SCGP Client (VB6 Open Source)

[Barabajagal]

Why?

[brew]

Because it opens macilous possibilities for potential users of your dll?

[Barabajagal]

Except for that whole lack of documentation, and since last time I gave full docs and they still couldn't figure it out, I don't think it's gonna be a problem. Beside that, it can't be made into an array. Is there any class module in vb6 that can prevent multiple instances of itself if each instance resides within individual object modules? How would you even execute that?

[MyndFyre]

Except for that whole lack of documentation, and since last time I gave full docs and they still couldn't figure it out, I don't think it's gonna be a problem. Beside that, it can't be made into an array. Is there any class module in vb6 that can prevent multiple instances of itself if each instance resides within individual object modules? How would you even execute that?

You could use a system-wide mutex to prevent an object from being instantiated more than once.

[Barabajagal]

Hm... As nifty an idea as this sounds, there are legitimate reasons for having multiple instances of the Warden module open in separate processes, or even in the same process of a tabbed interface bot.

Doing a bit of digging around, the CreateMutexA API doesn't look like it would allow for that. Similarly, a registry key that stores the count of running connections (if I were to set a limit at say, 8 instances) would lose reckoning should the process terminate without terminating the class. That method would probably be easily exploitable, anyway. (Perhaps a reset on system restart could be contrived somehow?)

On top of all that, I don't believe in locking down a piece of code like this. This type of 'security' just bugs the crap out of me. We've released libraries to handle almost every aspect of Battle.net connection, from BNCSutil to CleanSlateBot, and to guard Warden so vigorously while giving out Lockdown just seems... illogical. Things are going to change no matter what we do.

[MyndFyre]

Doing a bit of digging around, the CreateMutexA API doesn't look like it would allow for that. Similarly, a registry key that stores the count of running connections (if I were to set a limit at say, 8 instances) would lose reckoning should the process terminate without terminating the class. That method would probably be easily exploitable, anyway. (Perhaps a reset on system restart could be contrived somehow?)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682411(VS.85).aspx

If you are using a named mutex to limit your application to a single instance, a malicious user can create this mutex before you do and prevent your application from starting. To prevent this situation, create a randomly named mutex and store the name so that it can only be obtained by an authorized user. Alternatively, you can use a file for this purpose. To limit your application to one instance per user, create a locked file in the user's profile directory.

[PunK]

Looks like nes brought back warring to his bot with andy's DLL.

Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

[Barabajagal]

For serious? Already?

[Sixen]

Looks like nes brought back warring to his bot with andy's DLL.

Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

I don't honestly think Nes is that smart.

[brew]

YES!!!!!! THANK YOU ANDY!!!!!! I just needed to see nesucks run around battle.net spamming people nonstop....!

[PunK]

Apparently so. Unless his messages that say "Now warden supported" are just there to be deceiving :-P

[Ribose]

Genocide doesn't need Warden support for the flooding it does (it doesn't stay in the channel for longer than about 5 seconds, unless banned, then it's shorter). Why wouild he need it? Seems like something more to brag about like a retard. :/

[Barabajagal]

Well, I guess I might as well release full documentation now, right?

[Mystical]

Well, I guess I might as well release full documentation now, right?

how about no.

[Barabajagal]

It was a joke... I'm afraid I find this terribly funny.