Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change? [Yes]

[Diamondo25]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

You are not the only who's realized that. I've been here since 08 despite the account creation date. Extalia's got the v118 encryption.

Or they just rewrite it runtime to use their own, as a leech protection.

 

[alonevampire]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Or they just rewrite it runtime to use their own, as a leech protection.

Since you haven't said anything about it lately, is the encryption harder to crack than you expected?

 

[sunnyboy]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Since you haven't said anything about it lately, is the encryption harder to crack than you expected?

I can't speak for him, but if he hasn't talked about it, don't you think so?

 

[alonevampire]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

I can't speak for him, but if he hasn't talked about it, don't you think so?

Yeah, I just wanted a confirmation.

 

[Five]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

This encryption isn't hard to crack... even if its protected, there are methods to decrypt, and there are other ways of getting the encryption.

 

[LegitLisa]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Or they just rewrite it runtime to use their own, as a leech protection.

They could have done but they didn't as far as I can tell. They left Nexon's changes untouched.

 

[SuperLol]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

well Nexon took this long to do?? nuts

it seems that no one here remember who you are the same guy who coded Guilds for odin back development in the days remember you thought like the other developers you left for good..

Guilds were mostly done by an odinms developer (started with an L.. Lurk or something) back in the day...

 

[wnsgurdlfkrh]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Client and source during what the problem is?

 

[Diamondo25]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Client and source during what the problem is?

Do not I get it, not can help problem.

 

[wnsgurdlfkrh]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

Do not I get it, not can help problem.

How to work v118?

 

[CantareSource]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

I has confirmed.

gms v118 wz encryption option type is not GMS (56 +)

It BMS (55-).

So I've tried v55 Pack of Encryption Key, was the same.

 

[sunnyboy]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

I has confirmed.

gms v118 wz encryption option type is not GMS (56 +)

It BMS (55-).

So I've tried v55 Pack of Encryption Key, was the same.

Yeah.. we all know the GMS wz encryption changed few versions ago and it will work with BMS one. Their issue is AES Keys and IV not wz encryption

 

[Five]

Re: Did the GMS Packet Encryption Change?

I has confirmed.

gms v118 wz encryption option type is not GMS (56 +)

It BMS (55-).

So I've tried v55 Pack of Encryption Key, was the same.

Good job sherlock. Did you not notice they took out List.wz? That right there is the hint the encryption is GMS old keys for wz. This topic isn't even about WZ.

 

[NocturnalGS]

Does anyone have an UNPACKED and UNVIRTUALIZED client? I have already located the change but the kiddies at nexon decided to virtualize the entire section so I cannot see what the function does. The function's very strange as it takes 0 parameters, does not modify the packet buffer and returns nothing. However, if you nop the function (as ExtaliaMS has done in order to bypass this problem), the encryption reverts to the old one. Also just to clarify, I looked at ExtaliaMS, they did not "get" the new encryption, they simply reverted the encryption to the older version. Anyways, if ANYONE has this client for v118, please pm me and I'll share my findings.

 

[Five]

You don't even need to go through the client to find the new encryption. It's unprotected, unvirtualized, unpacked, plain sitting there waiting to be looked at.

 

[Solstice!]

You don't even need to go through the client to find the new encryption. It's unprotected, unvirtualized, unpacked, plain sitting there waiting to be looked at.

wait what..., still in the client though right? O,o

 

[Diamondo25]

You don't even need to go through the client to find the new encryption. It's unprotected, unvirtualized, unpacked, plain sitting there waiting to be looked at.

That depends what you do when you get the 'unpacked' client.

 

[NocturnalGS]

You don't even need to go through the client to find the new encryption. It's unprotected, unvirtualized, unpacked, plain sitting there waiting to be looked at.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

That depends what you do when you get the 'unpacked' client.

Just being unpacked isn't enough. I downloaded Extalia's Client and it's unpacked for sure but they simply noped the new newer encryption function. Examining the function they noped reveals that it's still virtualized...

 

[kevintjuh93]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.



Just being unpacked isn't enough. I downloaded Extalia's Client and it's unpacked for sure but they simply noped the new newer encryption function. Examining the function they noped reveals that it's still virtualized...

That's true. Being able to run an unpacked client is enough though.

That vmp'd method changes the AES key, that's why nopping it will make you have the old encryption.

 

[souravipc53]

That's true. Being able to run an unpacked client is enough though.

That vmp'd method changes the AES key, that's why nopping it will make you have the old encryption.

havent checked the client yet since i have lost interest in maple. anyway i think they are just making the client worse and worse by adding functions to an existing function to further deteriorate the efficiency. i dont know why but they have been virtualizing some common functioned which gets executed in every clock cycle.
if they had real will to stop packet sniffing and pservers they should have re-created the whole function instead of just adding another one to make it "harder". i am pretty sure in coming patches they will probably replace the whole function though(since they have found they have failed to stop pservers from actually recovering it)