162616279]
[quote author=l)ragon link=topic=15929.msg160638#msg160638 date=1162615876]
[quote author=inner.de link=topic=15929.msg160635#msg160635 date=1162615801]
[quote author=-MichaeL- link=topic=15929.msg160634#msg160634 date=1162615738]
[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15929.msg160611#msg160611 date=1162608666]
bnftp.exe
[code]echo off
[choped the damned block]
cd ..[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Here ya go inner..
[/quote]
Wow.. I said the .DLL not the .mpq
[/quote]
Extract them?
WinMPQ <--
[/quote]
When I try to load the MAC one's the program stops responding, hm?
[/quote]

Give me some time to port SFmpq and I'll post them for you.

To heRo: apparently it's not .dll on P/X MAC, so I'll just have to dig around.

Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160627#msg160627 date=1162613809]
Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.
[/quote]

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.

[quote author=warz link=topic=15929.msg160646#msg160646 date=1162625809]
Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160627#msg160627 date=1162613809]
Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.
[/quote]

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.
[/quote]

unfortunately for you, we must all be on the right track because he doesn't have a single original thought in his head, and if you reread the posts in this topic, merely reiterating what previous members have said.

[quote author=warz link=topic=15929.msg160646#msg160646 date=1162625809]
Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.
[/quote]
...what the FUCK are you talking about???

There is NO CHANGE to starcraft.exe, so decompiling starcraft.exe is the wrong track IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Battle.net prompts the use of a particular version checking DLL which is in a particular MPQ - this is prompted by specifying the filename of the MPQ.  If the client doesn't have the MPQ, it is retrieved from Battle.net's FTP service.  Once downloaded (about 6-7kb), the DLL is extracted from the MPQ and loaded into the Starcraft address space.  The DLL exports one function called CheckRevision.  The method signature of CheckRevision hasn't changed, and therefore the protocol hasn't changed, and therefore the packet format hasn't changed.  What has changed is the manner in which CheckRevision does its work.

This is very well-documented, public knowledge.  We knew it immediately when this happened.  So thank you very much for an entirely useless contribution to this thread.

I guess my point was missed, entirely. I mentioned that when he talks about debugging starcraft, he mean't "the game" in general. He didn't mean, "let us debug starcraft.exe," he meant "let us debug this game, and locate the problem, wherever it may be." He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream. He knows what needs to be done, in essence, but does not know how to go about doing it. I respect that. I respect that he continued to let everyone know that looking at checkrevision, and figuring out why storm.350 fails, and figure out where that computer specific address is derived from, that storm 350 returns. I don't know, maybe he's the smartest guy here. Maybe this brew character will release the first client that works with these lockdown libaries? Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know though, is that nobody in this original thread (i see it has been split, now), if they talked shit to anyone trying to learn or to try and help, doesnt deserve to know how any of this shit works.

[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160653#msg160653 date=1162631394]
Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre.
[/quote]
Maybe, just maybe.  However, have you been in the decompilation of the new library?  What I described is simplified, but it's not inaccurate.

I've been working on a work project and haven't had the time to sit back and go through the code like I'd like to.  But from what I've seen already, my description of the process is correct.

[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160653#msg160653 date=1162631394]
I guess my point was missed, entirely. I mentioned that when he talks about debugging starcraft, he mean't "the game" in general. He didn't mean, "let us debug starcraft.exe," he meant "let us debug this game, and locate the problem, wherever it may be." He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream. He knows what needs to be done, in essence, but does not know how to go about doing it. I respect that. I respect that he continued to let everyone know that looking at checkrevision, and figuring out why storm.350 fails, and figure out where that computer specific address is derived from, that storm 350 returns. I don't know, maybe he's the smartest guy here. Maybe this brew character will release the first client that works with these lockdown libaries? Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know though, is that nobody in this original thread (i see it has been split, now), if they talked shit to anyone trying to learn or to try and help, doesnt deserve to know how any of this shit works.
[/quote]

Mmm...I know of two existing implementations done by two different people already--sorry :P

[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160653#msg160653 date=1162631394]
He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream.
[/quote]
Amen to that brother!!

[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160646#msg160646 date=1162625809]It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that.[/quote]

Actually, the entire point of the thread in which you posted is to hold all the off-topic garbage that was polluting the main thread.  The only reason to come to this thread is for non-relevant material.  Everything important should be going in the original thread.  Not only was the original thread split, but I've been periodically rearranging posts to try to keep the good content in the original thread and the bad in this thread.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=15964.msg160675#msg160675 date=1162661268]
[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160646#msg160646 date=1162625809]It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that.[/quote]

Actually, the entire point of the thread in which you posted is to hold all the off-topic garbage that was polluting the main thread.  The only reason to come to this thread is for non-relevant material.  Everything important should be going in the original thread.  Not only was the original thread split, but I've been periodically rearranging posts to try to keep the good content in the original thread and the bad in this thread.
[/quote]
Yeah, me too.  Moved about 2 pages' worth last night.

[quote author=replaced link=topic=15964.msg160682#msg160682 date=1162662883]
pls help me, I copied and pasted from another bnls supported bot last night and it STILL won't work! ???
the error msg is 
Run-time error '40020'  Invalid operation at current state    :'(

I dunno wat it means, someone tell me whats ix86 and pmac? 

After working for a few hours on my great bot, it still won't work.
Can someone send me a working bot source (with bnls support) to my email?  Then help me copy and paste it to my bot? ;D

replaced@gmail.com

i've got 2 yrs of vb6 experience so I know what i'm doing, its just that the source to the bot i have sucks.
No matter what I do, it just doesn't send a packet!  Some1 tell me how to get it to send packets.
[/quote]

LOL.

[quote author=warz link=topic=15964.msg160646#msg160646 date=1162625809]
Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

[quote author=BreW link=topic=15929.msg160627#msg160627 date=1162613809]
Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.
[/quote]

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.
[/quote]
The guy is a poseing idiot, and probly didnt even know what a debugger was, untill this thread.
However, I have noticed that on these forums over the years, knowing (or in this case pretending to know) ASM, is a reall plus when it comes to being accepted by a few set members of the comunity.
Whats up with that?

Im not going to pretend to know ASM, or be debugging the checkrevision dll's, but that doesnt mean that many others are not doing this.
They are just not posting "LOOK AT ME, I CAN OPEN STARCRAFT.EXE IN A DECOMPILER" in every other reply :P

8)

[quote author=Hdx link=topic=15960.msg160716#msg160716 date=1162686445]
No, I have not givin up on reversing the new function.
I jsut don't have the skills or experiance to do it. (I've got a few things, nothing good)
So no, not EVERYONE has stoped working on it.
As for reporting diffrent architectures..... This goes into the whole "How much do you wana do correctly" debate.
Theres people out there that JUST  want to get it working, no matter how far away from the client it is.
Then theres people like me who emulate the client almost exactly, I acutally do everything EXACTLY like D1 does it for my D1 connection. (That includes reporting things that are no longer used on bnet, downloaidng, extracting, and useing the dll, etc..) Now it no longer works.

It all depends on how much you want to do.
~-~(HDX)~-~
[/quote]

Cool story.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=15960.msg160722#msg160722 date=1162690773]
Skywang you gonna enable that anytime soon?
[/quote]
Haha, I found that funny. ;D

Good job to whoever gave Blizzard the idea of doing this! I remember someone posting in the last thread something along the lines of "What if Blizzard named their files something that we wouldn't be able to determine the seed values from?". I swear, we need a 1000+ post bot dev board or something so Blizzard can't read it.

Seeing as how there seems to be some controvercy over this, let me explain how BNCache works, to the best of my knowledge. When BNFTP delivers a file, it sends the FILETIME of that file along with the file itself, so that filetime is stored in BNCache. Next time you receive a packet prompting you to download a file, StarCraft will check BNCache to see if it has the file, and then check the FILETIME in that packet requesting the download against the FILETIME in BNCache. If they are not equal, it starts a (completely seperate from BNCS) BNFTP connection and downloads the file, storing it in BNCache along with it's filetime.

As far as the work ethic debate, I think that supporting PMAC is a good idea, but still a crutch. Find out how to use IX86. Dragon recommended loading StarCraft to the point at which it would be doing the version check and then dumping it into a file, and someone else (was it rob?) posted a open-source VB project where it would do the BNFTP download of the ver-IX86-XX.mpq file, extract it, and patch it so it could be run on the game files without SC open. It'd be a big chance, and your 'hash' file would be a lot bigger (I think SC runs at around 25MB or so.. but maybe that was because of the memory leak in the old DLL's) and you'd be downloading the CheckRevision DLL each time, but it'd work though.

Also, I just thought of this writing the last paragraph: Has anyone given any thought to the fact that them using a memory hash instead of a gamefile hash could be to fix their memory leak? Of course, they could have just fixed it properly, but it could have been a factor in their decision.

Actually warz, I both bashed BreW and contributed.

EDIT -
Knowing ASM doesn't get you that far, Ringo. Look how many people still bash me all the time? :P

can we get a non-bnls solution here?
I don't want the days when you HAD to load stealthbot to load a damn war3 bot up since bnls wants control.

Now who here has the power mac sc hash files?  ;D

If i don't see this posted on here soon, i'll run a damn emulator just to get these hash files!  Or buy a powermac on ebay.

Now, do the 0-7 pmac files give out different solutions than the ix86 counterparts?

Yeah that's impossible to get around...
(note: elipses denote sarcasm)

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=15964.msg160740#msg160740 date=1162702206]
Actually warz, I both bashed BreW and contributed.

EDIT -
Knowing ASM doesn't get you that far, Ringo. Look how many people still bash me all the time? :P
[/quote]

No, you just aren't that good and/or you don't do anything noteworthy.

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=15960.msg160748#msg160748 date=1162705240]
You are welcome to reverse engineer a complete implementation of the new vercheck mechanism, or a way to call the Blizzard code, if you so desire.

If you do not want to do that, then BNLS is an option that is available to you.

Given that the system appears to be designed to stop certain types of game hacks, I do not feel that it would be in the general public interest to release details as to how the new system works.  As a result, I would like to retain the ability to block access to things like game hacks that might try to use BNLS to avoid detection.
[/quote]

What an excuse, nearly all game hacks in ladder are already detectable (for war3).  You can start the hack AFTER you login.  I remember the excuses used for not releasing war3 hashing out.  Someone might h4x0r using war3 hashes. 
Now ALL the non-bnls bots don't work!  When was the last time you seen someone massload before this new login?  I haven't seen a massload in months before this new checkrevision.  Anyone here have a pmac loading chatbot?


Can someone tell me why it was important that bnls / valhalla keep the war3 hashing a secret?

The newer games feature support for the Warden client.  As was noted previously, this is a defense-in-depth solution.  The lockdown library causes logon to fail if you have modified the code that loads Warden (or so I have heard).  Thus, you must allow Warden at least during login.  Therefore, Blizzard can download Warden during login to perform more extensive anti-cheating measures.  If the Warden client persists in memory to keep an eye on you, the only way to safely enable a cheat would be to locate Warden's code and apply a patch to blind it to your changes.  This is possible, just as it is possible to pass lockdown without using BNLS.  Whether anyone will do it and release code to implement it is quite another matter.

If you are so convinced that this information needs to be out there, go ahead and post it.  We might delete it, but I'm sure you could eventually find a forum that wants you to post the information there.

Hasn't starcraft always supported Warden?

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=15984.msg160783#msg160783 date=1162746848]
Hasn't starcraft always supported Warden?
[/quote]

No.  It appeared many revisions ago, but I think it was not there when I began playing.

Yeah, I meant for a long time (since WoW came out, probably), not always, sorry.

Then why has JSTR been changed to use lockdown?
I KNOW it doesn't have warden and never been patched for cheats.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=15984.msg160782#msg160782 date=1162746232]
The newer games feature support for the Warden client.  As was noted previously, this is a defense-in-depth solution.  The lockdown library causes logon to fail if you have modified the code that loads Warden (or so I have heard).  Thus, you must allow Warden at least during login.  Therefore, Blizzard can download Warden during login to perform more extensive anti-cheating measures.  If the Warden client persists in memory to keep an eye on you, the only way to safely enable a cheat would be to locate Warden's code and apply a patch to blind it to your changes.  This is possible, just as it is possible to pass lockdown without using BNLS.  Whether anyone will do it and release code to implement it is quite another matter.

If you are so convinced that this information needs to be out there, go ahead and post it.  We might delete it, but I'm sure you could eventually find a forum that wants you to post the information there.
[/quote]

Hmm, I thought Warden wasn't done during logon (or has not in a long time), rather when server wants a Warden library to run it sends the client message 0x5e, see battle.snp disassembly.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=15984.msg160789#msg160789 date=1162750253][quote author=Kp link=topic=15984.msg160782#msg160782 date=1162746232]The newer games feature support for the Warden client.  As was noted previously, this is a defense-in-depth solution.  The lockdown library causes logon to fail if you have modified the code that loads Warden (or so I have heard).  Thus, you must allow Warden at least during login.  Therefore, Blizzard can download Warden during login to perform more extensive anti-cheating measures.  If the Warden client persists in memory to keep an eye on you, the only way to safely enable a cheat would be to locate Warden's code and apply a patch to blind it to your changes.  This is possible, just as it is possible to pass lockdown without using BNLS.  Whether anyone will do it and release code to implement it is quite another matter.

If you are so convinced that this information needs to be out there, go ahead and post it.  We might delete it, but I'm sure you could eventually find a forum that wants you to post the information there.[/quote]Hmm, I thought Warden wasn't done during logon (or has not in a long time), rather when server wants a Warden library to run it sends the client message 0x5e, see battle.snp disassembly.[/quote]

Yes, you're right.  However, at least from what I recall, there's no checking in the client that prevents Blizzard from starting Warden sooner.  The lockdown library makes it harder to block Warden from executing, as well as blocking minor hacks out without needing a separate Warden download.

[img]http://i14.tinypic.com/2hz67lu.jpg[/img]

It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.

[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160903#msg160903 date=1162875232]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.
[/quote]

Who's Bill?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160912#msg160912 date=1162879138]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160903#msg160903 date=1162875232]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.
[/quote]

Who's Bill?
[/quote]
The co-founder of microsoft.

[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160916#msg160916 date=1162884348]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160912#msg160912 date=1162879138]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160903#msg160903 date=1162875232]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.
[/quote]

Who's Bill?
[/quote]
The co-founder of microsoft.
[/quote]
Ahh.

*adds heRo to the list of idiots to ignore*

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160918#msg160918 date=1162884448]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160916#msg160916 date=1162884348]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160912#msg160912 date=1162879138]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160903#msg160903 date=1162875232]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.
[/quote]

Who's Bill?
[/quote]
The co-founder of microsoft.
[/quote]
Ahh.

*adds heRo to the list of idiots to ignore*
[/quote]
Who else is on that list?

[quote author=Networks link=topic=15960.msg160968#msg160968 date=1162946217]
Enjoy:
[/quote]

I like that, lol "FUCK BNET AND ITS DMCA REQUEST"

[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160964#msg160964 date=1162943521]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160918#msg160918 date=1162884448]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160916#msg160916 date=1162884348]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160912#msg160912 date=1162879138]
[quote author=heRo link=topic=15984.msg160903#msg160903 date=1162875232]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15984.msg160901#msg160901 date=1162874466]
It's unclear to me where the correlation is between preventing hacks and communism....
[/quote]
Pipe down, Bill.
[/quote]

Who's Bill?
[/quote]
The co-founder of microsoft.
[/quote]
Ahh.

*adds heRo to the list of idiots to ignore*
[/quote]
Who else is on that list?
[/quote]

Joe

[quote author=Networks link=topic=15960.msg160968#msg160968 date=1162946217]
Enjoy:
[/quote]

What was the point in a tinyurl link to your server? :p

[quote author=Newby link=topic=15960.msg160972#msg160972 date=1162949727]
[quote author=Networks link=topic=15960.msg160968#msg160968 date=1162946217]
Enjoy:
[/quote]

What was the point in a tinyurl link to your server? :p
[/quote]


Oh no reason *whistles*