A few questions...

If you are not in the mood to help please move on to the next topic now, this way I won't waste your time. Thank you.


Anyways, I just had a few questions about injecting. I'm very very new to all of this but I've managed to figure out how to create my own injector by searching down google for tutorials. I've managed to write my own injector but I'm not sure if it is working or not. Is it possible to inject mod dlls directly or is pake absolutely needed for using the mod dlls that come with pake?

If pake is needed then is it possible to run pake by injecting the pake related DLLs one by one? I'm not even sure if injecting is needed? I don't even know what I am doing. I'm just trying to do everything I see on this forum before asking questions but I'm not sure if what I'm doing is even needed.

Yes, pake is required. Injecting one by one probably does not work.

In other news, youmad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retarded jas161 Yes, pake is required. Injecting one by one probably does not work. In other news, youmad.

Well, thank you. I hope to figure out the rest, and please... spare me with the pointless troll attempts.

Doesn't generally happen on site.. If you really don't feel like dealing with them your best bet is to try and PM someone who actually knows something and has shown it.

The reason (I think) is they all use
along with send and receive hooks, and terminate.. etc etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade3575 Doesn't generally happen on site.. If you really don't feel like dealing with them your best bet is to try and PM someone who actually knows something and has shown it. The reason (I think) is they all use Code: int __stdcall Initialize(HINSTANCE hInst, func_Send s, func_Recv r) along with send and receive hooks, and terminate.. etc etc.

Pake decodes da pakez. or sumn lyk daaatz.

Pake is the only thing that gets injected into the client. It hooks the required functions for the modules, and loads them afterwards. When, for example, a packet is received, it travels through the decryption, and then through Pake, where it's passed through all modules, before the client can use it.
The modules itself _could_ be injected into the client without Pake, but only if you add the code for hooking the functions, etc. And if you do that, you'd basically have your own new Pake.
So, if I understand you right, the only thing you'd have to inject to test would be the main Pake dll, which would load the Pake core and the modules. But without a new fixed Pake nothing will work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by exec Pake is the only thing that gets injected into the client. It hooks the required functions for the modules, and loads them afterwards. When, for example, a packet is received, it travels through the decryption, and then through Pake, where it's passed through all modules, before the client can use it. The modules itself _could_ be injected into the client without Pake, but only if you add the code for hooking the functions, etc. And if you do that, you'd basically have your own new Pake. So, if I understand you right, the only thing you'd have to inject to test would be the main Pake dll, which would load the Pake core and the modules. But without a new fixed Pake nothing will work.

So injecting the pakecore.dll will have no effect since it is the old version of Pake right? I would have to create some method of bypassing hackshield?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phazd So injecting the pakecore.dll will have no effect since it is the old version of Pake right? I would have to create some method of bypassing hackshield?

Outdated Pake = Outdated addresses to hook. If it can't hook, it can't work. You simply need an updated Pake. Maybe you're lucky and another one gets released, like for the last version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by exec Outdated Pake = Outdated addresses to hook. If it can't hook, it can't work. You simply need an updated Pake. Maybe you're lucky and another one gets released, like for the last version.

I know some people (Marck) are running the old Pake just fine. Isn't it just a matter of finding a way around Hackshield?
Edit: and even if what you are saying is true and what I'm saying is false, did the people here that have Pake working update the "hooking addresses" themselves or did they leech it off of someone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phazd I know some people (Marck) are running the old Pake just fine. Isn't it just a matter of finding a way around Hackshield? Edit: and even if what you are saying is true and what I'm saying is false, did the people here that have Pake working update the "hooking addresses" themselves or did they leech it off of someone?

If it were just a matter of bypassing HackShield, there wouldn't be a problem, since the public bypass is still working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by exec If it were just a matter of bypassing HackShield, there wouldn't be a problem, since the public bypass is still working.

Interesting... you have given me a great hint and I thank you for that. As I said before, I'm quite new to this and I have little to no programming/coding knowledge. Hopefully I can manage to figure it out from here though so I thank you for all the help you gave me. :)

do you like pina colidas?