FFACE Warning - Future use banned from Windower

[rog]

You could just add the ip, and drop the domain. No need for both (though using the ip will also block any future subdomains). Of course if his ip ever changes, it could potentially cause a problem.

[iceynutz69]

[removed]

[Aikar]

copy/paste from windower forums

But you're wrong on that file. first, that file was a prototype implementation and in the end was not even used.
But to extend, there IS an authorization based code file in our SVN, but however this file is not compiled into ANY and i mean NONE of the plugins on this site.

It goes without saying there is obviously plugins we have that are not public, and the authorization code is only compiled into Developer and a PRIVATE plugin, and even then the data is encrypted.
The people who have access to private plugin KNOW this. Not to mention theres not many people who have access to said plugin. And developer based plugins which we use for development...
that kind of goes without saying on why locking it down is a good idea?

None of the public plugins on this site send ANY information about you AT ALL.

The only net connection it makes is for resources updates and that sends no info about you.

[Skjie]

lol, MD5 is irreversible and secure.

EDIT: For those who miss sarcasm, MD5 is not secure at all. http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/SoftIntCodeSign/

[byte]

Secondly, it uses one bit of information to track whether a user has donated or not. This is NOT anything that can be used to identify you as a player, as it is NOT your POL ID, Square-Enix ID, character name, or anything of the likes. Not only that, it's only put into the database when someone donates - and even then, only used to verify whether they've paid or not. Even then, it's an MD5 hash of said value...

So, I don't care if you're Jesus Christ almighty himself - there's absolutely NO WAY to reverse an MD5 value to retrieve what it points to. Completely useless for anyone who looks at it.

Wow, very naive if you really believe this. Not only is MD5 not particularly strong these days, but saying that there is no way to reverse any kind of encryption is bordering on moronic. Everything that can be coded can be decoded. /end

[rog]

lol, MD5 is irreversible and secure.

EDIT: For those who miss sarcasm, MD5 is not secure at all. http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/SoftIntCodeSign/

Unless i missed something (as well as not remembering it from the last time i read all of it), all that says is that you can easily get two files to have the same hash, and says nothing about reversing it.

We cannot target a given hash value, and produce a (meaningful) input bit string hashing to that given value.

[Aikar]

When it comes to string based data, if you know the details about the input string, such as string length and what kind of chars are used (ie only A-Z and 0-9) then it makes brute forcing trivial....

For example, your character name would be brute forced in under 5 minutes, mine would be done within 10 seconds I bet.


then, if its a numerical ID, that removes characters completely and gives a static # of guesses..

if hes using a guid, thats generally around 36 chars consisting of A-F0-9, immensly dropping the possible permutations...

Brute forcing md5 passwords where you dont know the length or character set is ALREADY VERY COMMON. Theres even multiple sites out there with huge databases of md5 hashes of passwords, where you can throw it a hash and if its been cracked, itll show you the password, and if not itll then work on cracking it.

[Feedmenow]

Out of curiosity, how fast do the quick brute-forcing methods take in guesses/attempts per second?

[nitsuj]

Moot point, because new FFACE is being built without the windower dependency, supposedly.

[Skjie]

Unless i missed something (as well as not remembering it from the last time i read all of it), all that says is that you can easily get two files to have the same hash, and says nothing about reversing it.

The article I posted was two years old. The point was that MD5 had already been broken, everything else was semantics and refining the process.

[iceynutz69]

[removed]

[Deimos]

lol, MD5 is irreversible and secure.

EDIT: For those who miss sarcasm, MD5 is not secure at all. http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/SoftIntCodeSign/

I wish people wouldn't try to sound smart when they don't even understand the implications of the things they link. MD5 is irreversible. Here, I'll even quote a line from the page that you linked, in the "Vulnerability analysis" section:

It is important to note that the hash value shared by the two different files is a result of the collision construction process. We cannot target a given hash value, and produce a (meaningful) input bit string hashing to that given value. In cryptographic terms: our attack is an attack on collision resistance, not on preimage or second preimage resistance. This implies that both colliding files have to be specially prepared by the attacker, before they are published on a download site or presented for signing by a code signing scheme. Existing files with a known hash that have not been prepared in this way are not vulnerable.

I mean, come on, you didn't even read (or at least comprehend) the summary of something you tried to use as a reference?

Yes, it's possible to generate identical MD5 hashes, as that paper actually describes, but that was already a mathematical certainty. There are only 2^128 possible MD5 values, and since there are more than 2^128 possible inputs (because infinity > 2^128 ), of course some will be the same.

The interesting thing in the paper is that they found a method to actually construct these collisions. That has almost no bearing on most of the things that MD5 is usually used for. MD5 is still a bad hashing method to use on passwords/etc, but it's not for any reason related to that paper.

[byte]

You can't reverse it, you can only brute force it.

Semantics. I wasn't suggesting it would take one attempt or anything like that.

[machiko]

# int ns1__CheckAccess(
# struct soap *soap,
# // request parameters:
# std::string PluginName,
# float PluginVersion,
# float WindowerVersion,
# std::string PlayerName,
# int PlayerID,
# int AreaID,
# // response parameters:
# bool &return_
# );

So windower is tracking our character names, pol IDs and those other things? what is all this stuff needed for, if its some secret plugin, can't we at least know what it does >.>

[Deimos]

Semantics. I wasn't suggesting it would take one attempt or anything like that.

That's not "semantics" at all and you know it. You're the same as Skjie, you don't actually understand cryptography but wanted to sound smart. Now it's time for

Doing something "forwards" a few billion times doesn't magically equal "reversing". Brute-force is about as opposite from reversing as you can possibly get.

Good news, everyone! I've come up with a method to reverse-engineer every computer program in existence! The only problem is that it requires access to an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, and infinite time.

[byte]

It's really pointless to try and convince you otherwise because you've clearly made up your mind. However, just for everyone else, that is not what I meant. Sure, I'm no expert but to say I "don't understand" cryptography is just biggotry.

Saying there is "no way" when there is, regardless of how many times it takes, is a lie. That is what I was trying to point out. If that's not what I meant then what the hell else do you think the last two sentences of my post intended?

If it takes a million tries to break something and the end result is that it's in the original form. It's still reversed because you started with something that was encrypted and end with something which is not. Sorry if I didn't use the correct terminology but that is truly what I intended with the word, accept it or not. As I said, I'm not exactly an expert, which is why I used the "wrong terminology".

Also, I was going to call out Skjie on that link but A) I didn't want to be a dick, B) He had made the only post that hinted at the weakness of MD5 at that point

I'm not one of those people that lies about what they know, in order to bash others. You can only take my word for that and you probably won't, so whatever. I don't need to berate other people to feel good about myself. However, I won't have people spreading misinformation as if it was fact. I don't care what you think of me but I care about the truth. eg. Your post does not represent the truth of my reasoning, which is why I wrote this reply.

[Saxon]

I'm not one of those people that lies about what they know, in order to bash others.

ridill sux

[Julian]

So windower is tracking our character names, pol IDs and those other things? what is all this stuff needed for, if its some secret plugin, can't we at least know what it does >.>

But you're wrong on that file. first, that file was a prototype implementation and in the end was not even used.
But to extend, there IS an authorization based code file in our SVN, but however this file is not compiled into ANY and i mean NONE of the plugins on this site.

1st part of the reply: That code was a prototype for what they actually implemented, meaning it's not even being used.

2nd part of the reply: The newer version of that code is ONLY included in private plugins. Meaning nothing that you're using is checking any of that stuff, at all.

Reading is hard?

[Cooleko]

Out of curiosity, how fast do the quick brute-forcing methods take in guesses/attempts per second?

Its been a while since I bruted any porn sites, but the easy answer is how many ports do you open up to your script of choice? if you open up 10k ports, you can do that many p/w attempts in each volley. An attempt depending on how loaded the server your connecting to is can be anywhere from milliseconds to 30 seconds (w/e your timeout is set to). So you take ports*timeout and this is the maximum time per volley... min time being < 1 second.

Now, if your talking about bruting the PW on a rar file, (which has programs to tell you without bruting, but need an example of non-internet bruteforce) you will do each password attempt serially, which depends largely on the speed of your processor... and then you can just make multiple copies of the program to stablish a parallel brute (do you see where this is going?)

[Cooleko]

The only reason I ever used this is because I couldn't find any complete tutorials on how to read FFXI's memory properly using an offset (because the address changes every zone). Hopefully this will be some incentive for such tutorials to be finished.

Provided you can find the memory address to begin with, finding the offset is not difficult. I have never done this in FFXI, however I have accomplished this in PW.

When you find the memory address, you simply find the memory address that writes to it (aka a pointer). You then find the pointer to the pointer. You continue finding the next higher pointer until you reach a static address. W/e memory reader your using will show you the difference between static and non-static addresses. Once you know the static address, you can remember the distance between each pointer (aka an offset), and read each address quickly, apply offset, read next, apply offest, until you recreat the variable you want to read/edit. It's fairly simple for simple variables, and becomes more complicated for items such as lists of mobs.

If your utilizing cheat engine, the tutorial will give you practice on applying this technique.