LM-17

[W1z8it]

I have purposely had a GM pull me to jail so that I could get specific memloc for GMs and the area Mordion Gaol, I had many plugins running at the time, as well as memory and packet data applications running, I was warned for the reason I was taken to jail by the GM, after I had retrieved the information needed, and sent back to my homepoint.

At no point was any packet data sent back through playonline about any processes or plugins I had running.

[DancingEdge]

This person doesn't know what he/she is talking about, I advise you to ignore it.

I develop private plugins for FFACE which utilize Windower.dll and WindoerHelper.dll, the information about your windows processes are not sent back through playonline.

You're a moron.

Where's your proof that SE has no way to see what .dll files are loaded into pol.exe?

Oh right, you don't have any.


Hey guys, don't listen to W1z8it, this person doesn't know what he/she is talking about, I advise you to ignore it.

I develop private plugins for VAGSAND which utilizes Shuthefuckup.dll and Yourearetard.dll, the information about your windows processes CAN be sent back to square.

[hagun]

So basically everyone is in their comfort zone thinking that it's not possible at all that SE can flip the script and send a big FUCKU and ban everyone for using it?

Sounds vaguely familiar.

I am surprised too at how many are so confident about windower being free from punishment as Niki and others thought. If that happens none of us would be laughing. I hope that doesn't happen as I can't play without windower.

[Syntex]

You're a moron.

Where's your proof that SE has no way to see what .dll files are loaded into pol.exe?

Oh right, you don't have any.


Hey guys, don't listen to W1z8it, this person doesn't know what he/she is talking about, I advise you to ignore it.

I develop private plugins for VAGSAND which utilizes Shuthefuckup.dll and Yourearetard.dll, the information about your windows processes CAN be sent back to square.

now who the fuck is right ?

[DancingEdge]

I am surprised too at how many are so confident about windower being free from punishment as Niki and others thought. If that happens none of us would be laughing. I hope that doesn't happen as I can't play without windower.

It is folly beyond folly to simply assume you are perfectly safe, even if, if, and it's a big if, square had no direct way to detect windower's use, I'm positive there's tons of tell-tale signs, from their side.


No matter how much we mock square, or think their incompetent... there's just not words to describe how stupid you would be to think you can completely outsmart them.


Windower is tolerated because it's crossed no significantly game-breaking lines, and because so many people use it. This isn't 1,000 players duping gear, this is the vast majority of everyone on PC, using Windower, and probably the majority of players overall, using windower, and definitely the majority of all endgame players, using windower, the comments about how devastating it would be for square to cut off their own nose to spite their face by banning windower are dead on accurate, that's the real reason we're "safe".

[DancingEdge]

now who the fuck is right ?

When the best anyone can give you is the equivalent of HAY GUISE I NO ALOT ABOUT PROGRAMMINGS AND THERES MEMLOCKS AND STUFF AND I SNIFFED SOME PACKETS OR MAYBE IT WAS GLUE BUT ANYWAY SE DOESN'T SEND BACK DATA ON YOUR LOADED .DLL FILES, DID I MENTION I HAVE A DEGREE FROM ITT TECH? ..... It's not inspiring confidence.


Err on the side of caution.

[W1z8it]

ImageShack - Image Hosting :: packetdatagg1.jpg

If you know anything about packet sending, here's your proof, while running the fish bot the only data that's sent is this packet.

I expect DancingEdge knows absolutely nothing about programming at all, that's to be expected, because process information cannot be retrieved with the playonline viewer, it would mean scanning of your system which the playonline viewer is not designed for.

You asked for proof this is all I can give you without dragging your ass to my house and show you personally, but if you can prove you are right, go for it.

[Syntex]

ImageShack - Image Hosting :: packetdatagg1.jpg

If you know anything about packet sending, here's your proof, while running the fish bot the only data that's sent is this packet.

I expect DancingEdge knows absolutely nothing about programming at all, that's to be expected, because process information cannot be retrieved with the playonline viewer, it would mean scanning of your system which the playonline viewer is not designed for.

You asked for proof this is all I can give you without dragging your ass to my house and show you personally, but if you can prove you are right, go for it.

That looks, and sounds legit.

I am going for computer science degree. I havent started any of the non-generic general classes yet but this above statement from a coding point of view seems to fit the bill.

[DancingEdge]

ImageShack - Image Hosting :: packetdatagg1.jpg

If you know anything about packet sending, here's your proof, while running the fish bot the only data that's sent is this packet.

I expect DancingEdge knows absolutely nothing about programming at all, that's to be expected, because process information cannot be retrieved with the playonline viewer, it would mean scanning of your system which the playonline viewer is not designed for.

This is my issue; It's probably not a constant scan, or scheduled. It's most likely on-demand, when and if a GM feels the need to check, and probably not an automatic part of the process, especially not for any infraction that would land you in and out of jail for spamming or some silly shit.

I asked for proof, all you can tell me is that while you're running a fish bot, in your estimation, within the scope of your personal knowledge and experience, you're reasonably sure that within the narrow window of the time you spent watching packets while fishing, no additional packets that could possibly be info about your running processes or loaded .dlls appeared to be sent back to SE.


That doesn't cover or disprove the ability to recognize loaded .dll files, or really anything else that would pertain to on-demand scans.

All you gave me is a silly little screenshot that proves absolutely nothing.

[Saivan]

ImageShack - Image Hosting :: packetdatagg1.jpg

If you know anything about packet sending, here's your proof, while running the fish bot the only data that's sent is this packet.

I expect DancingEdge knows absolutely nothing about programming at all, that's to be expected, because process information cannot be retrieved with the playonline viewer, it would mean scanning of your system which the playonline viewer is not designed for.

You asked for proof this is all I can give you without dragging your ass to my house and show you personally, but if you can prove you are right, go for it.

Hi.

I like u.

Post more often, k?

[W1z8it]

This is my issue; It's probably not a constant scan, or scheduled. It's most likely on-demand, when and if a GM feels the need to check, and probably not an automatic part of the process, especially not for any infraction that would land you in and out of jail for spamming or some silly shit.

I asked for proof, all you can tell me is that while you're running a fish bot, in your estimation, within the scope of your personal knowledge and experience, you're reasonably sure that within the narrow window of the time you spent watching packets while fishing, no additional packets that could possibly be info about your running processes or loaded .dlls appeared to be sent back to SE.


That doesn't cover or disprove the ability to recognize loaded .dll files, or really anything else that would pertain to on-demand scans.

All you gave me is a silly little screenshot that proves absolutely nothing.

And you called me a moron? I find it hard to believe you have any degree in programming in respect to what you are posting, you sound like someone throwing a few random technical words around with some petty insults that make you sound unintelligent.

Here just for you I've put forward a simple test that if you do not answer within 5 mins, proves you're a fake, the test is absolutely noob basics of programming, here it is:

int Value = 0;
for (TestForDE = 0x00000004; TestForDE <= 0x000000F; TestForDE ++)
{
TestForDE ++;
Value += TestForDE;
}

return Value;

What does this do?

Edited it a little, it was typed in notepad breifly after all

[hagun]

So basically everyone is in their comfort zone thinking that it's not possible at all that SE can flip the script and send a big FUCKU and ban everyone for using it?

Sounds vaguely familiar.

I am surprised too at how many are so confident about windower being free from punishment as Niki and others thought. If that happens none of us would be laughing. I hope that doesn't happen as I can't play without windower.

[Tubbers]

To add to the "Is windower detectable" debate. It's honestly hard to say "there is no way SE could tell you are using it." but for the purposes of this argument W1z8it is very likely correct.

In order for SE to be absolutely sure you are using the Windower, they would need to scan your processes, detect the plugins/main Windower code and then send a packet that says "This client is using a 3pp: windower" to the server.

You may recall that approximately 1.5-2 years ago, SE updated their PoL to scan for processes on your computer -- exactly the kind of thing they would need to see if you are running a bot or the windower. However they didn't update their ToS, they just added this in a mandatory update without telling anyone, the players found out about it on their own. It turned out that it isn't really legal to do this, so SE had to remove it.

As far as the packets being sent marking your account as using windower, it doesn't seem to be the case. If this happens at all it would be when loading POL or when FFXI first starts. In order to be absolutely sure it isn't happening, you would need to know exactly what each and every outgoing packet actually says, even the FFXI specific ones. Thankfully due to the FFXI Emulation / Private server project, almost all of this stuff is actually known. The lack of any mysterious packets sent, combined with the knowledge of what is needed to detect this would strongly indicate the Windower is undetectable from an absolute smoking gun standpoint.

That said, it can still be "detected" in other ways. If some long string of commands are sent (such as 16-30 input lines) in a time period far faster than possible without using Windower scripts (7 line macros, or is it 6? IDK anymore, so a macro would need to be manually hit 2-3 times to get the same number of lines) then the packet could be sent, or it could be detected and flagged server-side.

Logs could easily be reviewed with people shouting %s or indicating they know the TP of party members, etc.. It definitely leaves its marks and could be investigated in the same way.

Also: VB = gross

[DancingEdge]

What on earth are you talking about?

Where the fuck did I say I had a degree in anything?

What the fuck "Technical" terms am I using?





If you knew jack and/or shit about programming to be so sure that no part of FFXI is able to see/check/scan for what .dll files are loaded into pol.exe ... you'd be able to explain it in plain English, with examples, and proof.


Otherwise you're still trying to dazzle us with your spectacular and amazing expertise.

I don't program, I'm not even going to read your code, I'm not playing your game. You're the one trying to use technical terms and examples to try to avoid giving any real evidence for your claims that these things are impossible.

[W1z8it]

What on earth are you talking about?

Where the fuck did I say I had a degree in anything?

Oh what's this?

DID I MENTION I HAVE A DEGREE FROM ITT TECH?

If you knew jack and/or shit about programming to be so sure that no part of FFXI is able to see/check/scan for what .dll files are loaded into pol.exe ... you'd be able to explain it in plain English, with examples, and proof.


Otherwise you're still trying to dazzle us with your spectacular and amazing expertise.

I don't program, I'm not even going to read your code, I'm not playing your game. You're the one trying to use technical terms and examples to try to avoid giving any real evidence for your claims that these things are impossible.

There is no way to put it into plain English, and if you know fuck all about coding which is quite clear you don't, whoa re you to spread misinformation about SE detecting plugins, you're a complete and utter twat.

I recommend do not listen to another word of this forum member, I've heard nothing but nonsense.

Also: VB = gross

lol I totally agree, it's just lazier for me to create plugins.

[Tubbers]

[W1z8it is] the one trying to use technical terms and examples to try to avoid giving any real evidence for [his] claims that these things are impossible.

His example is actually a fairly good one which gives strong evidence to suggest an indicator is not sent to SE when a new process is spawned that fucks around with POL.exe.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in this field -- don't try to make tall statements. You're correct that he hasn't unequivocally proven it isn't detectable, but in all likelihood SE is not getting the smoking gun 100% proof anywhere.

[DancingEdge]

[QUOTE=W1z8it;2474044]

What on earth are you talking about?

Where the fuck did I say I had a degree in anything?






There is no way to put it into plain English, and if you know fuck all about coding which is quite clear you don't, whoa re you to spread misinformation about SE detecting plugins, you're a complete and utter twat.

Two things;

I was mocking you, which apparently whooshed you, even though the verbage was quite clear.

And learn to quote.

[Tubbers]

Oh what's this?
*DancingEdge's sarcastic post*

He was being sarcastic. The CAPS-LOCK key was used to indicate he was pretending to be you and posting reasons why you should be believed.


Edit:

And learn to quote.

LOL, this reminds me of the self-ownage thread.

[Saivan]

LOL, this reminds me of the self-ownage thread.

Was thinking the exact same thing but I didn't lern2quote his shit properly to post it D:

[W1z8it]

Was thinking the exact same thing but I didn't lern2quote his shit properly to post it D:

lmao, irony and self pwning at it's best