Q-protect version 4

[cKenzy]

If you try to use speed hack, it works. but CE crash.

 

[Jomex]

6.1 ignores that block I can run through whole map i 0.01 sec

 

[Quget]

Alright it only had speed hacks blocked.
And cheat engine 6.1 is what i used to test speed hacks with ...

"CheatEngine Speed hack wont work at all. -> Cheatengine crash"

Addres scanning in Flyff is pretty much useless lol.
But i will try blocking that too...

 

[Mootie]

Alright it only had speed hacks blocked.
And cheat engine 6.1 is what i used to test speed hacks with ...

"CheatEngine Speed hack wont work at all. -> Cheatengine crash"

Addres scanning in Flyff is pretty much useless lol.
But i will try blocking that too...

She means cheat engine x64. Address scanning is not useless, I can spawn items on eFlyff(along with a full packet editor) thanks to being able to use memory scanning of cheat engine x64.

Remember, any experienced windows hacker can tear apart something like gameguard in a couple hours. You're best off with obfuscation and cutting off easy access points for hackers.

 

[Pews]

She means cheat engine x64. Address scanning is not useless, I can spawn items on eFlyff(along with a full packet editor) thanks to being able to use memory scanning of cheat engine x64.

Remember, any experienced windows hacker can tear apart something like gameguard in a couple hours. You're best off with obfuscation and cutting off easy access points for hackers.

WTF. :ehh:

 

[Quget]

She means cheat engine x64. Address scanning is not useless, I can spawn items on eFlyff(along with a full packet editor) thanks to being able to use memory scanning of cheat engine x64.

Remember, any experienced windows hacker can tear apart something like gameguard in a couple hours. You're best off with obfuscation and cutting off easy access points for hackers.

Alright then I will try blocking it.
Most packet editor shouldn't be working anymore.(The released ones).
Lol I'm kinda curious how you do that :/

 

[rtosoftware]

She means cheat engine x64. Address scanning is not useless, I can spawn items on eFlyff(along with a full packet editor) thanks to being able to use memory scanning of cheat engine x64.

Remember, any experienced windows hacker can tear apart something like gameguard in a couple hours. You're best off with obfuscation and cutting off easy access points for hackers.

Wow, is that true? :?:

 

[hellmater]

Wow, is that true? :?:

I guess xD

 

[Alexsh]

Wow, is that true? :?:

No bro, he actually just buys Gpots with his donation money from Demon.

 

[cKenzy]

No bro, he actually just buys Gpots with his donation money from Demon.

He got enough money in a paypal Account to buy Gpotatos and Spawm items in eFlyFF.

 

[Quget]

seems that cheat engine x64 speed hack stil works I will figure out why

 

[rtosoftware]

seems that cheat engine x64 speed hack stil works I will figure out why

Try to use winmgmts object, maybe it can help.

 

[Quget]

Found and fixed
I used the cheat engine source to look for the problem.
Blocking the Addres scanning wil be harsh:/

 

[neversofter]

go for it ...

 

[Mootie]

Alright then I will try blocking it.
Most packet editor shouldn't be working anymore.(The released ones).
Lol I'm kinda curious how you do that :/

Basically I detoured the CClientSock::Send() function after I found the pointer to the function in memory. Of course, Gameguard interfered when I detoured a function within neuz's address space. However, Gameguard uses mostly x86 winapi calls, so it was quite simple to detour the memory modification checks it used.

Once I had CClientSock::Send() detoured, it was all too simple to exploit eFlyff's lax serversided security. I also have a few other holes in their security that may be useful in the future.

Now, if Gameguard was a proper antihack that actually blocked x64 kernel calls, it still would've been simple to defeat once you were able to get the client to run in a VM. Clientsided security is only meant to stop kids from messing around with the client.

 

[rtosoftware]

Basically I detoured the CClientSock::Send() function after I found the pointer to the function in memory. Of course, Gameguard interfered when I detoured a function within neuz's address space. However, Gameguard uses mostly x86 winapi calls, so it was quite simple to detour the memory modification checks it used.

Once I had CClientSock::Send() detoured, it was all too simple to exploit eFlyff's lax serversided security. I also have a few other holes in their security that may be useful in the future.

Now, if Gameguard was a proper antihack that actually blocked x64 kernel calls, it still would've been simple to defeat once you were able to get the client to run in a VM. Clientsided security is only meant to stop kids from messing around with the client.

Nice! By the way, I have some question about xor guard. It's really blocked the memory modification or what..? 'Cause I tried to modify the old version of CE x86 version, speedhack was works. :?:

 

[Johnny]

Basically I detoured the CClientSock::Send() function after I found the pointer to the function in memory. Of course, Gameguard interfered when I detoured a function within neuz's address space. However, Gameguard uses mostly x86 winapi calls, so it was quite simple to detour the memory modification checks it used.

Once I had CClientSock::Send() detoured, it was all too simple to exploit eFlyff's lax serversided security. I also have a few other holes in their security that may be useful in the future.

Now, if Gameguard was a proper antihack that actually blocked x64 kernel calls, it still would've been simple to defeat once you were able to get the client to run in a VM. Clientsided security is only meant to stop kids from messing around with the client.

lethal = smart and alot of time on his hands to figure that out all that out

 

[rtosoftware]

lethal = smart and alot of time on his hands to figure that out all that out

Yeah, that's true. I like the way he replied about the codes. By the way thank you MisterKid, it's works

 

[Mootie]

Nice! By the way, I have some question about xor guard. It's really blocked the memory modification or what..? 'Cause I tried to modify the old version of CE x86 version, speedhack was works. :?:

XorGuard isn't complete yet, I'm still trying to find an easy way to detour x64/ia64 functions without MS Detours. I'm also going to add a speed checker that checks the cpu clockspeed to gauge the time. However, it does fully encrypt all packets with a CBC routine.

 

[hellmater]

Ontopic : Nice one, this inspire me more to learn about routines lol.
Offtopic : Lethal , Adler + XorNet + rest of team = FTW .