EPTOn July 27 2016 23:13 TT1 wrote:
are they nerfing cracklings? :3
are they nerfing cracklings? :3
no, go back to sc2
Starcraft Patch 1.17.0 (unannounced/discovered) - Page 9
| Forum Index > BW General |
Mod note: It is likely that this is an internal testing version not intended to be public yet. Battle.net reportedly does not work after patching, which indicates that it's not yet "released". | ||
|
Cele
Germany3982 Posts
no, go back to sc2 | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
This is exactly how every fansite has scanned for new patches for years - this is how mmo-champion and wowhead detected new patches when Blizzard was on the old protocol. In fact, this is how Blizzard accidentally leaked the alpha for one of the WoW expansions, many years ago (and gave us a nice C&D for covering it, RIP). You take a known real patch URL, say, the ftp.blizzard.com download link for 1.16, then you bruteforce various potential new numbers repeatedly (probably, [1-2].[1-2][0-9] with an optional a-z in this case) and spam eternally. Have the program send you an email when it gets something that isn't a 404/500. Of course, this doesn't work anymore because of NGDP, Blizzard's new download protocol, which ensures that all URLs like this are hashed and basically unguessable. However, old games are not using that system (or even the system that existed before that, lol). I'm actually mildly surprised that the SC community doesn't have a tool for doing this kind of scanning running on at least one PC. | ||
|
TT1
Canada9798 Posts
HEY, i havnt played SC2 since WoL  | ||
|
[sc1f]eonzerg
Belgium6167 Posts
On July 28 2016 00:35 dcemuser wrote: The disbelievers are cute. This is exactly how every fansite has scanned for new patches for years - this is how mmo-champion and wowhead detected new patches when Blizzard was on the old protocol. In fact, this is how Blizzard accidentally leaked the alpha for one of the WoW expansions, many years ago. You take a known real patch URL, say, the ftp.blizzard.com download link for 1.16, then you bruteforce various potential new numbers repeatedly (probably, [1-2].[1-2][0-9] with an optional a-z in this case) and spam eternally. Have the program send you an email when it gets something that isn't a 404/500. Of course, this doesn't work anymore because of NGDP, but old games are not using that system (or even the system that existed before that, lol). I'm mildly surprised that the SC community doesn't have a tool like this running on at least one PC. are you a belieber ? | ||
|
[sc1f]eonzerg
Belgium6167 Posts
how much are u liking lotv ? i saw you playing 2v2 ^^ | ||
|
Cele
Germany3982 Posts
hehe (; | ||
|
TT1
Canada9798 Posts
On July 28 2016 00:45 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote: how much are u liking lotv ? i saw you playing 2v2 ^^ yea i only play 2v2 once in a while, its ok | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?35967 Posts
On July 27 2016 08:20 Shield wrote: Are you stupid or what? How can you hurt anyone? Please stop exaggerating. Stay cool. Keep it civil. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:42 Dumbledore wrote: Stop embarassing yourself and learn how domains work. I know how domains work. Thanks very much. You missed the point. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12151 Posts
On July 27 2016 17:55 Wrath wrote: Removing LAN? How will tournaments play? Log on Asia server? WTF? Just the IPX protocol, which has been deprecated for a long time now. TCP/UDP is the de facto standard today. | ||
|
Valeranth
United States100 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:29 Shield wrote: I know how domains work. Thanks very much. You missed the point. Could you explain the point then? Right now it seems like you think it might be spoofed because of the ftp part despite it being a blizzard.com domain. | ||
|
KameZerg
Sweden1711 Posts
| ||
|
DrDevice
Canada132 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:46 Valeranth wrote: Seems like that is what he thinks, yes. He's just clueless. He seems to think the protocol portion of the URL is part of the domain, and clearly just doesn't grasp how DNS functions. Could you explain the point then? Right now it seems like you think it might be spoofed because of the ftp part despite it being a blizzard.com domain. Obviously whoever controls the DNS for blizzard.com has control over the response to any DNS query regarding blizzard.com regardless of subdomain or protocol. So yeah with a basic understanding of the internet it is easy to see that if any link of the form X://Y.blizzard.com/ is bringing us to a compromised server then blizzard.com must itself be compromised. This idea that ftp://ftp.blizzard.com could be legit while http://ftp.blizzard.com is somehow a scam URL is pure nonsense. I would love to hear an explanation of how this spoofing would supposedly be accomplished. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:46 Valeranth wrote: Could you explain the point then? Right now it seems like you think it might be spoofed because of the ftp part despite it being a blizzard.com domain. No, I don't think it's spoofed but it was part of my initial suspicions (I read about spoofed URLs later). When I said I'm skeptical exactly because I know how the internet works that was a general statement. Just because of how the internet can screw you such as man-in-the-middle-attack, IP address spoof, e-mail spoof, etc. While I'm not a network security guy, I'm a software engineer so I'm cautious what I do. Better safe than sorry. No need for some people to be assholes, really (I don't mean you specifically when I reply to your post). | ||
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
On July 28 2016 02:29 Shield wrote: I know how domains work. Thanks very much. You missed the point. No, you missed the point. He clearly understands more than you do. Stop posting non-sense. Yes, we know there's spoofing, but as was already concluded, this is not the case here, so just stop. On July 28 2016 03:48 Shield wrote: No, I don't think it's spoofed but it was part of my initial suspicions (I read about spoofed URLs later). When I said I'm skeptical exactly because I know how the internet works that was a general statement. Just because of how the internet can screw you such as man-in-the-middle-attack, IP address spoof, e-mail spoof, etc. While I'm not a network security guy, I'm a software engineer so I'm cautious what I do. Better safe than sorry. No need for some people to be assholes, really (I don't mean you specifically when I reply to your post). You were the bigger asshole there, especially considering he was right (plus, you were the first to directly insult by saying he's stupid, when in fact, he understands more than you do). Yes, you know something about spoofing/etc., but when people who know more than you say it's not, it's time to shut up and listen/learn, instead of digging yourself deeper into the hole. It will benefit you more in the long run. That being said, I understand what you were trying to say, and it's a generally valid point, and a good rule of thumb.  You just gotta present it better and not react like that, especially when people already addressed that point. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On July 28 2016 04:28 quirinus wrote: No, you missed the point. He clearly understands more than you do. Stop posting non-sense. Yes, we know there's spoofing, but as was already concluded, this is not the case here, so just stop. You were the bigger asshole there, especially considering he was right (plus, you were the first to directly insult by saying he's stupid, when in fact, he understands more than you do). Yes, you know something about spoofing/etc., but when people who know more than you say it's not, it's time to shut up and listen/learn, instead of digging yourself deeper into the hole. It will benefit you more in the long run. That being said, I understand what you were trying to say, and it's a generally valid point, and a good rule of thumb. You just gotta present it better and not react like that, especially when people already addressed that point. It's not about if he understands more or not. It's about his exaggeration, "stop talking before you really hurt someone". No one is physically hurt. Not even emotionally. I still stand by my question to him earlier. | ||
|
Biolunar
Germany224 Posts
On July 27 2016 17:39 xboi209 wrote: Report: Blizzard is looking to remove unused game protocols such as Local Area Network (IPX), Modem, and Direct Cable Connection. They're logging the total and monthly amount of games we play on each protocol. Additional research has been published at BNETDocs.org. Any evidence that they are looking to remove those protocols? Are those logs being transmitted automatically over Bnet? Back in the day I used null modem cables to play with a friend Ethernet deprecated all those protocols :/ | ||
|
A.Alm
Sweden460 Posts
On July 28 2016 04:54 Shield wrote: It's not about if he understands more or not. It's about his exaggeration, "stop talking before you really hurt someone". No one is physically hurt. Not even emotionally. I still stand by my question to him earlier. Please stop... Q: I haven't read all the pages. Are blizzard planning on doing game changing balance patches? Are they planning/trying on getting b.net for brood war to be more active? | ||
|
xboi209
United States1173 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:06 Biolunar wrote: Any evidence that they are looking to remove those protocols? Are those logs being transmitted automatically over Bnet? Back in the day I used null modem cables to play with a friend Ethernet deprecated all those protocols :/If you read the linked article, you find an example of these log files: https://gist.github.com/RElesgoe/fc9a9fda51d6e1b5f2f661fc621f6783 In GameCreationLog.bin, someone from Blizzard wrote: //Log of all the network games played in order to determine what protocols //are no longer being used by the community. I'm assuming SystemSurvey.exe will send these logs you allow Blizzard to collect them (there's a checkmark box when you patch). On July 28 2016 05:28 A.Alm wrote: Q: I haven't read all the pages. Are blizzard planning on doing game changing balance patches? Are they planning/trying on getting b.net for brood war to be more active? They're working on making the game compatible with modern operating systems and fixing bugs. | ||
|
Valeranth
United States100 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:28 A.Alm wrote: Q: I haven't read all the pages. Are blizzard planning on doing game changing balance patches? Are they planning/trying on getting b.net for brood war to be more active? Not sure if they are trying to make BW more active, but they are doing patches for legacy games to help them run better on modern systems. They have already done one for BW a few months ago (forget what it had) and are / have done some for D2. | ||
| ||
