I don't see it like a very big problem, there is a working image for moving boxes atleast. And I think we'd best just wait for jd to release the way to make swf changers safe again.
Quote:
I don't see it like a very big problem, there is a working image for moving boxes atleast. And I think we'd best just wait for jd to release the way to make swf changers safe again.
Quote:
SWF Changers can be safe again. To bypass that detection is really really easy. The tricky bit to bypass is the pixel tinting that would happen even if you can swap the SWF...
-jD
Ok very good! ;)Quote:
Okay, so, test1 has a new SWF up there now. Looks like they no longer check pixels but they still check the hash. The hash check is easily bypassed however the tinting is still there!
-jD
Because the tinting is much higher than that and is also random!Quote:
but why tinting is a problem? if you would usually search for a pixel with color color 0,0,0 , make the bot search pixels wich are almost that, so if it founds a 1,0,5 it takes that as valid too, then it's just a bit of tweaking to see what the good value is, for example max search up to 15,15,15, if the value is higher, then it means it isnt a bonus box
Quote:
but why tinting is a problem? if you would usually search for a pixel with color color 0,0,0 , make the bot search pixels wich are almost that, so if it founds a 1,0,5 it takes that as valid too, then it's just a bit of tweaking to see what the good value is, for example max search up to 15,15,15, if the value is higher, then it means it isnt a bonus box
Quote:
Because the tinting is much higher than that and is also random!
-jD
In ahk it's called shades of variation, and it is perfectly possible to detect moving boxes with it using something like a white square.Quote:
well, at naked eye no one sees the tint on the boxes, so make the program have more tolerance, if they can tint them by a 10%, make the bot see them up to 15% tinted if you understeand me