iago's lockdown source (100% C)

[Joe[x86]]

Yeah speaking of which rob's dll doesn't work at all in vb6 when compiled









just thought i'd throw that in there...
also it randomly returns invalid checksums.

Solution:

Quit using VB. Damn.

[l)ragon]

x86] link=topic=16753.msg169999#msg169999 date=1181578183]

Yeah speaking of which rob's dll doesn't work at all in vb6 when compiled









just thought i'd throw that in there...
also it randomly returns invalid checksums.

Solution:

Quit using VB. Damn.

is that the only constructive comment you can come up with anymore?

[Chriso]

Rob's dll does work, you just have to use his bin files (not iagos)

[rabbit]

True!  Rob's works.  I pass CR with it just fine, except I get invalid version back :\

[Chriso]

Make sure you are using the bin files on his server:

Heres the download to his screen dumps:
http://www.onlythechosen.com/w2bn.bin
http://www.onlythechosen.com/star.bin
http://www.onlythechosen.com/sexp.bin

Updated CheckRevision.dll:
http://www.onlythechosen.com/test/CheckRevision.dll

[rabbit]

I'm not retarded.  I'm using his latest CheckRevision.dll and his screen dumps, as well as up-to-date hashes.  I still get 0x101 back.

[brew]

What client are you trying to connect with? I couldn't connect using that dll at all with w2bn, but it works just dandy with sc.. for a while (after oh-so many calls it starts returning invalid results)

[rabbit]

I'm using my own hashes for Brood War and Rob's Brood War screen dump.

[Chriso]

What client are you trying to connect with? I couldn't connect using that dll at all with w2bn, but it works just dandy with sc.. for a while (after oh-so many calls it starts returning invalid results)

He fixed that when I notified him of it, contact him for the new one, it works fine.

[squeegee]

I'd like to tell you all that this is not a real fix


Screen dumps? k

[warz]

I'd like to tell you all that this is not a real fix
Screen dumps? k

Oh mighty squeegee, what else may you tell us?!

[TheMinistered]

Oh mighty dickhead betawarz, what else may you tell us, besides the fact you're a dickhead wannabe?

In reply to Hdx's post on page 1:

not sure if hard parts is the right phrase - more like the large parts.

Yeah, so I'm kinda talking without actually having looked at your code or having looked at lockdown in a debugger/disassembler, But why would you only port portions of the code.  It would seem that if you planned on using the DLL you would only port code needed to load and call the dll.

i.e. lets say that the dll have four functions named one, two, three, and four and the application had two functions called load and call, lets say function two is small and the the rest in the dll are large.

it would seem that you should either a) port all the functions so you don't need a dll or b) port the load and call functions from the application.  it would seem a waste of time to only port function one just so you don't have to call it from the dll

I dunno, i'm talking about something i don't entirely know you reasons behind... just seemed illogical to me how you decided to take your approach.  please explain warz ;p thanks

[warz]

All-mighty dick head betawarz speaks:

The intention was to convert everything, of course. Naturally, beginning with pure function pointers, and calling required functions, provided lockdown implementations long before the public had them. Converting them one by one to C++ was the next step in the process. Don't try to read between the lines - there's no conspiracy.