BNLS

[Sixen]

The whole thing is what does hacking have to do with logging in.

Most hacks used to have to be run before the game was executed and Warden checks your memory on login as far as I know. Of course, I don't hack, so I don't really know how they are used now-a-days.

[UserLoser]

The whole thing is what does hacking have to do with logging in.

Most hacks used to have to be run before the game was executed and Warden checks your memory on login as far as I know. Of course, I don't hack, so I don't really know how they are used now-a-days.

Warden is always checking memory.  Lockdown is mostly an anti-hack thing I would say (others would agree too) due to the checksum is calculated.  Lockdown stops simple things from no-CD hacks to pplug114.bwl (IIRC it's called that)

[Barabajagal]

a well written no-cd that edits the memory directly can get around lockdown easily. I'll be releasing a new series (D1, SC, W2) of no-cds shortly that edit the memory and then put it back to normal.

[Don Cullen]

PowerISO. 

[Hdx]

Meh, Thats what most people do if indeed they have the CD to get the ISO off of.
But for example, I have Diablo 1 on my Jump drive, and I use Andy's No-cd for it, so I can play it at school.
I also have SC on my JD, with Andy's no-cd for it as well (Old ver, 1.12 IIRC)
Its just personal preferance and usage.
As for lockdown, I aint touching the 'Why was it made?' question with a 100 foot pole
~Hdx

[Ante]

Here's an even better way to take stress off the bnls server: Release the checkrevision code, so formulating the checksum can be done locally.

then hacks can know  how to get past too, and theyd change it again...

[l2k-Shadow]

Here's an even better way to take stress off the bnls server: Release the checkrevision code, so formulating the checksum can be done locally.

then hacks can know  how to get past too, and theyd change it again...

or just load the hack after logging in?

[Ante]

Here's an even better way to take stress off the bnls server: Release the checkrevision code, so formulating the checksum can be done locally.

then hacks can know  how to get past too, and theyd change it again...

or just load the hack after logging in?

that breaks the point of the current CREv system, but either way, once its released, itll be changed.

However, if it isn't released, more and more bots have to rely on BNLS.

[brew]

It would indeed be a good idea to release the checkrevision. When Warcraft III was first released by Blizzard, Skywing solved the auth system for that, too. And he kept it a secret. It was just that other people solved it. To this day, skywing has NOT released his warcraft 3 functions. Yet the ability to logon warcraft 3 seems to be widely avalible without using bnls! Wait: So if Warcraft 3's logon system hasn't been changed, and it (along with diablo 2) are the only two clients with Warden client built in, then how come they haven't been switched to using lockdown, too!? Wait a minute! What's going on. Oh yeah, common sense. It says that releasing the checkrevision functions would do nothing but BENIFIT the battle.net community as a whole. And so what, if there's massloaders. They're not changing anything. Battle.net, up until the day of the new mpq names, have not done anything to the logon system! How come blizzard let them exist for so long? Might it be because they weren't worth it? Or perhaps because Blizzard's dev team was inexperienced, and wouldn't know where to start with making a lockdown system as sophisticated and complex as the current checkrevision until now? Hrmm.

[warz]

... or maybe they haven't made large scale changes to the core log on procedure because it works just fine as it is? it'd take a lot of time to switch things up completely every year, or so. i'm willing to bet that their intent from the beginning was to create a protocol that'd be easily extended for other games, but universal enough to work for all of them at the same time. when you're talking about being worried about checkrevision changing, it's not the same as being worried about the protocol itself changing. i highly doubt we'll see another change like we saw when battlenet switched over to the 'new log on system'.

just move to wow. it's much more fun.

[Ante]

i highly doubt we'll see another change like we saw when battlenet switched over to the 'new log on system'.

and that is why skywing should release his ways. now there are at least 3 supporters

[Barabajagal]

They've changed the DLLs easily before, they can do it again just as easily. What we need is not temporary fixes, but a reliable way to mimic the client, and update as it updates. I believe Blake and UL were discussing an idea I've also had, which is to make a memory save (store the memory values in some format or other) of the client for each new update, download and run the CheckRevision DLLs so that they perform the functions on the saved memory instead of real memory, and get the result that way. It's a bit complicated, but once you get a system done to save the memory well, and develop a DLL or something of the sort to run CheckRevision this way, we shouldn't have problems with future changes.

[warz]

They've changed the DLLs easily before, they can do it again just as easily. What we need is not temporary fixes, but a reliable way to mimic the client, and update as it updates. I believe Blake and UL were discussing an idea I've also had, which is to make a memory save (store the memory values in some format or other) of the client for each new update, download and run the CheckRevision DLLs so that they perform the functions on the saved memory instead of real memory, and get the result that way. It's a bit complicated, but once you get a system done to save the memory well, and develop a DLL or something of the sort to run CheckRevision this way, we shouldn't have problems with future changes.

This is what I was doing prior to converting it to C. This was necessary when I was calling their checkrevision straight out of their dll files.

and that is why skywing should release his ways. now there are at least 3 supporters

Don't take what I said the wrong way. I'm not on your side, and I don't think that Skywing should do anything. If he wants to release stuff, so be it. I was just stating my opinion regarding the protocol, itself.

[Ante]

I see.

[UserLoser]

It would indeed be a good idea to release the checkrevision. When Warcraft III was first released by Blizzard, Skywing solved the auth system for that, too. And he kept it a secret. It was just that other people solved it. To this day, skywing has NOT released his warcraft 3 functions. Yet the ability to logon warcraft 3 seems to be widely avalible without using bnls! Wait: So if Warcraft 3's logon system hasn't been changed, and it (along with diablo 2) are the only two clients with Warden client built in, then how come they haven't been switched to using lockdown, too!? Wait a minute! What's going on. Oh yeah, common sense. It says that releasing the checkrevision functions would do nothing but BENIFIT the battle.net community as a whole. And so what, if there's massloaders. They're not changing anything. Battle.net, up until the day of the new mpq names, have not done anything to the logon system! How come blizzard let them exist for so long? Might it be because they weren't worth it? Or perhaps because Blizzard's dev team was inexperienced, and wouldn't know where to start with making a lockdown system as sophisticated and complex as the current checkrevision until now? Hrmm.

Starcraft, as well as World of Warcraft have the Warden built in.  To my knowledge, the Starcraft one isn't active and anti-hack only is available through forced extra work libraries

They've changed the DLLs easily before, they can do it again just as easily. What we need is not temporary fixes, but a reliable way to mimic the client, and update as it updates. I believe Blake and UL were discussing an idea I've also had, which is to make a memory save (store the memory values in some format or other) of the client for each new update, download and run the CheckRevision DLLs so that they perform the functions on the saved memory instead of real memory, and get the result that way. It's a bit complicated, but once you get a system done to save the memory well, and develop a DLL or something of the sort to run CheckRevision this way, we shouldn't have problems with future changes.

? ? ? ?