BNLS needs a method to stop idiots..

[rabbit]

Don't advertise.

[replaced]

why not?

[Dale]

It's not the place to advertise.

Also, Who cares a bot, or a few bots don't run on BNLS? the fact is over 90% do...

Sure, they'll eventually move on, but why not cut them short, for a while?

Use your head.

[replaced]

There isn't even a chat bot out there that supports local hashing, while 2 spambots already support lockdown WITHOUT BNLS!
Here your all wanting to make bnls private in an attempt to stop loaders.

So just keep on having lockdown private so no chatbots will ever use local hashing


Who here remembers all the months of when war3 hashing was kept secret?  -- what the hell was the point in keeping it private?

[Hdx]

You do know that Those bots didnt reimplement Lockdown right.....
They use a table fo ~2000 values... (100 per lockdown)
I actually got the source to Ldocx and I'm converint its contents to a easier database to work with.

star.dat
(BYTE) Mpq
(String) Value String
(DWORD) Checksum
(String) Exe Info String
~-~(HDX)~-~

[replaced]

with only a 0.2% chance of failure ( 1 in 500 chance of failing), I think that did a good enough job to get passed lockdown.

care to explain why war3 hashing was kept secret for so long?

[UserLoser]

Why should someone share something they worked so hard on to people who want everything for nothing?  Sharing the War3 hashing stuff would lead to War3 bots which in the end could ruin War3 channels on Battle.net, kind of like bots in the recent years of Battle.net.  Why do you think nobody has every publically released any Starcraft in-game stuff?  So it's not abused.  Look at what happened to Sc/Bw ladders, they took them away.  Happens when people share how to make a winbot.

[Hdx]

with only a 0.2% chance of failure ( 1 in 500 chance of failing), I think that did a good enough job to get passed lockdown.

Where did you get that statistic?
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Ringo]

You do know that Those bots didnt reimplement Lockdown right.....
They use a table fo ~2000 values... (100 per lockdown)
I actually got the source to Ldocx and I'm converint its contents to a easier database to work with.

Iv been working on a little CRDB class over the last few days, and what you just said sound alot like what iv been seeing.
I was going to post the class publicly somtime today, so BNLS doesnt get such a hammering, but it seems somone has beaten me to it
I think i already have around 500 results reported -- there is only 2000 over all?
I guess i will post anyway

[Newby]

Battle.net kiddies can't solve it, so they bruteforce it.

Ahh, pathetic.

[Hdx]

Iv been working on a little CRDB class over the last few days, and what you just said sound alot like what iv been seeing.
I was going to post the class publicly somtime today, so BNLS doesnt get such a hammering, but it seems somone has beaten me to it
I think i already have around 500 results reported -- there is only 2000 over all?
I guess i will post anyway

star.dat
(BYTE) Mpq
(String) Value String
(DWORD) Checksum
(String) Exe Info String

I've actually been thihnking of Making a cache for all versions of checkrevision, I have a extreamly large HDD, and quite a bit of ram on the server I run JBLS on. I was gona test it out with ~5,000,000 Crev messages to see if it would be worth it performance wise to save ALL  the used values.
Currently people are hitting the cache ~70% of the time on my server... (Which makes there result < 0.1ms whereis actualy calculating takes atleast 300ms)
I was curious if I could get that % up it I kept the cached results accross the instances of JBLS (Save to file at shutdown, reload at startup)
Meh just a thought. I don't know if its pratical due to the known ammount of combanations in the old method.
I don't know why they only use 100 combanations per mpq...

@Newby, I take what I can get :*( I've been trying to reverse lockdown, but I suck, and thats all there is to it.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Warrior]

Why should someone share something they worked so hard on to people who want everything for nothing?

So your saying their hard work when given out turns to nothing?  That makes no logical sense!

If someone else given out the lockdown solution, you wouldn't have hard work to begin with!

That doesn't make sense. You're contradicting yourself. You're saying if you give it out the hard work is still there, yet you then say if it's out the hard work wouldn't exist?

Reversing the lockdown was apparently not such a trivial task and who are you to request them to release it? BNLS was fixed that is the most they should have to do. Anything else is just your inability to take the initiative to maintain your own project.

[rabbit]

What they should do is shutdown BNLS and say "fuck you, losers".

[Mystical]

What they should do is shutdown BNLS and say "fuck you, losers".

all battle.net bots would be screwed, also those socalled massers and loaders don't run local hashing they all use bnls from what i was told.

sad thing is, battle.net put a big dent out in the battle.net bot community, but the battle.net hacks got far worse.

[vuther.de]

What they should do is shutdown BNLS and say "fuck you, losers".

also those socalled massers and loaders don't run local hashing they all use bnls from what i was told.

Easy way to find out, packetlog them.