Yep it's here, just got this logging onto 63.240.202.139:
[code]
                        ff 50 3f 00 00 00 00 00 57 9b  .. ....P?.....W.
0040  f4 59 5b b7 1b 00 00 73 25 e1 aa 03 c7 01 70 73  .Y[....s%.....ps
0050  69 73 74 6f 72 6d 2d 50 4d 41 43 2d 31 35 2e 6d  istorm-PMAC-15.m
0060  70 71 00 dd e5 af 6a c7 96 7e 45 90 07 0c 4c b0  pq....j..~E...L.
0070  2d 59 02 02 00                                  -Y...
[/code]

EDIT: This also applies to XMAC, psistorm-XMAC-XX.mpq

Blizz is really serious lmao

Aww. Now you'll have to find another kludge to fix your problems!

Good job Blizzard, <3
I still wonder if anyone is working on lockdown :*( I'm trying my best but I can't get jack squat.
~-~(HDX)~-~

Code:
                        ff 50 3f 00 00 00 00 00 57 9b  .. ....P?.....W.
0040  f4 59 5b b7 1b 00 00 73 25 e1 aa 03 c7 01 70 73  .Y[....s%.....ps
0050  69 73 74 6f 72 6d 2d 50 4d 41 43 2d 31 35 2e 6d  istorm-PMAC-15.m
0060  70 71 00 dd e5 af 6a c7 96 7e 45 90 07 0c 4c b0  pq....j..~E...L.
0070  2d 59 02 02 00   





All of east is effected at the current moment as well as west they must have gotten it up to see how well it does for the weekend.

I think the best idea for starcraft client is to wrap around their .dll or we need to write a compatible implementation. I would suggest the first because the second method would be more time consuming. I doubt many of us care enough anyway.

well, from looking at it, it might be easier to write your own implementation rather than call cr from lockdown, if you're good at converting asm to c. calling it from the provided lib takes some tricks. each method comes with its own set of problems, though.

I think most people are loosing intrest and bnls might be the only thing that will be in use within the next few months. For starcraft in general. Diablo II is still workable with hashes though it is what most people are using at the moment.

Oh boy, the psionic storm of antibot!

I only have five words to say about this:

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16043.msg161312#msg161312 date=1163802100]
Blizz is really serious lmao
[/quote]

IX86:
DSHR, has gone back to useing the regular dll's.

PMAC:
SSHR, didn't get the update and is still useing normal PMAC files.

[quote author=l)ragon link=topic=16043.msg161380#msg161380 date=1163917588]
IX86:
DSHR, has gone back to useing the regular dll's.

PMAC:
SSHR, didn't get the update and is still useing normal PMAC files.
[/quote]

IX86 DSHR definitely still uses lockdown.

looks like they gave up on PMAC SSHR.. lmao @ packet log:
[code]
                        ff 06 35 00 00 05 f1 13 cb cb  ..kx....5.......
0040  c6 01 76 65 72 2d 50 4d 41 43 2d 30 2e 6d 70 71  ..ver-PMAC-0.mpq
0050  00 41 3d 30 20 42 3d 30 20 43 3d 30 20 34 20 41  .A=0 B=0 C=0 4 A
0060  3d 41 2b 53 20 43 3d 43 2b 41 00                =A+S C=C+A.
[/code]

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16043.msg161381#msg161381 date=1163918603]
[quote author=l)ragon link=topic=16043.msg161380#msg161380 date=1163917588]
IX86:
DSHR, has gone back to useing the regular dll's.

PMAC:
SSHR, didn't get the update and is still useing normal PMAC files.
[/quote]

IX86 DSHR definitely still uses lockdown.

looks like they gave up on PMAC SSHR.. lmao @ packet log:
[code]
                         ff 06 35 00 00 05 f1 13 cb cb  ..kx....5.......
0040   c6 01 76 65 72 2d 50 4d 41 43 2d 30 2e 6d 70 71  ..ver-PMAC-0.mpq
0050   00 41 3d 30 20 42 3d 30 20 43 3d 30 20 34 20 41  .A=0 B=0 C=0 4 A
0060   3d 41 2b 53 20 43 3d 43 2b 41 00                 =A+S C=C+A.
[/code]
[/quote]
Must have just put it back on then because i got the old dll just befor i posted that.

[quote author=Denial link=topic=16043.msg161369#msg161369 date=1163900101]
I think most people are loosing intrest and bnls might be the only thing that will be in use within the next few months. For starcraft in general. Diablo II is still workable with hashes though it is what most people are using at the moment.
[/quote]
If none releases a new local hashing dll, and skywing makes BNLS private, or closes it down all together, this will not stop some of us from being able to connect to bnet with effected clients. :)
One of my many *things to do*, is to create a BNLS type server that works with the method I devised/still useing.
Even tho it would only beable to handle 1 check revision every 1 - 2 seconds, its enough to get on battle.net for me and friends/trusted people.
Point being, where there is a will, there is away. ;)

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161375#msg161375 date=1163916535]
Oh boy, the psionic storm of antibot!
[/quote]
Well, i think your counting chickens before they hatch :P
All effected clients so far, are UDP game based, and blizzard have no *controll* over ingame activitys, where as the uneffected clients such as D2/W3, all play across servers hosted by Blizzard and have anti hack systems inplace, such as the warden client :)

But hey, my hunch could be wrong, they could lock it down next week :)

Why not now? :)

I have finals soon, I need to study.  Also, I'm training my SSBM game.  I'm last place on my college's challenge board.  I got knocked out of 9th on Friday, but I was almost 5th!  So close... :\

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16043.msg161393#msg161393 date=1163935543]
[quote author=Denial link=topic=16043.msg161369#msg161369 date=1163900101]
I think most people are loosing intrest and bnls might be the only thing that will be in use within the next few months. For starcraft in general. Diablo II is still workable with hashes though it is what most people are using at the moment.
[/quote]
If none releases a new local hashing dll, and skywing makes BNLS private, or closes it down all together, this will not stop some of us from being able to connect to bnet with effected clients. :)
One of my many *things to do*, is to create a BNLS type server that works with the method I devised/still useing.
Even tho it would only beable to handle 1 check revision every 1 - 2 seconds, its enough to get on battle.net for me and friends/trusted people.
Point being, where there is a will, there is away. ;)

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161375#msg161375 date=1163916535]
Oh boy, the psionic storm of antibot!
[/quote]
Well, i think your counting chickens before they hatch :P
All effected clients so far, are UDP game based, and blizzard have no *controll* over ingame activitys, where as the uneffected clients such as D2/W3, all play across servers hosted by Blizzard and have anti hack systems inplace, such as the warden client :)

But hey, my hunch could be wrong, they could lock it down next week :)
[/quote]

Hmm...careful here: Blizzard *does* have control over ingame activities on BW at times as well as the mentioned D2/W3...

Remember that WardenClient is *always* running, opposed to common rumors that it is disabled at times.

Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161418#msg161418 date=1163993539]
Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.
[/quote]
-1 for giving the idea to Blizzard.

I honestly think they planned on patching mac whether they read the boards or not. If they patch one platform, it would make sense to do the same thing to all in the long run, no?

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161418#msg161418 date=1163993539]
Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.
[/quote]

Wouldn't work - there are Blizzard spies on this forum with 700+ posts.

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16043.msg161423#msg161423 date=1163995451]
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161418#msg161418 date=1163993539]
Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.
[/quote]

Wouldn't work - there are Blizzard spies on this forum with 700+ posts.
[/quote]
*looks around*

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161418#msg161418 date=1163993539]
Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.
[/quote]

Or perhaps they noticed a sudden INCREASE in the number of PMAC clients connecting... (didn't StealthBot try and patch it with PMAC?) and figured out what was going on?

Serves you PMAC users right! :)

Blizzard, being that they created battle.net, obviously knew that they did not patch PMAC when they patched IX86. And unless Blizzard is full of uber moronic idiots, they obviously knew people would find this out very very soon. They also obviously are aware that bots which connect to their servers are out there. Therefore, if they are out to stop bots, they obviously needed to patch all platforms.

So using the method of logical reasoning, there seriously is not anyone to blame.

I wouldn't be surprised if a vL member told Blizzard what Battle.net users were doing to bypass this new change.

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=16043.msg161434#msg161434 date=1163998688]
I wouldn't be surprised if a vL member told Blizzard what Battle.net users were doing to bypass this new change.
[/quote]
I would.

Rumored that Blizzard went around BlizzHackers.com forums, so I wouldn't doubt if they've been here.  There have been times in the past that somebody mentioned something and a couple of days later there was a fix for it.  This is one of several occurances, coincedence or not, they probably do read these forums no doubt.

If random newbs can find this forum asking how to use CleanSlateBot, then Blizzard surely can find them.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16043.msg161403#msg161403 date=1163956766]
Hmm...careful here: Blizzard *does* have control over ingame activities on BW at times as well as the mentioned D2/W3...

Remember that WardenClient is *always* running, opposed to common rumors that it is disabled at times.
[/quote]
Hm, i was aware that Starcraft/Broodwar has a warden client, from viewing Battle.snp with a debugger ages and ages ago, but I was unaware that it does anything userfull -- or more to the point, could report back to blizzard.
Iv idled through alot of broodwar games on my chat bot, and never once had somthing warden like pop up, such as a BNCS packet etc.
Care to explain how broodwar warden client works, aposed to d2/w3? :p

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16043.msg161437#msg161437 date=1164001384]
There have been times in the past that somebody mentioned something and a couple of days later there was a fix for it.  This is one of several occurances, coincedence or not, they probably do read these forums no doubt.
[/quote]
Yeah, they are out and about.
It wasnt so long ago I explained to somone in my bnet channel openly, how I used an exploit with BNCS to brute cdkeys fast, and how that exploit worked.
The friend I was explaining it to is 100% safe -- so didnt report the exploit to blizzard, but the very next day, they patched it. :(
So its not supprise to me that they monitor anything they can, to get infomation :p

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=16043.msg161434#msg161434 date=1163998688]
I wouldn't be surprised if a vL member told Blizzard what Battle.net users were doing to bypass this new change.
[/quote]

Hmm, an inside job then?!

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=16043.msg161434#msg161434 date=1163998688]
I wouldn't be surprised if a vL member told Blizzard what Battle.net users were doing to bypass this new change.
[/quote]

I would be surprised if Battle.net didn't notice, whether they were told or not is absolutely irrelevant.. C'mon, they KNOW they support PMAC/XMAC login and that they did not update it. Surely they would see this is a way for people to workaround the changes making lockdown useless... Thinking outside of the bot realm, people then could even write proxy logins using PMAC for Starcraft itself to load no cd-cracks and such to bypass the lockdown.

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16043.msg161423#msg161423 date=1163995451]
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16043.msg161418#msg161418 date=1163993539]
Now, I'd like to re-recommend something here. It's obvious that Blizzard is reading this board, no? Someone posted, out in the blue, that we should use PMAC, and not a week later Blizzard wtfpwned PMAC. I recommend we either make this board require 100+ posts, or make another board that requires that. Sure, Blizzard could go under-cover as a "civilian", but the chances would be much less.
[/quote]

Wouldn't work - there are Blizzard spies on this forum with 700+ posts.
[/quote]

You just made yourself oddly suspicious, having (apparent) inside knowledge of Blizzard and just over 700 posts.

You guys could have it completely wrong. A blizzard worker could have told you to use pmac hashes so you would waste the time making all the bots work and this "blizzard" person already having the code to patch pmac waiting to see all the conversations and after everyone fixed their bots boom patched it as well getting a laugh out of it.  Blizzard does watch places and of course does monitor channels and forums As well as invisibly watches channels and users themselves.

[quote author=Denial link=topic=16043.msg161482#msg161482 date=1164084457]
You guys could have it completely wrong. A blizzard worker could have told you to use pmac hashes so you would waste the time making all the bots work and this "blizzard" person already having the code to patch pmac waiting to see all the conversations and after everyone fixed their bots boom patched it as well getting a laugh out of it.  Blizzard does watch places and of course does monitor channels and forums As well as invisibly watches channels and users themselves. [/quote]

Good Eg. of this is in OTS on USEast.

Anyone gonna answer my question?  VS6 won't work on Vista or I'd figure it out myself.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16043.msg161486#msg161486 date=1164086256]
Does XMAC still use the old checkrevision libraries?
OH GOD BIG BLUE IS GONNA READ THIS POST AND UBAR PATCH IT TO GET RID OF TEH EVIL BOT SCOURGE... give me a fucking break.

[quote author=Denial link=topic=16043.msg161482#msg161482 date=1164084457]
You guys could have it completely wrong. A blizzard worker could have told you to use pmac hashes so you would waste the time making all the bots work and this "blizzard" person already having the code to patch pmac waiting to see all the conversations and after everyone fixed their bots boom patched it as well getting a laugh out of it.  Blizzard does watch places and of course does monitor channels and forums As well as invisibly watches channels and users themselves.[/quote]
You are an idiot.
[/quote]
Have not tested it, but I would asume it was second to be patched.

I would too but assumptions don't really help me.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16043.msg161486#msg161486 date=1164086256]Does XMAC still use the old checkrevision libraries?[/quote]No.
~-~(HDX)~-~

k

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16043.msg161490#msg161490 date=1164087840]
Anyone gonna answer my question?  VS6 won't work on Vista or I'd figure it out myself.
[/quote]

VB6 apps and the IDE are supported on Vista.  VS 2002 and 2003 are not.

Well the IDE won't work on Vista...  Have you actually tried it or are you just going by what you've read?  I read that the VB6 IDE isn't supported in Vista at all (and I've tried it).

EDIT: I found a quote from some microsoft representative that says the vb6.0 IDE is supported until 2008, but I can't get it to install...  Microsoft doesn't offer any solutions for vs6.0 either, I'll try later.

EDIT AGAIN: I think a got it working, there's a bunch of libraries that can't be registered though.

They might be trying to give you a subtle hint - upgrade?

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16043.msg161500#msg161500 date=1164092748]
Well the IDE won't work on Vista...  Have you actually tried it or are you just going by what you've read?  I read that the VB6 IDE isn't supported in Vista at all (and I've tried it).

EDIT: I found a quote from some microsoft representative that says the vb6.0 IDE is supported until 2008, but I can't get it to install...  Microsoft doesn't offer any solutions for vs6.0 either, I'll try later.

EDIT AGAIN: I think a got it working, there's a bunch of libraries that can't be registered though.
[/quote]
Microsoft is officially supporting VB6 on Vista.  That means you're broken.

...

Yeah so there's an updated VB6.0 installer on MSDN that works correctly on Vista.

Thanks for all your useful assumption-based comments dumbass.  Next time don't take the thread further off topic with your trolling.

Anyone feel like getting back on topic?

[quote author=Denial link=topic=16043.msg161482#msg161482 date=1164084457]
You guys could have it completely wrong. A blizzard worker could have told you to use pmac hashes so you would waste the time making all the bots work and this "blizzard" person already having the code to patch pmac waiting to see all the conversations and after everyone fixed their bots boom patched it as well getting a laugh out of it.
[/quote]
Then why did Blizzard update PMACverX.mpq to ver-PMAC-X.mpq before hand, when no/few robots were useing it?
Looks to me like a tipical anti hack move, that happened to effect BNCS bots, like most anti hack move's would.
I think you guys are just getting paranoid :)
Just like when Warden was patched into Diablo 2 game servers/clients, it effected all D2GS Bots, but was inplace to catch hacks/macros etc.