Load

[Mystical]

  Soo yea im sure i posted this in the wrong area but anyways since the mpq line was locked, I thought people are having problems with by passing the cr and loging in normal clients, besides using BNLS or what other crappy way other people suggested such as hookin memory, anyways i'm sorta wondering, why there are still loads going on then.

this was just taking a few minutes ago.


unless maybe there was a fix that maybe i missed out on?

sorry for stupid post.. but im just curious.

[Hero]

probably using bnls?

[Mystical]

probably using bnls?

  I suppose if someone wanted to use BNLS for cr i guess that could work.

Uhg, i guess if these loads continue though, battle.nets going to come out with a worse patch then this, maybe BNLS should be limited for the time being to see if loads stop JK! we need it!

[Hdx]

I suppose if someone wanted to use BNLS for cr i guess that could work.

OMG THAT WORKS!?!!? I NEVER THOUGHT OF USING IT FOR THAT B4!
..... Thats the main reason for BNLS. (Asides form NLS)
There will always be loads on bnet. Hell, I was bored and created a mass by actually loading 200 instances of D1...(Through transparent proxies I wrote) It was a pain in the rear to control, but it worked!
Honestly I don't think anyone cares if your channel gets loaded, so does everyones'
I'm actually still working on lockdown, failing miserably! But trying!
Also, probably over 90% of flood/mass bots use BNLS, with no option to use anything else, so its jsut basics that when BNLS is updated so are all massers.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Mystical]

I suppose if someone wanted to use BNLS for cr i guess that could work.

OMG THAT WORKS!?!!? I NEVER THOUGHT OF USING IT FOR THAT B4!
..... Thats the main reason for BNLS. (Asides form NLS)
There will always be loads on bnet. Hell, I was bored and created a mass by actually loading 200 instances of D1...(Through transparent proxies I wrote) It was a pain in the rear to control, but it worked!
Honestly I don't think anyone cares if your channel gets loaded, so does everyones'
I'm actually still working on lockdown, failing miserably! But trying!
Also, probably over 90% of flood/mass bots use BNLS, with no option to use anything else, so its jsut basics that when BNLS is updated so are all massers.
~-~(HDX)~-~

oh well thats not my channel but i was just hopping threw some channels saw a starcraft load and was thinkin that cr was kinda fucked at the moment and maybe wondering if there was somthing i missed and how people are mass loading on sc..

newbish post my bad, i was just curious.

If i had that much asm knowledge to be doing some reversing i'd be on it along with everyone else.

[Michael]

Why do people always have to abuse and mess things up for everyone else.

[warz]

Nothing has been messed up, yet. If Skywing decides to change BNLS, then so be it. Want to know how I see it? I think more people should be working on checkrevision than the current nobody working on it. I'd like to see a public project going on here. Not that BNLS is bad, because it's not; BNLS is maintained by one of the top 3 best reverse engineerers on this forum. There's only two others on here I would give thanks to for help on here, and I guarantee both agree with me on this. The fact of the matter is that the moderators of BNLS know of these abuse issues before anyone else does, and if measures are to be taken, then they will be.

[Skywing]

To this end, there are various anti-abuse provisions baked into the next version of BNLS.  When it will be released is still up in the air, however.

[Hdx]

To this end, there are various anti-abuse provisions baked into the next version of BNLS.  When it will be released is still up in the air, however.

Would you mind elaborating? I have many projects that rapidly use BNLS to obtain data. (Mainly verbytes but thats not the point)
I would like to know if I have to modify them. (Most of them are a single connection to BNLS which handles all of the messages via a queue system and a cookie system.)
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Warrior]

If he told you then it wouldn't be a surprise now would it?

[topaz]

You can run Starcraft (like Ringo did, along with some of the fixes) and still connect bots...

[Skywing]

Would you mind elaborating? I have many projects that rapidly use BNLS to obtain data. (Mainly verbytes but thats not the point)
I would like to know if I have to modify them. (Most of them are a single connection to BNLS which handles all of the messages via a queue system and a cookie system.)
~-~(HDX)~-~

Using a single BNLS connection per client will be the preferred mechanism (I am planning on releasing expanded support for concurrent execution of messages that do not currently support multiple concurrent requests, such as "NLS" related functions).  There will not be an advantage to using multiple sessions to BNLS simultaneously as far as client capabilities will go, as far as the protection mechanisms are concerned.  I would expect that this will continue to allow the reasonable operation of a limited number of clients behind NAT devices, especially given the ephemeral nature of idle BNLS sessions.

I would expect that the vast majority of legitimate usage cases for BNLS will be either not impacted at all or only minorly impacted by the protection mechanisms.

As far as repeatedly requesting version codes go, this should not be necessary if you implement a reasonable caching scheme client-side for version codes (or if you were to use BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX/BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2).  Version code data is very infrequently updated, to the point where you should not be needing to frequently re-query BNLS for this information.

[Hdx]

As far as repeatedly requesting version codes go, this should not be necessary if you implement a reasonable caching scheme client-side for version codes (or if you were to use BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX/BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2).  Version code data is very infrequently updated, to the point where you should not be needing to frequently re-query BNLS for this information.

Meh, I was to lazy to re-write a BNCS client in JBLS so I made a thread that connects to another BNLS/JBLS server and performs verbyte and checkrevision checks every 30~ mins. Doing 1 for each client. (Including legacy clients if not connected to BNLS) If it got new results it would send me a message.
I should really re-write it....
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Sorc.Polgara]

As far as repeatedly requesting version codes go, this should not be necessary if you implement a reasonable caching scheme client-side for version codes (or if you were to use BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX/BNLS_VERSIONCHECKEX2).  Version code data is very infrequently updated, to the point where you should not be needing to frequently re-query BNLS for this information.

Meh, I was to lazy to re-write a BNCS client in JBLS so I made a thread that connects to another BNLS/JBLS server and performs verbyte and checkrevision checks every 30~ mins. Doing 1 for each client. (Including legacy clients if not connected to BNLS) If it got new results it would send me a message.
I should really re-write it....
~-~(HDX)~-~

I'm a bit confused.  It is from my understanding that JBLS should not be able to do the new CR... because I thought JBLS was a just a Java implementation of BNLS made before lockdown even came into the picture.  Thus, in order for some other JBLS server to work with the new CR someone would have either had to reversed and implemented the new CR into their JBLS server to support it, or implemented one of the other work arounds into JBLS.

Are you saying that you use BNLS for the clients that require the new CR and another JBLS server for ones that don't?  Still that doesn't make sense to have your JBLS server use another JBLS server...

[topaz]

D2DV/D2XP, WAR3/W3XP