Ok this is based on an idea i have had for a long time, and used to use it to stop mass calling of CheckRevision() when loading more than 1 connection.

Anyway, what is CRDB?
CRDB (Check revision database) is a class designed to work with battle.net bots that use BNLS for the latest lockdown version checking.
It works by your bot reporting its successfull CheckRevisions to the CRDB class.

Over the last 24 hours I have ran a test program that connects to all battle.net servers reporting all checkrevisions to CRDB and now have around 400 - 500 checkrevisions stored.
(hdx was talking about 2000 possible values, so if this is the case, not far to go)
Some of you may have noticed before, when you logon a battle.net server, the checkrevision formula doesnt change on that server for some time, so if you were to reconnect in that time, the checkrevision request would be exacly the same as it was before.
Its also the same for 1 file number/formula being used by multiple servers at the same/differnt times.
So once you have the results for a set file/formula, you wont need to use BNLS for it untill next patch.
No point requesting the same version check multiple times :P

Anyway, the CRDB code is here: Here
And the CRDB file is here: Here

And this is how to use it:

You need Load the CRDB file when your program opens:
[code]
Call hCRDB.LoadCRDB(App.Path & \CRDB.bin)
[/code]
You need to save the CRDB file when your program closes:
[code]
Call hCRDB.SaveCRDB(App.Path & \CRDB.bin)
[/code]
The CRDB file can be named anything, with any extention and will be created if not present when saving.

Then when it comes to doing a version check, and you have the mpqfile name, filetime and formula string:
[code]
    Dim lngVersion  As Long
    Dim lngChecksum As Long
    Dim strExeInfo  As String
    Dim strAddTime  As String

    If hCRDB.GetCR(m_ClientID, _
                       m_FileName, _
                       m_FileTime, _
                       m_Formula, _
                       lngVersion, _
                       lngChecksum, _
                       strExeInfo, _
                       strAddTime) = True Then
       
        'Send 0x07/0x51 with lngVersion, lngChecksum and strExeInfo
        'strAddTime is a string containing the time this version check was 1st reported.
       
    Else
       
        'Use BNLS
       
    End If
[/code]
(Note, the m_ClientID long variable is that of Bnets and not BNLS's)


Then when you successfully pass a checkrevision and have all the values:
[code]
    Call hCRDB.ReportCR(m_ClientID, m_FileName, m_FileTime, m_Formula, m_Version, m_Checksum, m_EXEinfo)
[/code]
Now, next time this checkrevision is needed, GetCR() should return it.



Anyway, i dont care about credits or anything like that,  i thought this would be a good addition for bot dev'ers and alot less work for BNLS.
I hope some find it usefull :)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if this was possible I thought the values returned might have been different every time. Good job with the work-around.

Very nice. Thanks.

Edit:
Is the product like STAR, or RATS?

I made a C++ dll for writing/reading the storage file for the sake of speed if it got big, but I tried to reconnect to the same server and the request was different every time so upon doing this like 100 times I just gave up, I'm interested on seeing how the 2000 possible values thing will go though.

[quote author=heRo link=topic=16179.msg163216#msg163216 date=1168887101]
Is the product like STAR, or RATS?
[/quote]
RATS inthe CRDB.bin, but if you do a new one, it doesnt matter to much :)

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16179.msg163217#msg163217 date=1168889436]
I made a C++ dll for writing/reading the storage file for the sake of speed if it got big, but I tried to reconnect to the same server and the request was different every time so upon doing this like 100 times I just gave up, I'm interested on seeing how the 2000 possible values thing will go though.
[/quote]
Atm, this will logon 20ish% of the time :P so 2000 does seem around the right number.
The test program i ran yesterday was connecting 0x1E, 0x06, where the version check changing is very very slow, but 0x50 is random and differnt for each login.
Even connecting and useing 0x50, you have 20% chance to login with the CRDB.bin file.
I shoulda ran it on 0x50, but i forgot that 0x50 is the randomized one, and now BNLS is down and im to lazzy to proxy SC :P

Im currently doing a test BNLS server for some moaning friends ;p so if anyone wants to give it a try: 84.9.66.218
It just accepts SC/BW, 0x10 and 0x1A and runs off of that CRDB file.

Thanks for the thanks all :P

ah yeah see i was using 0x50

EDIT: nice i logged in using your server 3rd try, i guess it really isn't as randomized as i thought  :o

Well, I did notice this, even with the newer logon method. Over periods of days, battlenet will provide a code value that is has provided in the past, and will always request use of the same lockdown file, too. This has entered my mind, once I saw this trend , but is obviously unreliable. I noticed this while debugging several different lockdown files, so I assume it's the same with all of them. Although a poor solution, it's interesting. Just a few questions though - what happens when a patch is released? who's to say there are really "only 2000" code values? you begin to see why this temporary fix is just that, temporary.

[quote author=warz link=topic=16179.msg163220#msg163220 date=1168892799]
Well, I did notice this, even with the newer logon method. Over periods of days, battlenet will provide a code value that is has provided in the past, and will always request use of the same lockdown file, too. This has entered my mind, once I saw this trend , but is obviously unreliable. I noticed this while debugging several different lockdown files, so I assume it's the same with all of them. Although a poor solution, it's interesting. Just a few questions though - what happens when a patch is released? who's to say there are really "only 2000" code values? you begin to see why this temporary fix is just that, temporary.
[/quote]

so is reversing lockdown, who knows when they are gonna whip out a new library?  ;)

[quote author=warz link=topic=16179.msg163220#msg163220 date=1168892799]
Well, I did notice this, even with the newer logon method. Over periods of days, battlenet will provide a code value that is has provided in the past, and will always request use of the same lockdown file, too. This has entered my mind, once I saw this trend , but is obviously unreliable. I noticed this while debugging several different lockdown files, so I assume it's the same with all of them. Although a poor solution, it's interesting. Just a few questions though - what happens when a patch is released? who's to say there are really "only 2000" code values? you begin to see why this temporary fix is just that, temporary.
[/quote]

Well, its not really a fix, its somthing to work with a bot that uses BNLS, so that it can slowly use BNLS less and less, untill over all, the desired goal would be to have all the version check formulas in the data base, and not need BNLS untill the bot sees a new formula.
The theory is an old one, that i was day dreaming about well before lock down, when i was writeing a battle.net server.
How does the battle.net servers manage checkrevision?
After thinking about it for awhile, there is only a few logical ways to do it.
1. The server runs a copy of each client, so that it can do checkrevision.
2. The server always uses a *work around* checkrevision method to mirror its clients version check results -- making a work around method always possible
3. The server has a formula list ready run off of the clients
For my server, i went with the 3rd idea :) and i figgers so did blizzard.

For this CRDB, the idea i had in mind for when a patch comes out, and BNLS has been updated for the changes, the user (or bot) would just delete the CRDB.bin file, and start again.

Its still a kinda on going test to see if it gets to 100% reliablity, how ever, it should drasticly reduce the connections on BNLS. :)

how large is the file?

Ah, geocities is dieing :P
At current, 28kb or somthing around that. Based on 20%, 100% would be about 140kb
Better than the clunky binarys i guess :)

Edit: Theres also a 8 byte file time structure in each item, so thats gota be around 20 - 30% bigger -- thats not needed, but is handy to know how far back the checkrevision results are going back

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163224#msg163224 date=1168894863]
Ah, geocities is dieing :P
At current, 28kb or somthing around that. Based on 20%, 100% would be about 140kb
Better than the clunky binarys i guess :)

Edit: Theres also a 8 byte file time structure in each item, so thats gota be around 20 - 30% bigger -- thats not needed, but is handy to know how far back the checkrevision results are going back
[/quote]
interesting thx.

I'm going to leave in about hour and a half for a few hours and I'll proxy up sc and let it make checkrevision requests by itself.

Working with HDX's star.dat file from the other topic, i'll store requests which it doesn't have into it and try to get as many requests into it as possible.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16179.msg163221#msg163221 date=1168893688]
so is reversing lockdown, who knows when they are gonna whip out a new library?  ;)
[/quote]

They are more likely to just be happy and change values if the majority of the kids are bruteforcing like n00bs, as opposed to implementing an entirely new CheckRevision. ;)

RaidenMZX + Ante have released a Lockdown VB6 OCX file which logs onto StarCraft / Broodwar about 90% of the time.

Read more:
http://miragechat.net/support/index.php?topic=1133.0

[me=UserLoser]anxiously waits for a new CheckRevision to come out[/me]

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163232#msg163232 date=1168923243]
[me=UserLoser]anxiously waits for the a CheckRevision to come out[/me]
[/quote]

Agreed, does anyone know whats happening with BNLS? Why is it down?

I know, it was another question entirely.

I agreed with his anxiety for a CheckRevision to come out.

Sorry, typo.  Meant "for a new" not sure how I typed "the a".  Meaning, waiting for Blizzard to release a new one now that people have released public ways to get around it.

To clarify, no, I was not waiting for someone to release something.  If I had cared for this that much I would have finished reversing it a couple of months back.

how u get this thing to work?  the exe keeps on giving me runtime error 424 "object required"

I inserted the object in the main form, it says coded by raidenmzx blah blah blah

Private Sub Form_Load()
ldocx.SetPassword "SetPassword"
ldocx.ReadyData

It gives me the runtime when  ldocx.SetPassword "SetPassword"  is called

http://jbls.org/Downloads/ldocxfinal.zip
~-~(HDX)~-~

[quote author=DDA-TriCk-E link=topic=16179.msg163231#msg163231 date=1168922871]
RaidenMZX + Ante have released a Lockdown VB6 OCX file which logs onto StarCraft / Broodwar about 90% of the time.

Read more:
http://miragechat.net/support/index.php?topic=1133.0
[/quote]

Thats just a compiled CRDB? :P
Just re-dl CRDB.bin and it will work 99% of the time :P
I will leave my test program running over night, to get the extra 1% ;)

You cannot guarantee that, though. I would only suggest using these temporary fixes if you don't mind finding a new one sooner. I'm not saying that I think battlenet will switch things up, but who's to say a patch won't be released, or that they won't just change the code value to checkrevision version correlation up? Either of those would render that .bin file completely, 100% useless. I still would suggest bnls to those of you that want to be 100% positive your client will connect, without failure. I further suggest figuring this thing out the correct way.

Aside from what warz said because he has a point.

GJ ringo for thinking of and taking the time to code such a project.

I hate implemting new things, everytime i get a new thing implemented a new patch comes out like the very next day ahah damn work around i wonder what skywing really did though so don't have to use temps.

[quote author=warz link=topic=16179.msg163245#msg163245 date=1168935400]
You cannot guarantee that, though. I would only suggest using these temporary fixes if you don't mind finding a new one sooner. I'm not saying that I think battlenet will switch things up, but who's to say a patch won't be released, or that they won't just change the code value to checkrevision version correlation up? Either of those would render that .bin file completely, 100% useless. I still would suggest bnls to those of you that want to be 100% positive your client will connect, without failure. I further suggest figuring this thing out the correct way.
[/quote]
Did you Read this? I think your missing the point. ;p
This was never ment to be 100% perfect everlasting workaround method for lockdown.
But if it does get to 100% at the best of times (long streching patchs) then thats an added bonus, no?
One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P

I wonder if the fact that there is ~2000 requests is due to a bug in the system or how it was meant to be done. You'd think they would develop a work-around method for the server to compare the results from the client instead of having a database of all possible requests, that's the shittiest professional programming idea ever.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16179.msg163261#msg163261 date=1168975711]
I wonder if the fact that there is ~2000 requests is due to a bug in the system or how it was meant to be done. You'd think they would develop a work-around method for the server to compare the results from the client instead of having a database of all possible requests, that's the shittiest professional programming idea ever.
[/quote]
Not really.  Calculating the CheckRevision challenge response is an expensive operation, and not one that would be desirable to do anew each time a user connects to Battle.net.

Server-side caching of CheckRevision challenge responses has been in place for a very long time now.  It is not new.

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163260#msg163260 date=1168975559]One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P[/quote]

What?

[quote author=warz link=topic=16179.msg163264#msg163264 date=1168985625]
[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163260#msg163260 date=1168975559]One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P[/quote]

What?
[/quote]

He compared you to UserLoser. Daaaamn. That sucks. I'd probably kill myself at that point. :(

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163265#msg163265 date=1168986452]
[quote author=warz link=topic=16179.msg163264#msg163264 date=1168985625]
[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163260#msg163260 date=1168975559]One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P[/quote]

What?
[/quote]

He compared you to UserLoser. Daaaamn. That sucks. I'd probably kill myself at that point. :(
[/quote]

well thats gotta makem feel bad.

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=16179.msg163262#msg163262 date=1168978793]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16179.msg163261#msg163261 date=1168975711]
I wonder if the fact that there is ~2000 requests is due to a bug in the system or how it was meant to be done. You'd think they would develop a work-around method for the server to compare the results from the client instead of having a database of all possible requests, that's the shittiest professional programming idea ever.
[/quote]
Not really.  Calculating the CheckRevision challenge response is an expensive operation, and not one that would be desirable to do anew each time a user connects to Battle.net.

Server-side caching of CheckRevision challenge responses has been in place for a very long time now.  It is not new.
[/quote]

Caching is fine, the thing is only 2000 requests, it's a trivial task to create a database to get around such a small amount of requests.

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163260#msg163260 date=1168975559]
Did you Read this? I think your missing the point. ;p
This was never ment to be 100% perfect everlasting workaround method for lockdown.
But if it does get to 100% at the best of times (long streching patchs) then thats an added bonus, no?
One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P
[/quote]

Interested?  Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch.  Sometimes crashes on War3 though.



warz keep up the good work, you know you are when they're comparing you to me.

lol I love you UserLoser.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163260#msg163260 date=1168975559]
Did you Read this? I think your missing the point. ;p
This was never ment to be 100% perfect everlasting workaround method for lockdown.
But if it does get to 100% at the best of times (long streching patchs) then thats an added bonus, no?
One would begin to think it was you who has "For sale:  Battle.net version check file patching code, $300." in there profile :P
[/quote]

Interested?  Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch.  Sometimes crashes on War3 though.



warz keep up the good work, you know you are when they're comparing you to me.
[/quote]

I would atleast think for $300 war3 would work properly. =]

Ah. I have signatures and avatars disabled for everyone - so I didn't know what you were talking about.

@UserLoser: What's stopping someone from redistributing this code after they purchase it? Licensing? NDA? Wha

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
Interested? 
[/quote]
No, Im just laughing @ wanting money for somthing like that. ;)
Try talking to that nesucks guy, i hear he is a sucker :P


[quote]
warz keep up the good work, you know you are when they're comparing you to me.
[/quote]
I was refering to your sig ;p
n/m

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163276#msg163276 date=1168995376]
@UserLoser: What's stopping someone from redistributing this code after they purchase it? Licensing? NDA? Wha
[/quote]

they'd be stupid to pay for something just to give it away.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163279#msg163279 date=1168995990]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163276#msg163276 date=1168995376]
@UserLoser: What's stopping someone from redistributing this code after they purchase it? Licensing? NDA? Wha
[/quote]

they'd be stupid to pay for something just to give it away.
[/quote]

For once, I agree with you. Heh.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
Interested?  Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch.  Sometimes crashes on War3 though.
[/quote]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163279#msg163279 date=1168995990]they'd be stupid to pay for something just to give it away.[/quote]Are you calling me stupid?
If I had the money I would be more then willing to buy the code/documents off you jsut to release it as public domain.
But alas I only have $106 to my name :*( and thats almost already spent!
Its what I did with JSTR remeber? (BTW does anyone still ahve JSTR's cd/ I had to reformat and I lost the cd I burt it to)
~-~(HDX)~-~

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163284#msg163284 date=1168997726]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163279#msg163279 date=1168995990]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163276#msg163276 date=1168995376]
@UserLoser: What's stopping someone from redistributing this code after they purchase it? Licensing? NDA? Wha
[/quote]

they'd be stupid to pay for something just to give it away.
[/quote]

For once, I agree with you. Heh.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
Interested?  Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch.  Sometimes crashes on War3 though.
[/quote]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.
[/quote]

newer-style code isn't with other code, so you'd be paying for something legitimate

don't use passive mode.
~-~(HDX)~-~

Uploading it now

Edit: your server is 2 slow for upload :'( I am uploading it to fapiko.com/~ice This will take ~2.5 hours :'(

you were uploading at 120kbps on my end 0.o
Oh well that works :P thanks man.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163284#msg163284 date=1168997726]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
Interested?  Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch.  Sometimes crashes on War3 though.
[/quote]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.
[/quote]People buy Windows?

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163304#msg163304 date=1169035319]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163284#msg163284 date=1168997726]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163270#msg163270 date=1168994588]
Interested? Works for everything and anything, supports any patch type, 100% reversed code from scratch. Sometimes crashes on War3 though.
[/quote]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.
[/quote]People buy Windows?
[/quote]

Haha

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163304#msg163304 date=1169035319]
People buy Windows?
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay $300 for Windows than $300 for some code that isn't guaranteed to work in one year.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163312#msg163312 date=1169072908]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163304#msg163304 date=1169035319]
People buy Windows?
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay $300 for Windows than $300 for some code that isn't guaranteed to work in one year.
[/quote]

It is guaranteed to work.  I believe I said the War3 part is apart from the other code that works all the time.  Don't get angry

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163314#msg163314 date=1169074660]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163313#msg163313 date=1169073000]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163312#msg163312 date=1169072908]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163304#msg163304 date=1169035319]
People buy Windows?
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay $300 for Windows than $300 for some code that isn't guaranteed to work in one year.
[/quote]

It is guaranteed to work.  I believe I said the War3 part is apart from the other code that works all the time.  Don't get angry
[/quote]

So if Blizzard changes the way it's done in two years it'll still work?
[/quote]

Well, they've used this method since Battle.net existed and there's several different patch types.  If they wish to release another patch type let them, but there is no reason to.  They came out with a new patch type when WoW/War3 (somewhere inbetween there) were released, probably due to larger files.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163312#msg163312 date=1169072908][quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163304#msg163304 date=1169035319]People buy Windows?[/quote]I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay $300 for Windows than $300 for some code that isn't guaranteed to work in one year.[/quote]

Like Windows XP or Windows Vista if Microsoft decides they don't want to let you activate again?

Because.

They would stop you, for the same reason blizzard would change there patching methods.
To detour misuse of there products.
Nothing in the comp world is garenteed to be working 2 years down the line.
There is always the unforeseen event that could much everything up.
so you jsut got with what you have that works right now and if something happens in the future, you adapt.
Also, like you said, use Linux while the rest of us use windows... who says they are mutually exclusive?
~-~(HDX)~-~



http://rcb.realityripple.com/CREV/list.php?
Have fun
~-~(HDX)~-~

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...

so back on topic, appears that bnet patched the hash strings used so the file containing the old ones can be discarded. We'll have to wait and see if there is a new set or if it's completely random now. Ringo, get on with it!

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=16179.msg163364#msg163364 date=1169173088]
so back on topic, appears that bnet patched the hash strings used so the file containing the old ones can be discarded. We'll have to wait and see if there is a new set or if it's completely random now. Ringo, get on with it!
[/quote]
x40

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163358#msg163358 date=1169169060]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...
[/quote]

Kudos to whoever deleted my post. :)

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163368#msg163368 date=1169177700]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163358#msg163358 date=1169169060]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...
[/quote]

Kudos to whoever deleted my post. :)
[/quote]

I have this sneaking suspicion about why they deleted offtopic posts in this thread... oh well

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16179.msg163369#msg163369 date=1169178676]
I have this sneaking suspicion about why they deleted offtopic posts in this thread... oh well
[/quote]

Then they're really fucking retarded and missed quite a few. Chink ;).

Hmm, iv got around 70% of PXES checkrevisions in CRDB.bin, most of which were checked off by the client. If RATS results are the same (they should be(?)), It leaves 10k + to go still ;p
All they did is update the list and make it 40 (or 50) times bigger  :-\
the CRDB file is now 800kb, and its speed is that of compareing around 1800+ strings to find or fail a match. So the CRDB class will still work, just 40 times slower :P
If blizzard change the strings again, I wont be searching for and posting them again :)

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163358#msg163358 date=1169169060]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...
[/quote]

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163383#msg163383 date=1169244875]
Hmm, iv got around 70% of PXES checkrevisions in CRDB.bin, most of which were checked off by the client. If RATS results are the same (they should be(?)), It leaves 10k + to go still ;p
All they did is update the list and make it 40 (or 50) times bigger  :-\
the CRDB file is now 800kb, and its speed is that of compareing around 1800+ strings to find or fail a match. So the CRDB class will still work, just 40 times slower :P
If blizzard change the strings again, I wont be searching for and posting them again :)

[/quote]

Even then, it shouldn't take more than a few milliseconds if you have a decent hashtable

[quote author=topaz link=topic=16179.msg163387#msg163387 date=1169246270]
[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16179.msg163383#msg163383 date=1169244875]
Hmm, iv got around 70% of PXES checkrevisions in CRDB.bin, most of which were checked off by the client. If RATS results are the same (they should be(?)), It leaves 10k + to go still ;p
All they did is update the list and make it 40 (or 50) times bigger  :-\
the CRDB file is now 800kb, and its speed is that of compareing around 1800+ strings to find or fail a match. So the CRDB class will still work, just 40 times slower :P
If blizzard change the strings again, I wont be searching for and posting them again :)

[/quote]

Even then, it shouldn't take more than a few milliseconds if you have a decent hashtable
[/quote]

remember it's VB

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163385#msg163385 date=1169245863]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163358#msg163358 date=1169169060]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...
[/quote]

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.
[/quote]

Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=16179.msg163393#msg163393 date=1169258403]
Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.
[/quote]

LOL?

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=16179.msg163393#msg163393 date=1169258403]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163385#msg163385 date=1169245863]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=16179.msg163358#msg163358 date=1169169060]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163339#msg163339 date=1169131555]
Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows. :)
[/quote]Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...
[/quote]

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.
[/quote]

Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.
[/quote]

Can someone split this to somewhere more appropriate, I'd like to continue this.

Internet Explorer 7 is slow because of it's Anti Phishing options, you can turn them off or optionally make them so you have to explicitly order it to check a site you think is dangerous.
IE6 is littered with rendering bugs, exploits, and is way less secure than IE7.

This is evident from exploits affecting IE6 and not IE7 and from the fact that almost three months after it's release no exploit has been posted that directly affects IE7. The closest one was one which used IE7 as an attack vector to exploit a flaw in Outlook Express.

It's impossible to know if IE7 leaks memory because some of it's components are separated and used by other key parts of the OS (Windows Help in Vista, Rendering in some programs, Explorer rendering, etc..) so really you'd need to factor in a multitude of other things.

Hope this clears up some things.

does it clear up when i have over 99k mem usage and over 1,200 GDI objects just for IE7 alone. =(

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=16179.msg163450#msg163450 date=1169388977]
does it clear up when i have over 99k mem usage and over 1,200 GDI objects just for IE7 alone. =(
[/quote]

For complex pages it's undeniable that you will have bunches of GDI objects, this is true for anything. Internet Explorer never rises above 22k memory usage for me, as where I've seen Firefox go up to 100k memory usage on the same page.

Browsers are complex projects, the rendering engine isn't the last of it's worries. It has to manage a plethora of other things.

Bottom line is: Suggesting IE6 over IE7 is foolish. Extremely foolish. IE7 includes monumental security enhancements and rendering optimizations.

well, maybe theres just somthing wrong with mine, i've never liked firefox, but IE7 does of course have great security features, and more better features, it should release some memory atleast when i close the some tabs, or somthing! not just keep going higher.

[quote author=Mystical link=topic=16179.msg163462#msg163462 date=1169426606]
well, maybe theres just somthing wrong with mine, i've never liked firefox, but IE7 does of course have great security features, and more better features, it should release some memory atleast when i close the some tabs, or somthing! not just keep going higher.
[/quote]

How do you know it doesn't, do you have the code? You're making assumptions about something you know nothing about.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16179.msg163474#msg163474 date=1169493741]How do you know it doesn't, do you have the code? You're making assumptions about something you know nothing about.[/quote]

i gots da code for i am da coder ^^

[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163284#msg163284 date=1168997726]
You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.
[/quote]

People do buy American made automobiles for prices more than 100x of what I am selling it for, so why wouldn't anyone want to buy my code?

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163478#msg163478 date=1169508959]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=16179.msg163284#msg163284 date=1168997726]
You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work [red]100%[/red] of the time? You're out of your mind.
[/quote]

People do buy American made automobiles for prices more than 100x of what I am selling it for, so why wouldn't anyone want to buy my code?
[/quote]

The $300 could be spent on gas for their car. Cars have a lot more practical uses than your code most likely..

Haha time to kill UL's program :P
[code]
[16:37:20] Hdx: new WC3 patch WAR3_IX86_120E_121A_enUS.mpq
[16:56:47] UserLoser: what is verbyte
[16:56:56] Hdx: 0x15
[16:57:05] Hdx: i posted all the info in bot dev
[16:57:27] UserLoser: updating bnls
[16:58:22] Hdx: kk
[16:58:28] UserLoser: yikes
[16:58:30] UserLoser: bnls crashed
[16:58:38] Hdx: hahahaha <3
[16:58:59] UserLoser: uh oh
[16:59:00] UserLoser: ..
[16:59:09] HdxEvilBlake: call sky
[16:59:10] UserLoser: *whistles and walks away*



[16:59:54] UserLoser: sphtbotv3 crashed too
[16:59:55] UserLoser: wtf
[16:59:59] Hdx: 0.o
[16:59:59] UserLoser: this patch is the devil :p
[17:02:54] UserLoser: *sees if my program can run patch*
[17:03:23] Hdx: :P
[17:03:27] Hdx: i wnt your program
[17:03:43] UserLoser: do you know the update from any patch filename?
[17:03:45] Hdx: btw, CLICK MY ADS!
[17:03:52] UserLoser: nevermind
[17:03:58] UserLoser: WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq
[17:03:59] Hdx: umm, wouldnt it be 1xx?
[17:04:34] UserLoser: yes but sometimes the A or w/e isn't there :p
[17:04:37] UserLoser: and is pain in ass to figure otu :p
[17:04:57] Hdx: I hate bots that dont give debug info
[17:05:07] Hdx: (patch files, result codes, etc....)
[17:06:26] UserLoser:
static const char *WAR3Files[] = { "Game.dll", "War3.exe", "Storm.dll" };
 

Patcher->ProcessPatch("WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq", WAR3Files, "Warcraft III\\", "Warcraft III\\Revert\\");
[17:06:43] Hdx: work?
[17:06:46] UserLoser: whoa wtf
[17:07:03] UserLoser: mine didn't crash but failed at a certain fxn that never fails
[17:07:42] Hdx: 0.o
[17:08:08] UserLoser:
  Processing patch file WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq...
  Extracted patch file Patch_War3.mpq...
  This patch upgrades Warcraft III Reign of Chaos from the previous version.
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch Game.dll!
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch War3.exe!
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch Storm.dll!
  Patch from WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq failed!
[17:10:11] UserLoser: hmm gonna make dummy dumpfile to see what this patch looks like
[17:10:52] Hdx: 0.o
[17:10:53] Hdx: fun
[17:11:59] Hdx: oh btw, there is a new bnupdate
[17:12:11] Hdx: it has teh same icon as the wow one, so it might be simmilar 0.o[/code]
~-~(HDX)~-~

hmm my program didn't die.  It failed on a patching function that returned failure due to unknown format.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--Blizzard reads these forums.  Remember me mentioning that the patching code has not changed?  Well it seems that the War3 now uses same patch type (4) but doesn't utilize the same patching algorithm.  There's also a new bnupdate.exe.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163483#msg163483 date=1169520767]
hmm my program didn't die.  It failed on a patching function that returned failure due to unknown format.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--Blizzard reads these forums.  Remember me mentioning that the patching code has not changed?  Well it seems that the War3 now uses same patch type (4) but doesn't utilize the same patching algorithm.  There's also a new bnupdate.exe.
[/quote]

Topic on the database of lockdown requests is posted, 3-4 days later, boom new requests. *sigh*

Haha. Blizzard got smart. Props to them. Maybe eventually everyone will give up and Blizzard will have won. ;)

(Or someone can make a new private forum and invite specific people to it; that'll work for only so long, though, before people leak shit.)

That's what you kiddies get when you release things publically.  Private knowledge > them.

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=16179.msg163489#msg163489 date=1169532065]
That's what you kiddies get when you release things publically.  Private knowledge > them.
[/quote]

"You kiddies?" You mentioned the patching code hasn't changed, and suddenly it doesn't work?

What the hell was I saying the entire time? It was dumb to use cached values as your only means of passing the client check.

Best off having a section where you can discuss different things Bnet related openly without having to disguise the information but only allow certain account priveldges to that area.  Sorta like the Advanced Locks section on lockpicking101.com where you need to apply and get granted access to the section based on whatever you decide.

Blizzard will win, they're finally getting smart for once in their gaming life.

[quote author=inner.de link=topic=16179.msg163515#msg163515 date=1169605274]
Blizzard will win, they're finally getting smart for once in their gaming life.
[/quote]

Nonsense.

We'll see when BNLS stops getting updated.

[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=16179.msg163506#msg163506 date=1169590887]
Best off having a section where you can discuss different things Bnet related openly without having to disguise the information but only allow certain account priveldges to that area.  Sorta like the Advanced Locks section on lockpicking101.com where you need to apply and get granted access to the section based on whatever you decide.
[/quote]

I'd sell blizzard my password :X

[quote author=Skeptical link=topic=16179.msg163542#msg163542 date=1169654848]
[quote author=MysT_DooM link=topic=16179.msg163506#msg163506 date=1169590887]
Best off having a section where you can discuss different things Bnet related openly without having to disguise the information but only allow certain account priveldges to that area.  Sorta like the Advanced Locks section on lockpicking101.com where you need to apply and get granted access to the section based on whatever you decide.
[/quote]

I'd sell blizzard my password :X
[/quote]
I'd sell it cheaper :D

whys everyone gotta steal my ideas :(