Noooo, I blame andy he is the one who released his source with the new encryption with it. If he had not released it no one but a select few would have private servers over patch 5017. But then i'm sure tane would have released his source eventually but still lol.Quote:
It became a troll forum when binarys came out
kthxbai
[UPDATE, Last check = 5222] Required packet update for authorization process
03/23/2010 05:53
ImFlamedCOD#16
03/23/2010 06:13
Arcо#17
Since when was tane making a +5017 source?Quote:
03/23/2010 10:02
tanelipe#18
Tanel (the LOTF dude?) probably. I personally have no interest in creating a server. From now on stay on topic, thanks.
@OP When did they add such a packet? It doesn't seem to follow the normal packet structure, if it's decrypted in that post already. (As in it doesn't have the header: Size/Type)
@OP When did they add such a packet? It doesn't seem to follow the normal packet structure, if it's decrypted in that post already. (As in it doesn't have the header: Size/Type)
03/23/2010 10:20
Nullable#19
Well no, the first byte contains the sizeQuote:
@OP When did they add such a packet? It doesn't seem to follow the normal packet structure, if it's decrypted in that post already. (As in it doesn't have the header: Size/Type)
Quote:
Packet(0): 25
03/23/2010 10:52
Korvacs#20
I just infracted 6 of you for being completely off-topic because im pretty tired of it, as are it seems quite alot of the community, and i dont want to hear a single complaint about it, you were all obviously off-topic.
As for this topic:
Immune, could you post a proper packet dump which can more easily be put into a program to "decode" its mysterious propertys. ie. just hex not Packet(X): etc.
As for this topic:
Immune, could you post a proper packet dump which can more easily be put into a program to "decode" its mysterious propertys. ie. just hex not Packet(X): etc.
03/23/2010 13:01
tanelipe#21
Yah first byte, what about the second byte though? Or did they just randomly switch that packet to follow different structure when other packets are as followingQuote:
PHP Code:
struct _HEADER {
unsigned short Size;
unsigned short Type;
};
struct PACKET {
_HEADER Header;
BYTE* Data;
};
03/23/2010 13:18
Nullable#22
I get the idea, but this looks like something new so they might have used another type instead of their existing ones.. I'll log some packets and check if i ever find this packet on loginQuote:
If it followed the normal structure the size would be 0xCC19 and the type would be 0x73CD. I didn't see such a packet when logging though.PHP Code:struct _HEADER {
unsigned short Size;
unsigned short Type;
};
struct PACKET {
_HEADER Header;
BYTE* Data;
};