6607 Source for testing purposes

[mikezyiara]

Hello, I found a 6607 source online which is mostly functional and I'll give it out here for people who want to use it for testing purposes!

DISCLAIMER: I do not encourage you to use this in a live server!!! There are many shortcomings to this source, which if you were to fix it would possibly work. I shared this just for testing purposes and for people who are looking for high sources to build on/rebuild

Problems:
1. !!! PASSWORDS ARE UNENCRYPTED ON THE vikings.sql file. You should NEVER do that! You should remake the login system using hashed passwords with cryptographically safe random salt (talking about AccServer project). I don't know how to express it more, but NEVER use plain text passwords in a Database. (Also don't attempt to make your own crypto-safe system, use already-tested cryptographic systems for passwords)

2 The user inventories and guilds and pretty much everything is stored in ServerDB as binary files. If you just want to test the source don't bother with that, but if you would want to release a server based on this source you would have to completely revamp the system and save everything inside an SQL Database. What if you have 100k accounts? Do you save 100k binary files for inventories, another 100k for nobility? How much space would you have on your host?

3. The codebase is very cluttered and poorly written. The code is mostly terrible (there's a function with 5k lines which an IDE will be forced to load without any syntax hightlighting, I have to edit it directly in vim), but it does work for the most part.

Given these disclaimers, I suggest you check out the source, if you want something almost complete and with a fairly new version to build on. Again, I advise against using it as a live version, but it's an interesting read (let's call it interesting).

PS: For the people barging in "OMG **** SOURCE STOP IT", yeah, I know, I didn't say you should follow it as if it were ***, I'm saying that with a lot of refactoring, safety measures and a 'database' revamp it would be usable.

Client:
Source:

[Latyos]

It's sad that even though you understand how important it is to encrypt passwords, keeping privacy/security of users, you release this without cleaning the database of off plain-text passwords

[mikezyiara]

Originally Posted by Latyos

It's sad that even though you understand how important it is to encrypt passwords, keeping privacy/security of users, you release this without cleaning the database of off plain-text passwords

It's not my archive, the guy who uploaded it uploaded it like that, but I suppose I could just delete the entries in the sql file and then reupload it

Originally Posted by Latyos

It's sad that even though you understand how important it is to encrypt passwords, keeping privacy/security of users, you release this without cleaning the database of off plain-text passwords

I guess you inspired the good samaritan from inside me, I edited the sql file, it does have unencrypted passwords but I wiped the e-mails and the IPs so it should be fine

[Dark^Magic]

This belong to alex soryin and base is csv3 infamousnoone
That was stolen in 2016 xD
Tbh do not use it its just bugged alot of bugs any way
The best thing is the packets but still some is bugged and need to recoded

[pintinho12]

Originally Posted by Dark^Magic

The best thing is the packets but still some is bugged and need to recoded

you mean that there's no good things then

[Dark^Magic]

Originally Posted by pintinho12

you mean that there's no good things then

Well as a noob resev enginer yep xD i care only about packets
And yep this is for me i was talk about my self.
Iknow someone work with this project 3years ago maybe and still have bugs

[mikezyiara]

Originally Posted by Dark^Magic

This belong to alex soryin and base is csv3 infamousnoone
That was stolen in 2016 xD
Tbh do not use it its just bugged alot of bugs any way
The best thing is the packets but still some is bugged and need to recoded

Yes I already said that the code was garbage. There's a function with 25.000 lines of code somewhere inside. I always recommend documenting all the code so someone who reads it (or even yourself after a few weeks) can understand what's going on. The code in the source is absolute garbage but using something already implemented is something many people opt for, not all have the time to reverse engineer the whole client by themselves. Personally the client behaves alright for the most part and I will base my server off of this source, but I'll remake the database storage to SQL (also fix the password problem) and refactor a lot of code.
I didn't say it was my source or that it was good, I just shared it because I thought some would appreciate it, nothing more.

Also, there are quite a lot of live servers using this source but degraded to a different version, you'd be surprised. I tried to use Candy first but couldn't get it to run properly so when I managed to get this running I just decided I was going to use it

Originally Posted by Dark^Magic

Well as a noob resev enginer yep xD i care only about packets
And yep this is for me i was talk about my self.
Iknow someone work with this project 3years ago maybe and still have bugs

Never quite understood the conquer community's desire to use C# for the emulators, C++ is more suited for low-level stuff like packet reverse-engineering, because stuff like this is easier to do in C++, but I guess people want to make sure the code is safe and don't have manually manage pointers and let the compiler handle memory safety. If you wanna get used to reverse-engineering I can suggest you do some small emulator project first.
Try to make an ARM processor emulator in C or C++ or even C#. I did one for a uni project and it helped me a lot with understanding lowlevel conceps and masking and pointers and everything. It's just low-level programming, but still programming

[Dark^Magic]

Good point and recode the whole socket

[CptSky]

Originally Posted by mikezyiara

[...] Never quite understood the conquer community's desire to use C# for the emulators, C++ is more suited for low-level stuff like packet reverse-engineering, because stuff like this is easier to do in C++, but I guess people want to make sure the code is safe and don't have manually manage pointers and let the compiler handle memory safety. If you wanna get used to reverse-engineering I can suggest you do some small emulator project first. [...]

Majority of CO2 emulators written in C# have major bugs and issues, imagine how bad they would be if they were written in C++... Even more likely as a large part would have been written pre-C++11.

I'm an advanced C++ programmer. Even with my knowledge, I wouldn't do a complete CO2 emulator in C++, because it takes way more time to have a decent core and CO2 doesn't need such performance for its server. C# provides enough low-level features (yes, generally under unsafe code) that if you really need to, you can leverage them, if you're an advanced programmer.

[krito777]

Also in my opinion C++ is best, since Qonquer was in C++

[mikezyiara]

Originally Posted by CptSky

Majority of CO2 emulators written in C# have major bugs and issues, imagine how bad they would be if they were written in C++... Even more likely as a large part would have been written pre-C++11.

I'm an advanced C++ programmer. Even with my knowledge, I wouldn't do a complete CO2 emulator in C++, because it takes way more time to have a decent core and CO2 doesn't need such performance for its server. C# provides enough low-level features (yes, generally under unsafe code) that if you really need to, you can leverage them, if you're an advanced programmer.

Truthfully this source is absolutely horribly written, I don't even want to imagine how it would look like if it was written in C++, with all the memory management, let alone C.