lockdown-IX86-XX.mpq update?

[Newby]

I think that he's more concerned with the work ethic than the actual ability to produce.

I meant that, too, in a way; I guess I meant both. Everybody gave up once they found a kludge. I didn't expect anybody to actually know how to solve it.

They're content with a crappy solution, versus an elegant, efficient, "correct" (I suppose that's a good word) solution.

[l)ragon]

I think that he's more concerned with the work ethic than the actual ability to produce.

I meant that, too, in a way; I guess I meant both. Everybody gave up once they found a kludge. I didn't expect anybody to actually know how to solve it.

They're content with a crappy solution, versus an elegant, efficient, "correct" (I suppose that's a good word) solution.

Actually I believe a few people have allready figured it out, its just a matter of weather or not they deside to post it or keep it to themselves.

Edit:
Also, supporting other login types should not be considered incorrect.

[Newby]

Actually I believe a few people have allready figured it out, its just a matter of weather or not they deside to post it or keep it to themselves.

I meant "Everyone" as in everyone that is working to post a solution. I don't mean people like Skywing, UserLoser, etc., people who are smart enough to figure it out and won't post a solution. (Or in the case of Skywing, just updates BNLS.)

Edit:
Also, supporting other login types should not be considered incorrect.

I never said it was "incorrect," but you're not on a PMAC architecture, so you're reporting false information. A bot is supposed to emulate the client as closely as possible, correct?

[Hdx]

No, I have not givin up on reversing the new function.
I jsut don't have the skills or experiance to do it. (I've got a few things, nothing good)
So no, not EVERYONE has stoped working on it.
As for reporting diffrent architectures..... This goes into the whole "How much do you wana do correctly" debate.
Theres people out there that JUST  want to get it working, no matter how far away from the client it is.
Then theres people like me who emulate the client almost exactly, I acutally do everything EXACTLY like D1 does it for my D1 connection. (That includes reporting things that are no longer used on bnet, downloaidng, extracting, and useing the dll, etc..) Now it no longer works.

It all depends on how much you want to do.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Ersan]

Skywang you gonna enable that anytime soon?

[Newby]

Theres people out there that JUST  want to get it working, no matter how far away from the client it is.

That would include 90% of the Battle.net bot developers here.

[Skywing]

Support for the new-style lockdown version check mechanism is in the process of being deployed to BNLS.  Functionality for Starcraft/Brood War is currently enabled, and War2 is to come as I get access to a working installation.

Although you can continue to access the version check feature for these products using the old-style version check messages (BNLS_VERSIONCHECK, BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX), it is highly recommended that you upgrade to BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 as quickly as possible.  BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2 allows BNLS to decide which version check mechanism to use, instead of guessing that it is always enabled for Starcraft / Brood War.  This allows maximum future compatibility with any later changes to the version check system.

[Ersan]

I'm gonna pretend replaced didn't say all that...

@Skywing:
Hey whaddya know it works.

What do you need from the war2 installation?

[Skywing]

can we get a non-bnls solution here?
I don't want the days when you HAD to load stealthbot to load a damn war3 bot up since bnls wants control.

Now who here has the power mac sc hash files? 

If i don't see this posted on here soon, i'll run a damn emulator just to get these hash files!  Or buy a powermac on ebay.

Now, do the 0-7 pmac files give out different solutions than the ix86 counterparts?

You are welcome to reverse engineer a complete implementation of the new vercheck mechanism, or a way to call the Blizzard code, if you so desire.

If you do not want to do that, then BNLS is an option that is available to you.

Given that the system appears to be designed to stop certain types of game hacks, I do not feel that it would be in the general public interest to release details as to how the new system works.  As a result, I would like to retain the ability to block access to things like game hacks that might try to use BNLS to avoid detection.

[Ersan]

But BNLS doesn't require an account to use now, so how would you go about blocking an application that uses BNLS?

[vuther.de]

But BNLS doesn't require an account to use now, so how would you go about blocking an application that uses BNLS?

IPBan, most likely.

[Skywing]

But BNLS doesn't require an account to use now, so how would you go about blocking an application that uses BNLS?

In the event that there became a major publicly distributed hack utilizing BNLS, it would not be too terribly difficult to reenable account-based access checks, or simply disallow the account/password combination that such a hack might use.

[Kp]

Keep in mind that Skywing is under no obligation to keep BNLS accessible at all, or under the terms you're used to.  He could switch it back to requiring accounts, ban accounts which have been compromised, make BNLS a private venture (i.e. accounts required + accounts issued only to close friends), or shut it down entirely.  None of those options would be particularly effective if he just released a working implementation which can pass a lockdown check.

[Joe[x86]]

I just thought of something: Have we reversed the algorithm, yet, or is that the problem? If I'm correct in thinking that the problem is not being able to associate the MPQ name with a seed, we could download and extract the DLL, and assuming the memory pointer is always in the same place in the DLL, we could just read that out of the DLL (much like a keysniffer read the game data MPQ's) and then have the algorithm implemented in our program, or in a library like bncsutil.

[Skywing]

Support for Warcraft II BNE is live as well.  JSTR should be operable as well.