[UPDATE, Last check = 5222] Required packet update for authorization process

[ImFlamedCOD]

Originally Posted by hunterman01

It became a troll forum when binarys came out

kthxbai

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.

[Arcо]

Originally Posted by ImFlamedCOD

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.

Since when was tane making a +5017 source?

[tanelipe]

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)

[Nullable]

Originally Posted by tanelipe

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)

Well no, the first byte contains the size

Packet(0): 25

[Korvacs]

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.

[tanelipe]

Originally Posted by Nullable

Well no, the first byte contains the size

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 following

PHP Code:

struct _HEADER {
    unsigned short Size;
    unsigned short Type;
};

struct PACKET {
    _HEADER Header;
    BYTE* Data;
}; 


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.

[Nullable]

Originally Posted by tanelipe

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 following

PHP Code:

struct _HEADER {
    unsigned short Size;
    unsigned short Type;
};

struct PACKET {
    _HEADER Header;
    BYTE* Data;
}; 


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.

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 login