[Release] ASM/packets (Exploit/fixes) {Server&Client Side} vsro-ecsro-br!

HaGsTeR? · 07/03/2013, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by A new hope

i love you and i love your avatar

love you too bro
can i put my peepee in your bunghole

A new hope · 07/03/2013, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaGsTeR?

love you too bro
can i put my peepee in your bunghole

ýas

IceAmStiel · 07/03/2013, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaximumDark

If you can't fix it, you can still track it.

1) Make a SQL Job, that will run every second, tracking for the items, once you've found abnormal counts, you can automatically ban this player account and character and probably kick it out of the game .

Super smart advice to run a query every second that will definitely take >1s to execute, plus "abnormal" counts, do you want to ban donators for a purchase of multiple stacks of scrolls?
And did you think of the people that might abuse such bugs slightly to be safe from the admins?

(Implies that you aren't running a server for only 10 Characters)

MaximumDark · 07/03/2013, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceAmStiel

Super smart advice to run a query every second that will definitely take >1s to execute, plus "abnormal" counts, do you want to ban donators for a purchase of multiple stacks of scrolls?
And did you think of the people that might abuse such bugs slightly to be safe from the admins?

(Implies that you aren't running a server for only 10 Characters)

I am sorry, but you still have much to learn, I suppose you aren't a certified DBA..., anyways, do it your own way

.

IceAmStiel · 07/03/2013, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaximumDark

I am sorry, but you still have much to learn, I suppose you aren't a certified DBA..., anyways, do it your own way .

I can understand that people that never dealt with large databases lack of knowledge about the performance of queries and the rows that they are affecting, you should probably get a database, populate it with data and try your version out.
I'm sure that even you will recognize that your way is impracticable for a table that contains several millions of records.

I don't need a certification to know that you're insanely wrong

MaximumDark · 07/03/2013, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceAmStiel

I can understand that people that never dealt with large databases lack of knowledge about the performance of queries and the rows that they are affecting, you should probably get a database, populate it with data and try your version out.
I'm sure that even you will recognize that your way is impracticable for a table that contains several millions of records.

I don't need a certification to know that you're insanely wrong

You don't know about indexing, you don't know about views, you don't know about pre-caching and transactioning of data, you also don't know about pre-compiled queries and also don't know about incremental / differential queries, so once you learn this, let me know

.

IceAmStiel · 07/03/2013, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaximumDark

You don't know about indexing, you don't know about views, you don't know about pre-caching and transactioning of data, you also don't know about pre-compiled queries and also don't know about incremental / differential queries, so once you learn this, let me know .

You want to track data that is constantly changed, plus you have to run through all the records to check whether a stack is suspicious or not.
Using assemblies to process the data doesn't change the fact that you have to get the data from the table first.

Your way would work if the table was static, _Items is exactly the opposite which contains data that is changed every second multiple times.

One question, did you google for random fancy-looking words to state here?

MaximumDark · 07/03/2013, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceAmStiel

You want to track data that is constantly changed, plus you have to run through all the records to check whether a stack is suspicious or not.
Using assemblies to process the data doesn't change the fact that you have to get the data from the table first.

Your way would work if the table was static, _Items is exactly the opposite which contains data that is changed every second multiple times.

One question, did you google for random fancy-looking words to state here?

There are techniques which you don't know, as for example 'In memory/temporary tables', which you can use for extremely modifiable tables, if this is the case, also you can use differential queries to check for the 'in-modifying' data during the transactions, you can also make the usage of indexes to reduce the I/O overhead during your transactions, there are 'ways' of doing the same thing, if you are a performance freak, still I do it, and I don't have any issue with this, however if you think it doesn't works, or it wouldn't work the way you expect, don't do it

.

thesurviver · 07/03/2013, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaximumDark

There are techniques which you don't know

thats all i hear from you.. go and get some good arguments because i agree to ice- there is a chance to get performance problems.

MaximumDark · 07/03/2013, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesurviver

thats all i hear from you.. go and get some good arguments because i agree to ice- there is a chance to get performance problems.

Read the rest of what I said, and not just a few words

-HiwatariKai* · 07/03/2013, 23:05

Nice release bro thanks!

IceAmStiel · 07/03/2013, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaximumDark

There are techniques which you don't know, as for example 'In memory/temporary tables', which you can use for extremely modifiable tables, if this is the case, also you can use differential queries to check for the 'in-modifying' data during the transactions, you can also make the usage of indexes to reduce the I/O overhead during your transactions, there are 'ways' of doing the same thing, if you are a performance freak, still I do it, and I don't have any issue with this, however if you think it doesn't works, or it wouldn't work the way you expect, don't do it .

I never said that it won't work, I said that it's impracticable and simply a freaking bad idea.
Concerning to the indexing, you're returning data by stack, neither by ID64 nor Serial64 and indexing a column which holds values that are nearly changing every second.. doesn't that sound already entirely wrong?

You're free to implement everything and either sell or release it here if you feel like wasting your time on it

SnowStyle™ · 07/04/2013, 00:03

Good work as always, I'm surprised to see you still help this community after all this time passed though =o

links2007 · 07/04/2013, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Br.Abdelfattah

-------------------------------------------

Agent server Exploit (Packets of crash)

Code:

Paket             : 8  {8 ; 0}
Veri Boyutu       : 129 Byte  {129 ; 0}
Toplam Büyüklük   : 532 Byte  {449 ; 83}
Veri H‎z‎         : 0.9 KB/Sn
Yakalama Zaman‎   : 25.06.2013 22:43:46:552

==================================================


[25.06.2013 22:43:46:552]
00000000  25 00 00 50 00 00 0E 41  41 75 26 98 AE 82 E8 BB   %..P...A Au&ک®‚è» 
00000010  00 00 00 19 00 00 00 99  25 03 DD BA 18 E0 1A C3   .......™ %.ف؛.à.أ 
00000020  D9 F4 5D 1B B4 69 6A AB  48 1C 21 09 00 00 50 00   ظô].´ij« H.!...P. 
00000030  00 10 47 48 EC 19 A3 DA  2F E9 0E 00 01 20 00 00   ..GHى.£ع /é... .. 
00000040  0B 00 41 67 65 6E 74 53  65 72 76 65 72 00 05 00   ..AgentS erver... 
00000050  0D 60 00 00 01 01 00 05  20 0B 00 0D 60 00 00 00   .`......  ...`... 
00000060  01 00 01 C3 02 05 00 00  00 02 05 00 0D 60 00 00   ...أ.... .....`.. 
00000070  01 01 00 05 60 06 00 0D  60 00 00 00 03 00 02 00   ....`... `....... 
00000080  02

Packet

Code:

0x2005

----------------------------------------------------

How to fix it? what to do? i dont get it.

PortalDark · 07/04/2013, 14:54

#moved to correct section