[Dev]Auto ban runnable.

I mean what runnable are you making the edits on for Christ's Sake...

Xiao's or runnables released by GUNZ2830.

Edit: Does it hurt to ask? I don't doubt your work I just want to know the base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Military

I mean what runnable are you making the edits on for Christ's Sake...

Xiao's or runnables released by GUNZ2830.

---

... Point posting the same post?

Internet Lag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Military

Internet Lag.

---

Hes trying to tell you it doesn't matter what runnable. >.<
Anyways, Good work. Your progress is very nice, It would help the section and many servers a lot if you released this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katsuro

Hes trying to tell you it doesn't matter what runnable. >.<
Anyways, Good work. Your progress is very nice, It would help the section and many servers a lot if you released this.

---

I was telling him why the post appeared twice *facepalm*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Your Master

Not at all. Veldi's way was to enter a game room and grab everyone's MUID and check how fast they are sending "Zpost" functions. If you have a constant check, over every single game room + every channel, well now that's just stupid.

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. And I've never looked at the Veldi source, I just know it checks at what rate packets are getting sent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewness12

I lol'd. there's an easier way for server-side, try and find it.
I already made the DLL call thing, but I did another check inside the ZPost functions.
And that "Net.Disconnect" thing, totally useless.

---

Net.Disconnect isn't useless at all. Rather than having a packet sent to the server (which can easily be detected by hooking Winsock), log the client off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nova

Mind sharing it ? Cause I don't think there is.

---

X-trap packets...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewness12

I think I know.
You meant, moving functions to new addresses, and on the old address, doing that whole ban thing.
So, when a DLL makes a call to the old address, it gets banned and disconnected.
So yeah, I already did that + another check for the ZPost functions. and all the other things.

See, the more security on the runnable, the better it is(methinks).

---

Moving the ZPost functions doesn't make sense, simply access an address from where the function is called and copy the address to a buffer. Then call that address, and you are good to go.

Also, what if I directly grab MatchServer and client sockets from the memory? (Wiztastic does that) :ott1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizkidje

Also, what if I directly grab MatchServer and client sockets from the memory? (Wiztastic does that) :ott1:

---

Take it this way..
No anti - hack is perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizkidje

Net.Disconnect isn't useless at all. Rather than having a packet sent to the server (which can easily be detected by hooking Winsock), log the client off.

---

Why spam the MatchServer with another packet...
When MatchServer bans the client, it could also disconnect it.
Time saving 4eva.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewness12

Take it this way..
No anti - hack is perfect.

---

Correct, but it should patch all current hacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewness12

Why spam the MatchServer with another packet...
When MatchServer bans the client, it could also disconnect it.
Time saving 4eva.

---

Sure, but sending out a ban packet is ambiguous. (Hence the fact I can easily catch the packet at Winsock level, check for the command id and then block that commandid from being send).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizkidje

Correct, but it should patch all current hacks.



Sure, but sending out a ban packet is ambiguous. (Hence the fact I can easily catch the packet at Winsock level, check for the command id and then block that commandid from being send).

---

Got an other way of communicating between MatchServer and the client?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jewness12

Got an other way of communicating between MatchServer and the client?

---

All network communication would require a socket. You could set some low-level traps in Winsock though.

shalom tipesh kmo naal does your admin cp have working GT commands ;_; I've got most of mine to work courtesy of CBWhiz and Sulfins codes I found on my old pc from like 5-6years ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevlarji

shalom tipesh kmo naal does your admin cp have working GT commands ;_; I've got most of mine to work courtesy of CBWhiz and Sulfins codes I found on my old pc from like 5-6years ago

---

Yes it does.. tipesh aba sha yomo
I use my own codes <_<

Good Luck With Your Runnable