Has anyone looked into that old php bot that someone made recently and might have updated it for war2 or something of that nature im not exactly sure what clients it could use to connect.

Flappy webbot? Check out fapiko.com. I think it's open source and uses BNLS to connect so theoretically it should be able to connect just fine, and if it doesn't it can be fixed very easily.

I've recently made a nice little framework for making phpbots so far it supports STAR, SEXP, D2DV, D2XP, W2BN and im currently adding WAR3 and W3XP eventually it'll do local hashing too :D

Too bad it can't handle warden.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=17033.msg172978#msg172978 date=1190329706]
Too bad it can't handle warden.
[/quote]

Who said it had to?.... ;-]

Well he claims it supports Starcraft and Brood War, which it can't do unless it supports Warden, so....Battle.net said so.

You can still log in and chat just fine with warden enabled. Being disconnected in two minutes is of no consequence for supporting a client. It's just not fully supported. Yes that's nit-picking and probably not what you meant, so can we please not start an argument over it?

nono, my point is that warden has been disabled yet again. Is this going to be a regular thing? Alternating between warden being active/inactive every few weeks?

It's gonna be on again, I'm sure.

[quote author=brew link=topic=17033.msg172985#msg172985 date=1190341517]
nono, my point is that warden has been disabled yet again. Is this going to be a regular thing? Alternating between warden being active/inactive every few weeks?
[/quote]

Warden is always running, not necessarly performing actions based off of what the server wants though.

When we're referring to warden, we mean packet 0x5E...

Exactly.  I'm referring to the part that is stumping most bot makers.

Naw, it only stumps those who care. If I ever get to the point where it annoys me, I'll set up a copy of SC running on my server and make a 5E server system and I'll log all the responses in a database, just like I did with lockdown. The database in this case would only be for the off chance of a repeat and looking for any possible patterns or anything of the like. Right now, I use SC when I can, and I use W2 the rest of the time.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17033.msg172997#msg172997 date=1190346884]
Naw, it only stumps those who care. If I ever get to the point where it annoys me, I'll set up a copy of SC running on my server and make a 5E server system and I'll log all the responses in a database, just like I did with lockdown. The database in this case would only be for the off chance of a repeat and looking for any possible patterns or anything of the like. Right now, I use SC when I can, and I use W2 the rest of the time.
[/quote]

That would work fine for a bot using the specific cdkey that your starcraft copy was using. But it would be useless for any other bot using different cdkeys. The warden response is based on the hash of the cdkey, along with other variable factors.

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17033.msg173019#msg173019 date=1190355624]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17033.msg172997#msg172997 date=1190346884]
Naw, it only stumps those who care. If I ever get to the point where it annoys me, I'll set up a copy of SC running on my server and make a 5E server system and I'll log all the responses in a database, just like I did with lockdown. The database in this case would only be for the off chance of a repeat and looking for any possible patterns or anything of the like. Right now, I use SC when I can, and I use W2 the rest of the time.
[/quote]

That would work fine for a bot using the specific cdkey that your starcraft copy was using. But it would be useless for any other bot using different cdkeys. The warden response is based on the hash of the cdkey, along with other variable factors.
[/quote]

To be precise, the hash is based on other variable factors. Specifically, the client and server tokens.

I can send that all to the client easily. I said if it annoyed me. It wouldn't be for anyone else to use, just like any current implementations of the same system are for the local user.

It is indeed based on the client and server tokens, and the resulting hash for 0x5E is the result of serveral layers of hashing/encryption. By just looking at database of hashes, there is simply no way you can find patterns unless the hashes collide, which theoretically doesn't happen too often.

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173020#msg173020 date=1190356982]
[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17033.msg173019#msg173019 date=1190355624]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17033.msg172997#msg172997 date=1190346884]
Naw, it only stumps those who care. If I ever get to the point where it annoys me, I'll set up a copy of SC running on my server and make a 5E server system and I'll log all the responses in a database, just like I did with lockdown. The database in this case would only be for the off chance of a repeat and looking for any possible patterns or anything of the like. Right now, I use SC when I can, and I use W2 the rest of the time.
[/quote]

That would work fine for a bot using the specific cdkey that your starcraft copy was using. But it would be useless for any other bot using different cdkeys. The warden response is based on the hash of the cdkey, along with other variable factors.
[/quote]

To be precise, the hash is based on other variable factors. Specifically, the client and server tokens.
[/quote]

It is guaranteed to happen no less often than 1 out of 2^64 times. Still, that's 18.4 quintillion, so don't hold your breath.

So Camel, if you know about Warden details, why haven't you published it yet :)

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173031#msg173031 date=1190386442]
It is guaranteed to happen no less often than 1 out of 2^64 times. Still, that's 18.4 quintillion, so don't hold your breath.
[/quote]

[quote author=devcode link=topic=17033.msg173034#msg173034 date=1190395308]
So Camel, if you know about Warden details, why haven't you published it yet :)

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173031#msg173031 date=1190386442]
It is guaranteed to happen no less often than 1 out of 2^64 times. Still, that's 18.4 quintillion, so don't hold your breath.
[/quote][/quote]

Actually, we could say the same about you. ;)

[quote author=devcode link=topic=17033.msg173034#msg173034 date=1190395308]
So Camel, if you know about Warden details, why haven't you published it yet :)

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173031#msg173031 date=1190386442]
It is guaranteed to happen no less often than 1 out of 2^64 times. Still, that's 18.4 quintillion, so don't hold your breath.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I was talking about hash collision. The client and server tokens are each 32-bits, but the generators are only pseudo-random, so it'll happen slightly more frequently than that.

Well, you mentioned that the reply consisted of server/client tokens, so I assumed you figured something there :)

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173037#msg173037 date=1190396191]
[quote author=devcode link=topic=17033.msg173034#msg173034 date=1190395308]
So Camel, if you know about Warden details, why haven't you published it yet :)

[quote author=Camel link=topic=17033.msg173031#msg173031 date=1190386442]
It is guaranteed to happen no less often than 1 out of 2^64 times. Still, that's 18.4 quintillion, so don't hold your breath.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I was talking about hash collision. The client and server tokens are each 32-bits, but the generators are only pseudo-random, so it'll happen slightly more frequently than that.
[/quote]


“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.” - Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

[quote author=Don Cullen link=topic=17033.msg173036#msg173036 date=1190395738]
Actually, we could say the same about you. ;)
[/quote]

It has been known for quite some time that the encryption key for decoding the 0x5E packet consists of the client/server token, the first DWORD of the cdkey hash reported in the 0x51, and ?maybe? the first 128 bits of the checksum formula.

This thread has gotten off subject i made a new subject for "warden" for you guys to discuss it further.


Also im not refurring to a webbot im speaking more along the lines of this


http://battlecenter.net/bot/

that bot is pritty old and it doesn't support lockdown unless someone has updated it

Not sure i dont have time to fix it or i would but i dont care it it wants sc i just wonder if it still works on any client.

I'm currently adding wc3 support to my framework but I would be happy to release it as open source as soon as it's completed I just don't like releasing things that aren't completed and full of bugs

leaks would it be in php or what are we talking about? im currently intrested in running multiple bots on battle.net to do some sort of project and i figured the easiest way might be through php the way i want to try something out.

the framework i've created is entirly made out of php it uses BNLS to do all the hashing and stuff (i'm not extreamly good with algorythms and stuff like that so all hashing is done through bnls unless someone wants to help me some hash functions in php ex: password, cdkey, yadda yadda)


it's pritty simple the way i have it layed out

it's 4 files
bncs.class.php
bnls.class.php
socket.class.php
packet.class.php


and all you do is make a plugin class

class pluginname extends BNCS

the event's are just function calls $this->eventFunction($eventArgs)

i've got a premade blank plugin template you just fill in the events you plan to use and leave the rest blank

easy peasy bananna cheesy no? If you'd like more information you can PM me or aim me animepages11