Infiltration source code

Well... hi guys,


those files are rotting on my hard-drive... so I can in fact just give them out to people who actually DO something with them. ^^


If you don't like the way sending packets to the client works, then just check out the OverlappesPlus structure of official FlyFF and utilize PostQueuedCompletionStatus inside of the hack.
When I was coding infiltration back then I din't know enough about overlapped IO to implement this.
It would solve the problem of waiting for server packets.


File-Upload.net - bla.zip

There is one thing i'd like to mention:
The packets sent are using 0xFF as headermark... the FlyFF files appearently don't care WHICH byte leads the packets. This was just an easy bypass for earlier customer versions of my antihack which got released.

Anyways, in packet.cpp you can easily find the line and edit it so the packets will be generated with the respective headermark the server is using.

Oh... and I guess the 0xFFFFFFFF part of client packets also might be different... shouldn't cause any problems AT ALL though.
(You can still change it back in packetFactory.cpp)



Even though the code is WAAAAAAAY better than my antihack you can probably still find a considerable amount of things you don't like.
I warned you. ;)



Have fun with it, whatever you are going to do.


-Tom


PS:
You will have to embed the DIRECT-X SDK AND THE ANTTWEAKBAR SDK into the project or it won't compile!
Google should serve you with those. :D
(If you can't manage to get it to compile then the SRC isn't the right thing to work with for you. Try using your brain a bit.)

PPS:
You obviously should use MSVC2010.

PPPS:
The 'HACK_BACKDOOR' define in StdAfx.h obviously ISN'T the hash which was usilized in my older antihack backdoor. It's german and means 'you won't get it anyways'.

PPPPS:
Too many Ps.


○ ___ ○

But I have packet encryption.... ;-;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blur

ohh scheisse. u bist nazi?



i think it's not allowed releasing hack tools in this forum.

---

I guess it's a bit tricky here...
I didn't release binaries which could be used to hack. As this is a FlyFF development forum I thought about releasing the SRC more as baseline or help to do something on your own.

The hack itself is useless anyways as it's been fixed for a loooong time in public.

Let's wait for a moderator's statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blur

ohh scheisse. u bist nazi?



i think it's not allowed releasing hack tools in this forum.

---

He released it for people to see where some of the exploits are, and to prevent them in the future/find their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrYpT0n

He released it for people to see where some of the exploits are, and to prevent them in the future/find their own.

---

I've been banned for 3months for doing the same.

Tbh this helps people too fix the hacks since the source got released. That mootie got banned for releasing a hack source is stuppid x.x proply was dell :o.
Posted via Mobile Device

Lawl i tought i share this xD
http://ompldr.org/vYjVoMA/flyff00005.jpg

o.o wtf? how'd the windows appear on the terrain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowDragon42

o.o wtf? how'd the windows appear on the terrain?

---

I dont know :/
Lol but noone will be able to load infiltrtion in my client without unpacking and remove some things.So its not something i have to fix o.o
I just turned on shadow after your post about the uint thing :)

Only thing that works after bypassing client is teleport.
I already found a way to fix that :D
Every gm command while hacking will show "Client Authorization is not high enough tried to cheat?" :)

Lol nice and glad I could help =P
I've had Infiltration blocked for some time now, although the way I did it could easily be bypassed with the source released and someone that knows how to use it. I should probably check this out and fix them permanently =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterKid

I dont know :/
Every gm command while hacking will show "Client Authorization is not high enough tried to cheat?" :)

---

That's enough info to bypass your protection lol. Also, I don't assume your antihack blocks against pre-loaded user32 dlls, which is an extremely easy way to hook neuz before it runs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xLethal

That's enough info to bypass your protection lol. Also, I don't assume your antihack blocks against pre-loaded user32 dlls, which is an extremely easy way to hook neuz before it runs.

---

You sure :ott1:?
You haz my source!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterKid

You sure :ott1:?
You haz my source!?

---

if the "authorization" the message is referring to is exactly what it sounds like and I knew half as much as xLethal, then yeah it probably is enough lol

but if that message is technically lieing to them and trying to lead them off, then maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowDragon42

if the "authorization" the message is referring to is exactly what it sounds like and I knew half as much as xLethal, then yeah it probably is enough lol

but if that message is technically lieing to them and trying to lead them off, then maybe not.

---

Its a lie you cant hook into world server from the client... lol. Should be server :p.
But on my old server no one bypassed the client sided checks means no one saw the msg
except me.
Owh eFlyff encrypted their packets ?... I was able to inject dlls. So i tought i try it on eFlyff
Posted via Mobile Device

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterKid

Its a lie you cant hook into world server from the client... lol. Should be server :p.
But on my old server no one bypassed the client sided checks means no one saw the msg
except me.
Owh eFlyff encrypted their packets ?... I was able to inject dlls. So i tought i try it on eFlyff
Posted via Mobile Device

---

No one bypassed DemonFlyff's first res encryption which was:

Code:

---

for(int i=0;i<headersize;i++)
    header[i] ^= 96;

---

Doesn't mean it was secure.

Also, eFlyff's packet cipher is a simple bit table xor. It's pretty simple if you have the time to reverse it with a memory dump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xLethal

No one bypassed DemonFlyff's first res encryption which was:

Code:

---

for(int i=0;i<headersize;i++)
    header[i] ^= 96;

---

Doesn't mean it was secure.

Also, eFlyff's packet cipher is a simple bit table xor. It's pretty simple if you have the time to reverse it with a memory dump.

---

Lol i still dont get why people wants to steal res files... too secure against cheaters you can use flyff.a and flyff.b. But everything can be bypasses/decrypted/unpacked. if you take time for it.
Posted via Mobile Device