lockdown-IX86-XX.mpq update?

[Ersan]

Savior was on a pvpgn server, this is obvious.

Has anyone started reversing the new checkrevision or are we pretending using mac is a valid solution?

[BaDaSs]

I don't see how it wouldn't be considered as a valid solution, at least temporarily. But, Savior was not on a PVPgn server. I can promise you his account was banned, and it was on USEast in the channel Op Legacy. Why do you have to be so stubborn?

[l2k-Shadow]

PMAC hashes for SC: (exe.hfd = starcraft.exe, dll1.hfd = storm.dll, dll2.hfd = battle.snp)
www.energydl.com/shadow/hfdler/STAR/
PMAC hashes for W2: (exe.hfd = Warcraft II BNE.exe, dll1.hfd = storm.dll, dll2.hfd = battle.snp)
www.energydl.com/shadow/hfdler/W2BN/

(I extracted these from the .sit files on blizzard's pub ftp)

As was said before, it is not likely that blizzard will patch the mac version, due to the fact that technically no public mac hacks are really out there, and this was an anti-hack move not an anti-bot move. So I guess it is a valid solution until blizzard gets humongous amount of sand in their vagina.

EDIT: I will also be attempting to get the hashes for the other affected clients as well.

Why PMAC, not XMAC? As Ersan said, it will be easier to patch XMAC, and also more users are on XMAC nowadays. So if Blizzard is concerned with patching the mac checkrevision, they will most likely do XMAC first. Also, i don't think w2/d1 clients have version for XMAC...?

[BaDaSs]

EXEInfo

Code Select Expand

W2BN:
    EXEInfo = "Warcraft II BNE 05/17/106 15:00:00 931587"
    EXEVersion = 825372722
STAR:
    EXEInfo = "Starcraft 05/17/106 15:00:00 1597754"
    EXEVersion = 1229482313

[l)ragon]

PMAC hashes for SC: (exe.hfd = starcraft.exe, dll1.hfd = storm.dll, dll2.hfd = battle.snp)
www.energydl.com/shadow/hfdler/STAR/
PMAC hashes for W2: (exe.hfd = Warcraft II BNE.exe, dll1.hfd = storm.dll, dll2.hfd = battle.snp)
www.energydl.com/shadow/hfdler/W2BN/

(I extracted these from the .sit files on blizzard's pub ftp)

As was said before, it is not likely that blizzard will patch the mac version, due to the fact that technically no public mac hacks are really out there, and this was an anti-hack move not an anti-bot move. So I guess it is a valid solution until blizzard gets humongous amount of sand in their vagina.

EDIT: I will also be attempting to get the hashes for the other affected clients as well.

Why PMAC, not XMAC? As Ersan said, it will be easier to patch XMAC, and also more users are on XMAC nowadays. So if Blizzard is concerned with patching the mac checkrevision, they will most likely do XMAC first. Also, i don't think w2/d1 clients have version for XMAC...?

Dosen't PMAC still use the old checkrevision.

[l2k-Shadow]

yes.. that's the whole point.

[l)ragon]

yes.. that's the whole point.

By old I mean yobguls old.

[topaz]

shadow, i hope you know both XMAC and PMAC use the same checkrevision
the whole reason of him posting was to point out that XMAC is more likely to get patched because of it's ablility to read memory (unlike PMAC)

you're repeating after people, again.

[l2k-Shadow]

shadow, i hope you know both XMAC and PMAC use the same checkrevision

no shit? -- it's different files but they do the same thing.

the whole reason of him posting was to point out that XMAC is more likely to get patched because of it's ablility to read memory (unlike PMAC)

i'm sure it can read memory, ersan said he thinks it is easier to port the IX86 to XMAC because they read the memory in the same fashion.

you need to learn how to process given information.

[Mystical]

 well im sure if anything if they do check webpages it would be from the people that whine about it on the blizzard forums.

  Even if so, I think www.bwhacks.com is one of the most popular battle.net hack websites around full of all sorts of forums about programming, reverse engineering battle.net ect.. let alone full public hack releases. =\
people even whine about that site on the battle.net forums and there still up. so i really don't see why they would even look these forums if they havent even took that one down. ;\

  But still in my opinion (wether right or wrong) I don't see any reason why a rep would even care to see what other people are talking about, its not like its there JOB to search websites, or like anyone would actually wanna do some extra work for there company and be like "THESE KIDS ON THIS FORUM ARE MAKIN BOTS, LETS BAN THEM!" lol.

  i dunno anymore... im sorta out of it at the moment... don't mind me.

[l)ragon]

EXEInfo

Code Select Expand

W2BN:
    EXEInfo = "Warcraft II BNE 05/17/106 15:00:00 931587"
    EXEVersion = 825372722
STAR:
    EXEInfo = "Starcraft 05/17/106 15:00:00 1597754"
    EXEVersion = 1229482313

Exicutable version of War2 bne can be figured out better than that.
eg.
Last 4 bytes of war2's pmac exe
0x01020002
can be easly turned into
0x31323032
which = 825372722 in dec

[vuther.de]

Does anyone have the ver-PMAC-?.mpq files? I'd like them please.

[UserLoser]

Does anyone have the ver-PMAC-?.mpq files? I'd like them please.

Battle.net has them, download them.

[l)ragon]

Side note ->>
    EXEVersion = 1229482313

Are these values right?
If they are do any of you see an obvious way to calculate sc's version value?
Assumeing it also use's the last 4 bytes
SC:
0x00001401

[topaz]

Does anyone have the ver-PMAC-?.mpq files? I'd like them please.

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-PMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-XMAC-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/ver-IX86-n.zip
http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n.zip

http://advancedcontent.net/topaz/etc/lockdown-IX86-n-d.zip

Edit: Included lockdown-IX86-n.zip and its dlls.