I wondered if the checkrevision.dll hash.dll and etc have to be upgraded for version 1.10?
Write your own ^^
If its name implies its function correctly, hash.dll doesn't need any updating. checkrevision.dll might - depending on whether or not it sucks ass.
Do you construct the SID_AUTH_INFO (0x50) message yourself? If not, do you pass it a version byte parameter? If not, it sucks ass.
Hash.dll and CheckRevision.dll don't need any update to work correctly for RATS/PXES v1.10. If your using 0x51 then BnetAuth.dll would be much better as it holds the functions of both Hash.dll and CheckRevision.dll along with several additions, but I dont beleive BnetAuth.dll supports the old login method with 0x07 and 0x36.
A note for reference: The 1.10 version byte is 0xc7 (for both SC and BW).
It's not 1.10, it's 1.99...
Quote
The new "version byte" is now 0xC7 (199).
Quote from: laurion on April 29, 2003, 05:19 AM
It's not 1.10, it's 1.99...
Quote
The new "version byte" is now 0xC7 (199).
From Starcraft.exe:
Version 1.10The "version byte" isn't necessarily equal to the real game version.
Quote from: Barumonk on April 28, 2003, 09:57 PM
Hash.dll and CheckRevision.dll don't need any update to work correctly for RATS/PXES v1.10. If your using 0x51 then BnetAuth.dll would be much better as it holds the functions of both Hash.dll and CheckRevision.dll along with several additions, but I dont beleive BnetAuth.dll supports the old login method with 0x07 and 0x36.
You got it all wrong, the ORIGINAL bnetauth.dll does not support the new hashing method used in 0x51, and does support the hashing for the old login. Please remember that Stu created the original bnetauth.dll, and somebody else edited it and used one-letter functions, which wasnt entirely meant for distribution...
Quote from: MesiaH on April 29, 2003, 01:48 PM
You got it all wrong, the ORIGINAL bnetauth.dll does not support the new hashing method used in 0x51, and does support the hashing for the old login. Please remember that Stu created the original bnetauth.dll, and somebody else edited it and used one-letter functions, which wasnt entirely meant for distribution...
My mistake, I obviously wasn't aware of the difference in versions by developers.
yeah dont blame yourself, its somebody elses fault for not spreading word about it, or at least renaming it..