Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Vicious on May 17, 2004, 08:49 PM
iago, I have the sorse coed. I hacked your phone modum with the knive, then stole it from your html.


J/k

This means Warcraft 3 bots with out BNLS, yay. ^^

Good job.

Nothing wrong with BNLS.  I don't understand why people get so biased about a remote hashing service.  Makes no sense to me when I see people say "I will never use a remote hashing service like BNLS."

Wow, our post was 2 seconds apart lol. Alot of people don't like BNLS because they think its ALOT slower than local hasing, which is not true.

Quote from: LW-Falcon on May 17, 2004, 09:01 PM
Wow, our post was 2 seconds apart lol. Alot of people don't like BNLS because they think its ALOT slower than local hasing, which is not true.

It's definently not "a lot" slower.  The CheckRevision algorithm which BNLS uses is about 6-7 times faster than the C implementation floating around.  So depending on your ping to server, you'll possibly be getting even better performance when using it than when doing it locally.

It also depends on system speed. From a user standpoint, running the public CheckRevision() on my computer takes an undetectable amount of time - it appears to be instantaneous. I would have to programatically benchmark it to be able to get any idea of the difference.

Which is an insignificant difference unless you're one of those people who cares about a 1 millisecond or even less difference in speed or doing some kind of large-scale scienteific/mathematical calculations with it.  

I've never had a problem with using remote hashing.  In fact, it makes things significantly easier to work with when you're testing a Battle.net client out, instead of having to deal with all the local hash function calls, and putting the hash files some place the bot can find them.  It's faster just to use BNLS, and frankly easy and just as reliable.

Quote from: Mephisto on May 17, 2004, 09:58 PM
and frankly easy and just as reliable.

impossible

The fact that the server is remote , requires it to have an uptime for you to hash your stuff , so it therefore cannot be as reliable as doing it yourself.

How many times have you experienced the BNLS system is down? Not once for me, so I'd say its pretty reliable.

Quote from: LW-Falcon on May 17, 2004, 10:16 PM
How many times have you experienced the BNLS system is down? Not once for me, so I'd say its pretty reliable.

BNLS goes down quite often and when it does it's down for hours, but I'm not complaining. :p

BNLS goes down rarely, but it does.  Besides, I'm happier to have options.  Options are good, monopoly is evil

BNLS defeats the whole purpose of the login system they have in place, to increase security and protect against eavesdropping.

Another advantage of using BNLS is that it is kept updated for us by Skywing and Yoni.

Quote from: Maddox on May 17, 2004, 10:35 PM
BNLS defeats the whole purpose of the login system they have in place, to increase security and protect against eavesdropping.

Actually there have been plans for a BNLS over a secured standard protocol with readily-available libraries useable from many languages, but it didn't seem like enough people would use it to justify the time (among other problems).

I just used it for the hashing, so i didnt have to deal with hash files, and did the password functions my self.

Quote from: Skywing on May 17, 2004, 11:05 PM

Quote from: Maddox on May 17, 2004, 10:35 PM
BNLS defeats the whole purpose of the login system they have in place, to increase security and protect against eavesdropping.

Actually there have been plans for a BNLS over a secured standard protocol with readily-available libraries useable from many languages, but it didn't seem like enough people would use it to justify the time (among other problems).

I think he meant that because BNLS requires your password and CD-Key when you connect to the server, and BNLS returns what you need to connect to Battle.net.  Battle.net should be the only ones to see your CD-Key, and the purpose of hashing is to protect people from getting that information easily.  With added implementation, creators of BNLS could easily log CD-Key, password, and account information and use it for whatever reasons.  Though this is not really a concern for most people, it is for those paranoid people, and people who think that it's wrong for others to have that access to your information.  But it hasn't proven to be any real threat/situation in the years BNLS has been around has it?

Kind of, I meant that battle.net goes through hoops to ensure that your password for Warcraft III is not only hashed but in a way that that protects against almost all dictionary/denning-sacco/eavesdropping sort of attacks, but it is all for nothing because you sent your password to BNLS in plain text.

I don't doubt the integrity of Skywing and Yoni operating the server.