|
Is there a quicker way to hook a process or detect it's initialization? Such as hooking the process creator itself? Not sure what that would be on a global scale....
|
|
|
|
|
Is that even possible with user mode hooks? Well in any case I wouldn't go that far..
I know of no quicker ways, is starting the process from your program unacceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately for the end result it is.
The final product will basically sit there waiting for a user to run the game from anywhere using any method, hook it, remove the limitations for multi run, and wait for the next. That way there is no setup needed what so ever from the users, they don't need to mess around with shortcuts and command line arguments will run just fine. It will also allow things such as TexMod (Third party tool that modifies textures in memory, but requires the game to be run through it)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok that complicated matters. There's an article on cp that explain how to hook process creation[^] (not the same way you're hooking, but probably contains something useful), it's a bit heavy handed but could be worth a try
|
|
|
|
|
I saw that earlier.... I'm not too sturdy with C, but I suppose I can give it a shot tomorrow.
The only problem I can see with that is that I need to be able to inject into the process, and I can't see an obvious way to do so given that method....
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know either, but there's something I just thought about - what if you use that technique to hook CreateFile and OR in the sharing bits if the file being opened is gw.dat?
|
|
|
|
|
gw.dat is either not loaded using CreateFile, or it is being loaded so quickly that the current method can't even see it.
I can hook before WindowBlinds DLL's get in there, but not before the initial call to gw.dat... Which makes me think that CreateFile isn't being used, though I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok that's weird.. that other way to hook would definitely be on time if it's being opened with CreateFile, but if CreateFile isn't even used then I have no clue what's going on there
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm...Why try and piss on a spark plug when you could just run multiple virtual machines, each with its own copy of the game running?
|
|
|
|
|
Easy, the final product is going to be released (for free of course).
I can't release virtual machines, and they would take longer to set up then the current solutions. I am going for simplicity.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't come here and ask for advice on hacking a MMORPG client, even if you have noble intent (which you didn't specify, so we can't assume either way.) Other people here probably play the game and don't want people interfering with whatever integrity the game still has.
That's kind of like going to an auto mechanics' forum and asking how to circumvent your car's ODB-II system so your car would pass inspection without repairing some problem, or going to a gun enthusiasts' forum and asking how you can manufacture parts that are illegal in your area.
No hate from me here. Just saying you probably shouldn't do this, nor should you ask here. Why run multiple instances, anyway? You can only control one instance of a game at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
While I would agree with you if I were doing anything that would gain an upper hand, in this case I do have to disagree.
There has never been a moral dillema with the end result I am trying to achieve. It can easily be replicated by having two computers next to each other.
The only part of the EULA that is being bent is not exercised against this type of third party program. Mind you that doesn't give users the go ahead, but there have been many non automated approaches that have been released without issue for years (Non automated meaning you have to load the game through the programs themselves)
There are also legit reasons for this, such as AFKing certain events with multiple accounts, trading between accounts without having to trust a middle man, and you can theoretically multibox.
modified 8-Nov-11 15:35pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything in that which isn't just a rationalization.
|
|
|
|
|
Then I have to ask, what could I gain from having more then one client open at a time? I have five accounts, I like to AFK them for events and I trade between them.
My wife plays the game but is horrible at picking what items to keep from a farming run so she likes me to do it for her. Why close my current game to do the same thing with another account when I can have two open at once? I like to run two of those accounts in a way that they are in my party just sitting there for quests.
Again, all I can do with this modification is exactly what I can do with the four computers in the house (minus one account obviously), but that is a lot of extra electricity, room, and other members of the family like to use the computers.
Anyway, this has been done many times before, I'm just making it more convenient and easier for the end user. And I'm learning how to do something new in a programming language I love. Sure I could use things already made but why not improve it instead of settling?
|
|
|
|
|
Again all of that is just your attempt to rationalize your actions.
Seems rather pointless to defend it by trying to come up with reasons why it 'should' be ok.
Your responses indicate that you know that you are violating something but then you attempt to justify it by suggesting that it doesn't actually hurt anything. There might be merit to the later but it doesn't eliminate the former.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems rather pointless to try to convince someone of something when they are obviously ok with what they are doing. Call it what you like, I have no problems with what I am doing, and know that the gamers who play the game along with the developers of the game will have no problem with it. If they did, this type of modification would not be available on the forums associated with the game who have close ties with the games community managers, not to mention that there would be hundreds of bannings.
I'm not going to continue this conversation. If you have issues with what I am doing, that is your prerogative and you have a right to it. Just as I have a right to mine.
|
|
|
|
|
KairuByte wrote: If you have issues with what I am doing
I suggest you read my responses again because I didn't say that.
You are the one that is attempting th justify your actions by producing a number of different reasons why it 'should' be ok. If you (not me) didn't have a problem with the process in the first place then you wouldn't need to come up with alternative reasoning to explain why it was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
The reasoning was because this is a gray area, and I don't want someone who happens to read the thread over to think that I am doing this will ill intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
Update: Well, I started the process suspended and I hooked it soon enough, I'm just going to have to find a way to suspend the process as soon as it is created.... I'll have to look into that...
I'm not familiar with flags... It comes in with a desired access of 3221225472. I assume it is the result of the flags hex values being translated into a single int. Anyway, I just return 1 for both desired access and share mode. Well, 0x00000001, but same diff really.
Question: Does anyone have any idea how the heck to automatically cause all instances of a specific process to start suspended? I don't want to try to figure out drivers and such.... But I already covered DLL injection so why the heck not, right? I would just really prefer to not....
modified 8-Nov-11 21:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
In order to make the program open the file in shared mode, you need to modify the "dwShareMode" parameter, it's the third parameter.
For instance:
PresentValue |= (FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE);
This tells the program to add the values of the SHARE flags to the existing flag value.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You replied just before I edited. I had forgot to mention that I just requested read access and allowed read access. Both are 0x00000001 or 1, so it wasn't difficult.
Now I only have two issues. One being suspending the process as soon as it starts (Edit: The process will not be started from within any of my own code. I want to be able to suspend it when opened through any user initiated method), and the second is how to make the injected DLL call ReOpenFile if the original file isn't in share read mode.... I haven't been able to call a method from within the Run() code with EasyHook yet...
|
|
|
|
|
Without getting into drivers and things, the best way to have the program start suspended is to create your own launcher process.
Write a small program that calls CreateProcess with the CREATE_SUSPENDED flag.
Then, after you inject the DLL, call ResumeThread on the process's main thread.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Which means that I need to create a driver.... Bah!
A launcher process isn't really an option.... While it would be easily possible, it defeats the purpose of the entire program, unfortunately....
/sigh I suppose it's time to learn how to make a driver?
Will Anti-Virus detect this as a threat? It's going to have DLL injection and a driver that I assume will be loaded when the process starts and unloaded when the process ends..... And no real way to sign it apart from self signing....
Edit: I'll work on this more tomorrow. Maybe someone will have an idea for running something when I first hook the process?
Basically I need to find a handle within the process pointing at gw.dat, test it's file shared options, and if they are not read only shared, I will need to call ReOpenFile... Anyone have any ideas on that one?
modified 8-Nov-11 22:56pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I do have one more idea for you. Go to MSDN, and look up ShellExecuteHook.
EDIT-------------
This has been deprecated as of Vista. Sorry.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Would hooking ShellExecute(), ShellExecuteEx() and IsUserAnAdmin() work? I found it while looking for an alternative.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
