[Release] GameServer flood/crash exploit

Page 2 of 2 1 2
08/12/2017 03:21 anhhoansro1#16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonzenbi View Post
Filter
Can you please give me the link
08/10/2018 03:49 #HB#17
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmagico321 View Post
here we go

Code:
 #region Closing ctf , arena and fortress exploit
if (packet.Opcode == 0x34B1 && !Main.absolute_bypass.Contains(this.username))
{
this.CleanClient();
continue;
}
if (packet.Opcode == 0x34D2 && !Main.absolute_bypass.Contains(this.username))
{
this.CleanClient();
continue;
}
if (packet.Opcode == 0x385F && !Main.absolute_bypass.Contains(this.username))
{
this.CleanClient();
continue;
}

#endregion
If you use that at server packets section and "CleanClient" was the disconnect method, then everyone will be disconnected immediately after first spawn. So, remember to put this at client packets section.
11/08/2018 05:27 Sector1337*#18
Quote:
Originally Posted by #HB View Post
If "CleanClient" was the disconnect method, then everyone will be disconnected immediately after first spawn.
huh? do u know what they are just ignored being received from the client so?
11/08/2018 12:29 #HB#19
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureLogic View Post
huh? do u know what they are just ignored being received from the client so?
It should be received from the client or BA/CTF won't work fine. To fix it, you should just make a p/s limit.
11/08/2018 19:50 Sector1337*#20
Quote:
Originally Posted by #HB View Post
It should be received from the client or BA/CTF won't work fine. To fix it, you should just make a p/s limit.
Dude, no, they are Server->Client opcodes they are should to be ignored&disconnected and you can just use disconnect option for it and it'll not disconnect any player there.
11/08/2018 20:40 #HB#21
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureLogic View Post
Dude, no, they are Server->Client opcodes they are should to be ignored&disconnected and you can just use disconnect option for it and it'll not disconnect any player there.
Server To Client packets updates client data & information and informs him about actions.

Client To Server packets are like a request, but it doesn't prove anything to do, so if C->S packet received, the server modules checks his request and makes sure requirements are included then informs the client with a S->C packet.

Why aren't C->S used immediately to reduce packets count and increase the speed of responding?
To prevent packet injecting.
Code:
0x34D2 | AGENT_BARENA_OPERATION
0x34B1 | AGENT_FLAGWAR_UPDATE
0x385F | AGENT_SIEGE_UPDATE
For example, CTF update packet, 0x34B1, its responsible for everything about CTF like notifiers, registration result and assigning team. Same for BA/FTW, so basically if you ignore/continue them, they won't work anymore, because client doesn't retrieve data from server.
11/08/2018 21:13 $WeGs#22
Quote:
Originally Posted by #HB View Post
Server To Client packets updates client data & information and informs him about actions.

Client To Server packets are like a request, but it doesn't prove anything to do, so if C->S packet received, the server modules checks his request and makes sure requirements are included then informs the client with a S->C packet.

Why aren't C->S used immediately to reduce packets count and increase the speed of responding?
To prevent packet injecting.
Code:
0x34D2 | AGENT_BARENA_OPERATION
0x34B1 | AGENT_FLAGWAR_UPDATE
0x385F | AGENT_SIEGE_UPDATE
For example, CTF update packet, 0x34B1, its responsible for everything about CTF like notifiers, registration result and assigning team. Same for BA/FTW, so basically if you ignore/continue them, they won't work anymore, because client doesn't retrieve data from server.
Well, you must block these opcodes only from client side cuz they're server side packets ?

i mean you just need to disconnect the client if it send a server packet
11/08/2018 22:20 #HB#23
Quote:
Originally Posted by $WeGs View Post
Well, you must block these opcodes only from client side cuz they're server side packets ?

i mean you just need to disconnect the client if it send a server packet
Yeah, maybe I didn't get the exploit well.

Sending a server packet as a client packet shouldn't be even allowed at the server modules.
11/08/2018 23:33 $WeGs#24
Quote:
Originally Posted by #HB View Post
Yeah, maybe I didn't get the exploit well.

Sending a server packet as a client packet shouldn't be even allowed at the server modules.
Well, it's an exploit ^^
11/10/2018 00:06 slaintrax200#25
nvm wrong vid
Page 2 of 2 1 2