update EternalChat?

Michael · October 14, 2006, 04:27 PM

I use this bot alot and its far better then spthbot

so fix it for bnls!

Hero · October 14, 2006, 07:26 PM

Ask nicely!

Yegg · October 14, 2006, 08:28 PM

Quote from: -MichaeL- on October 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
I use this bot alot and its far better then spthbot so fix it for bnls!

Spht mentioned that there is basically nothing he can do. The source code is missing. He did not say it was gone, only that it was missing. He tried to modify part of the bot via a hex editor, but he obviously did not fix what was needed to be fixed. He would need the actual source to update the bot, and since he doesn't yet have the source, that will not be happening.

Michael · October 14, 2006, 10:07 PM

That sucks

Mystical · October 15, 2006, 01:51 AM

Quote from: Yegg on October 14, 2006, 08:28 PM
Quote from: -MichaeL- on October 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
I use this bot alot and its far better then spthbot so fix it for bnls!

Spht mentioned that there is basically nothing he can do. The source code is missing. He did not say it was gone, only that it was missing. He tried to modify part of the bot via a hex editor, but he obviously did not fix what was needed to be fixed. He would need the actual source to update the bot, and since he doesn't yet have the source, that will not be happening.

we all know the source isn't missing hes just saying that so everyone would move on to sphtbot =) lol

Yegg · October 15, 2006, 08:52 AM

Quote from: Mystical on October 15, 2006, 01:51 AM
Quote from: Yegg on October 14, 2006, 08:28 PM
Quote from: -MichaeL- on October 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
I use this bot alot and its far better then spthbot so fix it for bnls!

Spht mentioned that there is basically nothing he can do. The source code is missing. He did not say it was gone, only that it was missing. He tried to modify part of the bot via a hex editor, but he obviously did not fix what was needed to be fixed. He would need the actual source to update the bot, and since he doesn't yet have the source, that will not be happening.

we all know the source isn't missing hes just saying that so everyone would move on to sphtbot =) lol

Possible. Just not proven.

Michael · October 15, 2006, 11:44 AM

i don't even think you can prove it.

Yegg · October 15, 2006, 03:25 PM

Quote from: -MichaeL- on October 15, 2006, 11:44 AM
i don't even think you can prove it.

If we did a search on every computer that Spht owns / every computer that at one point held the source code, then yes, it can be proven.

thebigred · October 15, 2006, 10:39 PM

Quote from: Yegg on October 14, 2006, 08:28 PM
Quote from: -MichaeL- on October 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
I use this bot alot and its far better then spthbot so fix it for bnls!

Spht mentioned that there is basically nothing he can do. The source code is missing. He did not say it was gone, only that it was missing. He tried to modify part of the bot via a hex editor, but he obviously did not fix what was needed to be fixed. He would need the actual source to update the bot, and since he doesn't yet have the source, that will not be happening.

The sad truth

Hdx · October 16, 2006, 01:39 PM

Fix it yourself, this is an nasty way, but write a small transparent proxy! have it do nothing but connect to bnet and modify 0x50 s->c.
We all know spht is a lazy bastard

so don't wait for him to do something, do it yourself.
(I made a fix for any bot that supports socks4)
~-~(HDX)~-~

thebigred · October 16, 2006, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hdx on October 16, 2006, 01:39 PM
Fix it yourself, this is an nasty way, but write a small transparent proxy! have it do nothing but connect to bnet and modify 0x50 s->c.
We all know spht is a lazy bastard so don't wait for him to do something, do it yourself.
(I made a fix for any bot that supports socks4)
~-~(HDX)~-~

Wouldn't this require Eternalchat to run through a proxy? The only way I can think of this off the top of my head is using sockscaps. So maybe use your SBFix.exe + sockscaps connecting to localhost:8081?

Hdx · October 16, 2006, 02:40 PM

SBFix does require the bot to supprot socks4 proxies. BUT If you were to say... make something similar to SBFix that listened on port umm.. lets say 6112.... And didn't require a socks authentication.....
Go get it boy!
(This is how v1.0 of SBFix worked, but I got annoyed only being able to connect to 1 realm at a time, mutiple bots, but same realm [uswest])
~-~(HDX)~-~

thebigred · October 16, 2006, 02:48 PM

Just tried the sockscaps method and got this:
SBFix.exe:
Server Socket Listening:
Connection request: 504
2: Request: 63.241.83.112:6112
2: Server Connected
2: Product: W3XP OldVB: D NewVB: 14
2: Old MPQ: ver-IX86-3.mpq New MPQ: 3333333333.mpq
Connection request: 564
3: Request: 63.161.183.205:9367
3: Server Connected
3: Server Disconnected
2: Closed

Eternalchat:
[3:48:25 PM] Connecting to the Battle.net Chat Server, 63.241.83.112...
[3:49:26 PM] Failed BNLS authorization. Check for latest version of EternalChat at http://botdev.valhallalegends.com/eternalchat/.
[3:49:26 PM] Disconnected.

Hdx · October 16, 2006, 02:52 PM

Thats because SBFix only handles the BNCS end of things....
Also teh fact that EC dosn't like connecting to any alternate BNLS server then the hardcoded one (in this case its connecting locally )
Put up some packet logs so we can see whats going on.
And try to make it so that the BNLS socket goes directly to the BNLS server.

Actually, Go with that, but let me modify SBFix to ignore non BNCS protocl requests (Ignore parsing the packets)

http://jbls.org/SBFix.exe
Test that one out, it should now be a transparent proxy for all BNLS connections.
~-~(HDX)~-~

thebigred · October 16, 2006, 02:57 PM

Quote from: Hdx on October 16, 2006, 02:52 PM
And try to make it so that the BNLS socket goes directly to the BNLS server.
~-~(HDX)~-~

I'm not sure how to do this

For packet logs, should I just get a packet sniffer (Ethereal?) and send you what I get?