clsCRDB class for SC/BW lockdown

[Warrior]

Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows.

Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.

[topaz]

Hmm, iv got around 70% of PXES checkrevisions in CRDB.bin, most of which were checked off by the client. If RATS results are the same (they should be(?)), It leaves 10k + to go still ;p
All they did is update the list and make it 40 (or 50) times bigger 
the CRDB file is now 800kb, and its speed is that of compareing around 1800+ strings to find or fail a match. So the CRDB class will still work, just 40 times slower
If blizzard change the strings again, I wont be searching for and posting them again

Even then, it shouldn't take more than a few milliseconds if you have a decent hashtable

[l2k-Shadow]

Hmm, iv got around 70% of PXES checkrevisions in CRDB.bin, most of which were checked off by the client. If RATS results are the same (they should be(?)), It leaves 10k + to go still ;p
All they did is update the list and make it 40 (or 50) times bigger 
the CRDB file is now 800kb, and its speed is that of compareing around 1800+ strings to find or fail a match. So the CRDB class will still work, just 40 times slower
If blizzard change the strings again, I wont be searching for and posting them again

Even then, it shouldn't take more than a few milliseconds if you have a decent hashtable

remember it's VB

[Mystical]

Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows.

Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.

Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.

[Newby]

Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.

LOL?

[Warrior]

Good legitimate reasoning. Go ahead and use Linux. The rest of the world will still use Windows.

Microsoft does a lot of things just because.  They decided to label IE7 as a Critical Update.  Why?  Because.  They decided to install WGA without permission and without a method of uninstallation.  Why?  Because.  Etc...

If you don't think IE6 -> IE7 is a critical update then you're beyond help.

Dunno if its just me but i think IE7 is personally crap, the tabs are great but i'd rather use IE6 atleast it didn't have leaks.

Can someone split this to somewhere more appropriate, I'd like to continue this.

Internet Explorer 7 is slow because of it's Anti Phishing options, you can turn them off or optionally make them so you have to explicitly order it to check a site you think is dangerous.
IE6 is littered with rendering bugs, exploits, and is way less secure than IE7.

This is evident from exploits affecting IE6 and not IE7 and from the fact that almost three months after it's release no exploit has been posted that directly affects IE7. The closest one was one which used IE7 as an attack vector to exploit a flaw in Outlook Express.

It's impossible to know if IE7 leaks memory because some of it's components are separated and used by other key parts of the OS (Windows Help in Vista, Rendering in some programs, Explorer rendering, etc..) so really you'd need to factor in a multitude of other things.

Hope this clears up some things.

[Mystical]

does it clear up when i have over 99k mem usage and over 1,200 GDI objects just for IE7 alone. =(

[Warrior]

does it clear up when i have over 99k mem usage and over 1,200 GDI objects just for IE7 alone. =(

For complex pages it's undeniable that you will have bunches of GDI objects, this is true for anything. Internet Explorer never rises above 22k memory usage for me, as where I've seen Firefox go up to 100k memory usage on the same page.

Browsers are complex projects, the rendering engine isn't the last of it's worries. It has to manage a plethora of other things.

Bottom line is: Suggesting IE6 over IE7 is foolish. Extremely foolish. IE7 includes monumental security enhancements and rendering optimizations.

[Mystical]

well, maybe theres just somthing wrong with mine, i've never liked firefox, but IE7 does of course have great security features, and more better features, it should release some memory atleast when i close the some tabs, or somthing! not just keep going higher.

[Warrior]

well, maybe theres just somthing wrong with mine, i've never liked firefox, but IE7 does of course have great security features, and more better features, it should release some memory atleast when i close the some tabs, or somthing! not just keep going higher.

How do you know it doesn't, do you have the code? You're making assumptions about something you know nothing about.

[warz]

How do you know it doesn't, do you have the code? You're making assumptions about something you know nothing about.

i gots da code for i am da coder ^^

[UserLoser]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work 100% of the time? You're out of your mind.

People do buy American made automobiles for prices more than 100x of what I am selling it for, so why wouldn't anyone want to buy my code?

[Newby]

You expect people to pay for something that doesn't work 100% of the time? You're out of your mind.

People do buy American made automobiles for prices more than 100x of what I am selling it for, so why wouldn't anyone want to buy my code?

The $300 could be spent on gas for their car. Cars have a lot more practical uses than your code most likely..

[Hdx]

Haha time to kill UL's program

Code Select Expand


[16:37:20] Hdx: new WC3 patch WAR3_IX86_120E_121A_enUS.mpq
[16:56:47] UserLoser: what is verbyte
[16:56:56] Hdx: 0x15
[16:57:05] Hdx: i posted all the info in bot dev
[16:57:27] UserLoser: updating bnls
[16:58:22] Hdx: kk
[16:58:28] UserLoser: yikes
[16:58:30] UserLoser: bnls crashed
[16:58:38] Hdx: hahahaha <3
[16:58:59] UserLoser: uh oh
[16:59:00] UserLoser: ..
[16:59:09] HdxEvilBlake: call sky
[16:59:10] UserLoser: *whistles and walks away*



[16:59:54] UserLoser: sphtbotv3 crashed too
[16:59:55] UserLoser: wtf
[16:59:59] Hdx: 0.o
[16:59:59] UserLoser: this patch is the devil :p
[17:02:54] UserLoser: *sees if my program can run patch*
[17:03:23] Hdx: :P
[17:03:27] Hdx: i wnt your program
[17:03:43] UserLoser: do you know the update from any patch filename?
[17:03:45] Hdx: btw, [url=http://jbls.org/]CLICK MY ADS![/url]
[17:03:52] UserLoser: nevermind
[17:03:58] UserLoser: WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq
[17:03:59] Hdx: umm, wouldnt it be 1xx?
[17:04:34] UserLoser: yes but sometimes the A or w/e isn't there :p
[17:04:37] UserLoser: and is pain in ass to figure otu :p
[17:04:57] Hdx: I hate bots that dont give debug info
[17:05:07] Hdx: (patch files, result codes, etc....)
[17:06:26] UserLoser:
static const char *WAR3Files[] = { "Game.dll", "War3.exe", "Storm.dll" };
 

Patcher->ProcessPatch("WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq", WAR3Files, "Warcraft III\\", "Warcraft III\\Revert\\");
[17:06:43] Hdx: work?
[17:06:46] UserLoser: whoa wtf
[17:07:03] UserLoser: mine didn't crash but failed at a certain fxn that never fails
[17:07:42] Hdx: 0.o
[17:08:08] UserLoser:
  Processing patch file WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq...
  Extracted patch file Patch_War3.mpq...
  This patch upgrades Warcraft III Reign of Chaos from the previous version.
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch Game.dll!
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch War3.exe!
  Processing new-style patch (type 4)
  ExecuteBSDIFF40 failed
          Failed to patch Storm.dll!
  Patch from WAR3_IX86_1xx_121A_enUS.mpq failed!
[17:10:11] UserLoser: hmm gonna make dummy dumpfile to see what this patch looks like
[17:10:52] Hdx: 0.o
[17:10:53] Hdx: fun
[17:11:59] Hdx: oh btw, there is a new bnupdate
[17:12:11] Hdx: it has teh same icon as the wow one, so it might be simmilar 0.o
~-~(HDX)~-~

[UserLoser]

hmm my program didn't die.  It failed on a patching function that returned failure due to unknown format.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--Blizzard reads these forums.  Remember me mentioning that the patching code has not changed?  Well it seems that the War3 now uses same patch type (4) but doesn't utilize the same patching algorithm.  There's also a new bnupdate.exe.