[Packets] Updating JLMS to v77.2 EMS

[yoni2]

Lately I've been looking into the c# server JLMS, trying to actually update the loginserver to work with EMS 77.2.

Why EMS?, I don't like the new stuff, mostly because I am inexperienced with packet work.

So first of I tried to just update the opcode but I guess that alone won't do, according to wireshark and mapleshark the way the header of the packets is different, I guess this has something to do with the newer versions, 77.2 instead of just 77?

I think this is the header:

74 e5 0b 30 25 60 f4 ec  38 ca da c4 09 00 45 00

So my question is, where should I start with updating the source?

Also, mapleshark or snowsniffer?


-yoni

[MentaL]

[anoob123]

Why JLMS? ChroCore or Chronicle is more updated.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rice]

uhh... that packet you posted... what the fuck is it, definitely not a handshake packet lol...at least i wouldn't think

BTW you knwo that to decrypt maples packets you gotta have the initialization vector

ps: mapleshark dude.

[Spiderman]

This is funny, I was just thinking about doing this due to my lack of gMS accounts, lol.

[Vakarian]

I would strongly advise against using either JLMS or ChroCore. Chronicle's back-end is well done, so you should familiarize yourself with that instead.

It may be confusing at first, but it would be worth it in the long run.

[Spiderman]

I would strongly advise against using either JLMS or ChroCore. Chronicle's back-end is well done, so you should familiarize yourself with that instead.

It may be confusing at first, but it would be worth it in the long run.

What about Loki?

[Vakarian]

What about Loki?

GL finding it. Didn't Rob remove it?

[Spiderman]

GL finding it. Didn't Rob remove it?

That's beside the point.
What I was wondering is which one would be a better option, going with Loki, or Chronicle? Chronicle seems quite unfinished, but it might be more than Loki has.

[yoni2]

Thanks for the responses!

Alright I'll proceed with Chronicle, I sniffed with mapleshark before but just simply changing version and opcode didnt seem to fix the problem , I believe it has something to do with the way the headers are written, that's why I came up with the packet above, I thought that was the header, not really clever I guess.