lockdown-IX86-XX.mpq Update - argument component

[warz]

Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.

[topaz]

Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.

unfortunately for you, we must all be on the right track because he doesn't have a single original thought in his head, and if you reread the posts in this topic, merely reiterating what previous members have said.

[MyndFyre]

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.

...what the FUCK are you talking about???

There is NO CHANGE to starcraft.exe, so decompiling starcraft.exe is the wrong track IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Battle.net prompts the use of a particular version checking DLL which is in a particular MPQ - this is prompted by specifying the filename of the MPQ.  If the client doesn't have the MPQ, it is retrieved from Battle.net's FTP service.  Once downloaded (about 6-7kb), the DLL is extracted from the MPQ and loaded into the Starcraft address space.  The DLL exports one function called CheckRevision.  The method signature of CheckRevision hasn't changed, and therefore the protocol hasn't changed, and therefore the packet format hasn't changed.  What has changed is the manner in which CheckRevision does its work.

This is very well-documented, public knowledge.  We knew it immediately when this happened.  So thank you very much for an entirely useless contribution to this thread.

[warz]

I guess my point was missed, entirely. I mentioned that when he talks about debugging starcraft, he mean't "the game" in general. He didn't mean, "let us debug starcraft.exe," he meant "let us debug this game, and locate the problem, wherever it may be." He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream. He knows what needs to be done, in essence, but does not know how to go about doing it. I respect that. I respect that he continued to let everyone know that looking at checkrevision, and figuring out why storm.350 fails, and figure out where that computer specific address is derived from, that storm 350 returns. I don't know, maybe he's the smartest guy here. Maybe this brew character will release the first client that works with these lockdown libaries? Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know though, is that nobody in this original thread (i see it has been split, now), if they talked shit to anyone trying to learn or to try and help, doesnt deserve to know how any of this shit works.

[MyndFyre]

Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre.

Maybe, just maybe.  However, have you been in the decompilation of the new library?  What I described is simplified, but it's not inaccurate.

I've been working on a work project and haven't had the time to sit back and go through the code like I'd like to.  But from what I've seen already, my description of the process is correct.

[UserLoser]

I guess my point was missed, entirely. I mentioned that when he talks about debugging starcraft, he mean't "the game" in general. He didn't mean, "let us debug starcraft.exe," he meant "let us debug this game, and locate the problem, wherever it may be." He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream. He knows what needs to be done, in essence, but does not know how to go about doing it. I respect that. I respect that he continued to let everyone know that looking at checkrevision, and figuring out why storm.350 fails, and figure out where that computer specific address is derived from, that storm 350 returns. I don't know, maybe he's the smartest guy here. Maybe this brew character will release the first client that works with these lockdown libaries? Maybe, just maybe, brew laughed at your description of how the process works, MyndFyre. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know though, is that nobody in this original thread (i see it has been split, now), if they talked shit to anyone trying to learn or to try and help, doesnt deserve to know how any of this shit works.

Mmm...I know of two existing implementations done by two different people already--sorry

[Hero]

He's an idiot, but an idiot with a dream.

Amen to that brother!!

[Kp]

It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that.

Actually, the entire point of the thread in which you posted is to hold all the off-topic garbage that was polluting the main thread.  The only reason to come to this thread is for non-relevant material.  Everything important should be going in the original thread.  Not only was the original thread split, but I've been periodically rearranging posts to try to keep the good content in the original thread and the bad in this thread.

[MyndFyre]

It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that.

Actually, the entire point of the thread in which you posted is to hold all the off-topic garbage that was polluting the main thread.  The only reason to come to this thread is for non-relevant material.  Everything important should be going in the original thread.  Not only was the original thread split, but I've been periodically rearranging posts to try to keep the good content in the original thread and the bad in this thread.

Yeah, me too.  Moved about 2 pages' worth last night.

[topaz]

pls help me, I copied and pasted from another bnls supported bot last night and it STILL won't work!
the error msg is   
Run-time error '40020'  Invalid operation at current state   

I dunno wat it means, someone tell me whats ix86 and pmac? 

After working for a few hours on my great bot, it still won't work.
Can someone send me a working bot source (with bnls support) to my email?  Then help me copy and paste it to my bot?

[email protected]

i've got 2 yrs of vb6 experience so I know what i'm doing, its just that the source to the bot i have sucks.
No matter what I do, it just doesn't send a packet!  Some1 tell me how to get it to send packets.

LOL.

[Ringo]

Good job. All of you fuckers in this thread have convinced this guy that he's a dumbass. He's the only one actually debugging starcraft. He's the only one with the mindset that there was no physical patch to starcraft. He's the only one here trying to work this shit out in the correct manner. Everyone is hating on this fool for trying to reverse engineer starcraft! Well, after looking through this thread, I'm convinced he's one of the few people with the right idea about this. Everyone's crying about retarded macintosh stuff just so they can avoid any real, interesting work and research. Brew was one of the few people I was watching, waiting for him to get onto the right track. He just doesn't have the knowledge and experience yet. I can't even continue reading this thread. It has gone from constructive, to fucking idiotic, and I don't blame brew for that. He is mentioning decompiling starcraft, and people are shooting him down. Well shit, everyone knows hes new, and doesnt have experience, so why are you hating on him? You know by starcraft he means everything else that comes along with it. Honestly, I feel that nobody in this thread will even come close to contributing to the solution to this matter. I feel that brew was on the right track, but is now convinced he's dumb. That's a shame, because 100% of you guys were dumb. I even know the people that you look up to were dumb. I've seen it. You guys kill me. I hope brew figures it out, and I hope brew doesn't share it with anyone. Fuck the sub-community of idiots that troll these forums.

Okay: I'v quit decompiling starcraft.exe, because doesn't help whatsoever with anything, and just proves how much of an idiot I am. the patch is server side, or otherwise we would have to download a new patch (d'oh). HOWEVER this means the connection seqence of hasn't changed to that great of an extent of which would warrant a client side patch, and if starcraft.exe can do it without a patch, I'm sure we can too. If you think about it, decompiling starcraft may still help.

Smartest thing I have heard in this thread so far. But oh wait! hes the only one with the right mindset

brew must be an idiot...

WAIT, PSYCH...

hes the only one of the right fucking TRACK.

The guy is a poseing idiot, and probly didnt even know what a debugger was, untill this thread.
However, I have noticed that on these forums over the years, knowing (or in this case pretending to know) ASM, is a reall plus when it comes to being accepted by a few set members of the comunity.
Whats up with that?

Im not going to pretend to know ASM, or be debugging the checkrevision dll's, but that doesnt mean that many others are not doing this.
They are just not posting "LOOK AT ME, I CAN OPEN STARCRAFT.EXE IN A DECOMPILER" in every other reply

[MysT_DooM]

 

[Warrior]

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)~-~

Cool story.

[vuther.de]

Skywang you gonna enable that anytime soon?

Haha, I found that funny.

[Joe[x86]]

Good job to whoever gave Blizzard the idea of doing this! I remember someone posting in the last thread something along the lines of "What if Blizzard named their files something that we wouldn't be able to determine the seed values from?". I swear, we need a 1000+ post bot dev board or something so Blizzard can't read it.

Seeing as how there seems to be some controvercy over this, let me explain how BNCache works, to the best of my knowledge. When BNFTP delivers a file, it sends the FILETIME of that file along with the file itself, so that filetime is stored in BNCache. Next time you receive a packet prompting you to download a file, StarCraft will check BNCache to see if it has the file, and then check the FILETIME in that packet requesting the download against the FILETIME in BNCache. If they are not equal, it starts a (completely seperate from BNCS) BNFTP connection and downloads the file, storing it in BNCache along with it's filetime.

As far as the work ethic debate, I think that supporting PMAC is a good idea, but still a crutch. Find out how to use IX86. Dragon recommended loading StarCraft to the point at which it would be doing the version check and then dumping it into a file, and someone else (was it rob?) posted a open-source VB project where it would do the BNFTP download of the ver-IX86-XX.mpq file, extract it, and patch it so it could be run on the game files without SC open. It'd be a big chance, and your 'hash' file would be a lot bigger (I think SC runs at around 25MB or so.. but maybe that was because of the memory leak in the old DLL's) and you'd be downloading the CheckRevision DLL each time, but it'd work though.

Also, I just thought of this writing the last paragraph: Has anyone given any thought to the fact that them using a memory hash instead of a gamefile hash could be to fix their memory leak? Of course, they could have just fixed it properly, but it could have been a factor in their decision.