mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Version Reply #61750 25/11/03 10:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
H
Hjorten Offline OP
Pikka bird
OP Offline
Pikka bird
H
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
I'm currently working on a script that lets people change their version reply,
and I have some questions I'd like to get answered.

1. Would you use a script that let you choose which version reply you had?
2. Do you think making this kinda script is wrong towards Khaled?

Re: Version Reply #61751 25/11/03 11:25 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 349
S
Skip Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 349
1. Perhaps, but I wouldn't be replying with "1337 5kr!p7 v1337 (c) Skip" or anything. See below.

2. It depends how it is used - In light of revamped efforts to exploit mirc (hardly call it exploiting really, just being a royal pain in the a..) a good use of a version changer would be to either suppress your mirc version or mislead attackers into thinking your running a certain mirc version (to catch/deter mass attacks or make you less of an appealling target).

I wouldn't use it to pretend I don't run mIRC, advertise my script or blind others with my drug induced choice of colours - thats just preference. I don't see how it takes anything away from Khaled and his hard work -- It's his hard work that allows us to do stuff like this in the first place. If I ignored all ctcps, including versions (which I do), would I still be doing something wrong towards Khaled?

Just my 2 cents anyhow...

Re: Version Reply #61752 25/11/03 11:36 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 177
K
Karen Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 177
The author of mIRC deserves credit for the work he has done. If you don't want mIRC to show in the version reply, uninstall it and use something else. It is against the license agreement (illegal) to remove the version reply. If you feel the need to stroke your ego, add a script reply




Re: Version Reply #61753 25/11/03 12:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
H
Hjorten Offline OP
Pikka bird
OP Offline
Pikka bird
H
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
When I'm done with the first public release of the script it will contain my current version reply list, which includes replies from many different IRC clients, no made up ones. Even older version replies of mIRC.

Your second answer made me think a bit, no one has never told me anything like that concerning the script. And I guess you're right.

Re: Version Reply #61754 25/11/03 12:17 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
H
Hjorten Offline OP
Pikka bird
OP Offline
Pikka bird
H
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
Hmm, I thought only hexediting the exe-file was illegal. If the things you say are true then maybe Khaled should have a talk with the creators of NoName Script since it removes the version reply. However it will say which version of mIRC it is using but it still alters it. I do agree with the fact that Khaled deserves credit but I don't wish to be exploited by users who thinks it is fun to crash clients. Sure, I could install another IRC client but I don't want to because I like mIRC a lot.

Re: Version Reply #61755 25/11/03 04:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Quote:
I do agree with the fact that Khaled deserves credit but I don't wish to be exploited by users who thinks it is fun to crash clients.

- Why not use of the many scripts posted here that fix the DCC exploit (which I assume is what you're referring to) or just upgrade to 6.12 which isn't affected? Besides, I haven't once seen someone do a CTCP version before trying that exploit, they just do it and see who disappears.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61756 25/11/03 04:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
I can second that.. Versioning users is like a heads up "Hey, im going to exploit you. Quick, write my name down and take it to #opers".


-KingTomato
Re: Version Reply #61757 25/11/03 05:13 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
H
Hjorten Offline OP
Pikka bird
OP Offline
Pikka bird
H
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 19
I'm still using 6.03 because I dislike a few things with 6.12 and I have ignored all DCC's to avoid being exploited. Before I saw how to protect myself against the DCC exploit I was versioned by different users on a few networks and luckily my version reply wasn't mIRC so they did not crash my client, some of my friends did however get crashed because their reply was 6.1 and below.

Re: Version Reply #61758 25/11/03 05:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
sparta Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
Quote:

Why not use of the many scripts posted here that fix the DCC exploit

Tell me where you find a fix for that?? a fix, not like a whole script as it is on www.mircscripts.org .. the addon that are there that says fix the DCC bug is huge, i cant say if it fix it or not, i wont install a addon that add's allot of other stuff to mirc.. and i think many with me just ignore that addon(fix). and no, it's not right to force people to upgrade, and thats what happen now, every one that dont want to be exploited have to upgrade, and if that fix on mircscripts work, then i as many other scripters have to sheck so it's compatible with my script, and that takes allot of time, and if it work ok, then i have to relese a new version of my script that also takes time and bandwith for me when everyone using it DL it again.. i would like to see a update for the old mirc users that still have 6.03, but that wont happen frown


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
Re: Version Reply #61759 25/11/03 07:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Nobody's forcing you to upgrade. You can choose either to a) upgrade, b) use a version with the exploit and ignore all DCC's with /ignore -wd *, or c) downgrade to a version which isn't affected by the exploit. If you don't want to ignore DCC's well I'm afraid that's too bad. You could always look at whatever script you're referring to and try to see the specific code which fixes the exploit, or you could code DCCs in via sockets. Or even better, ignoring all DCC's finally gives people a reason to stop using DCC altogether and use a real file transfer protocol.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61760 25/11/03 09:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
i would like to see a update for the old mirc users that still have 6.03, but that wont happen.

what you fail to realize here is lets say khaled does release an updated 6.03. You still have to download it. theres no difference then just downloading the 6.12. In fact there is indeed an updated fix of 6.03 its called 6.12.

You wouldnt have to do anything the user of your script can simply download the new version and copy mirc.exe over to it.

We have seen scads of posts and threads complaining about a "fixed 6.03" but they do little else other than complain. typically posts read as if the poster has some hostile intent. "either do it or ill stop using mirc". even if everyone who has complained about this were to stop using mirc altogethor i doubt it would hurt mIRC's user base.

Im not trying to be offensive but when the only new posts you see in a week is about something that most likely isnt going to happen and has had _several_ new threads created for it one becomes dishearted.

I didnt notice if there alread y is one but perhaps a sticky on the subjetc may help (maybe not)


Have Fun smile
Re: Version Reply #61761 25/11/03 09:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
_
_D3m0n_ Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
_
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
karen it is not against the license agreement to change the version reply thru scripting methods, it is however illegal to alter the mirc exe, which by now we all now doesnt function if altered, if khaled was so worried about version reply not being able to be altered thru scriptable methods he woulnt have added debug -i which consequently i was against the idea, but seeing as he stuck it in there anyways hey i will alter it and share it with anyone who asks how to alter, just because it can be done, alot of ppl knew it could just by adding that protested it and still it gotta added, its my way of saying TOLD YA SO. I think maybe u should spend less time reading whats legal and whats not and really examine the real question at hand here. personally, i modify my version, simply put, i dont like mirc 6.1x series i use 6.03 i alter it so im less of a target, with that said. if ppl want to do the same so be it, khaled can not stop ppl from doing something he himself put in the mirc scripting ability. no one to blame but HIMSELF.


D3m0nnet.com
Re: Version Reply #61762 25/11/03 09:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,922
O
Online Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
O
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,922
The "long" script you are talking about can be found here:
http://www.erler.org/Olathe/exploit%20fix.mrc

Now if you are a v6-6.03 user and you only want to reject the exploit, simply type /ignore -wd * once and put this line in the remote:
  • On *:notice:dcc & *:?:.ignore -xu10 $nick
That's it. If you are happy with it you can stop reading here.

-

If you are a channel operator who needs to be able to detect the exploiter and kick him, you must get mIRC v6.1+ (where the -i switch of /debug is supported) and put this piece of code in the remote:
  • On *:logon:*:{
    .debug -i nul xploit
    }

    alias xploit {
    if $regex($1,/^<- :[/b](\S+)!\S+@\S+ privmsg (\S+) :\x01dcc (?:send|resume|accept) +\S*"(?:\S* ){35}/i) {
    echo 4 -at > Possible DCC Exploit by $regml(1) on $regml(2)
    }
    }
$regml(1) represents the exploiter's nick, and $regml(2) is the target (you or a channel). Use these identifiers in further commands you may want to add, for example: /ban -k $regml(2) $regml(1) 2 <kick msg>.

Re: Version Reply #61763 25/11/03 11:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Quote:
its my way of saying TOLD YA SO

- Told who so? As you said, Khaled would most likely have already been aware of the possibilities of /debug -i.

Quote:
hey i will alter it and share it with anyone who asks how to alter, just because it can be done

- So you think just because something can be done that makes it morally OK? mIRC can be used for free for an unlimited amount of time, does that mean that you go around showing off to your friends that you haven't registered mIRC because of that? mIRC scripting can be used to flood networks and launch computer attacks of various types. mIRC scripting can be used to create trojans and play havoc with people's systems. Does that mean you find it perfectly acceptable to do these things simply because they're possible?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61764 25/11/03 11:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
_
_D3m0n_ Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
_
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
well then lets just say if khaled is aware it can be used for such uses, and the license agreement DOES NOT say anything about altering version replies using scripting methods, IM STILL RIGHT, it isnt morally wrong its just not what khaled wants u to do, well last i checked khaled was not my father, i do not have to listen to his wishes, and as for all the other BS u mentioned, it doesnt apply to me, i dont use mirc for those stupid reasons or ways, altho with someone who immediatly jumps on that lil bandwagon everytime something is brought up id have to question your motives.


D3m0nnet.com
Re: Version Reply #61765 25/11/03 11:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
I guess it depends on how loose your morals are. Personally I think not giving the author of something due credit is *wrong*, so yes, in my book and probably most other people in the world's it is morally wrong.

Quote:
dont use mirc for those stupid reasons or ways

- Personally I can't see any real difference between those 'stupid ways' and changing the CTCP version reply.


Quote:
altho with someone who immediatly jumps on that lil bandwagon everytime something is brought up id have to question your motives.

- Which bandwagon would that be? And what motives are you questioning? If I just said that I'm against changing the CTCP reply and then compared it to making trojans in mIRC how can that be taken to mean that I have some sinister motive?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61766 25/11/03 11:39 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
i think in this case your comparing apples to oranges. In the example of a virus or trojan those are harmfull situations. Altering the version reply doesnt harm anyone.

I personally dont agree with it as I find it morally challenging as well but there is indeed a useful application for it. For users who wish to remain with 6.03 they can make it appear as tho they have 6.12 installed. Some channels even kick/ban users who arent running the exploit free version.

I suppose morals is in the eye of the user in this case.


Have Fun smile
Re: Version Reply #61767 26/11/03 01:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
K
katsklaw Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
K
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
by typing: /ignore -t *!*@* it ignores ALL CTCP requests. This does NOT block DCC.

IMO CTCP is an old and WAY outdated protocol to start with that has no real function in todays IRC world. I've been blocking CTCP for years and life is good!


--

katsklaw
Rather experienced Admin
Rather experienced mIRC Scripter
Amateur C Coder
Re: Version Reply #61768 26/11/03 03:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
sparta Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
Yes you are forced to upgrade.. or ignore DCC's, and if it took Khaled 1 year to make the changes in mirc.exe, then how long wouldent it take for a scripter that made a script that working fine with all fetures in the prev versions of mirc ? i have been working on my scirpt for 5 years now, and i will keep on woking with it, but many people dont like the look of the new mirc, and im one of them so i wouldent upgrade just to get the patch, it would take to long time for me to rewrite everything so it's compatible with the new version.. and i dont want any new mirc user to see that anoying screen popup every time they start mirc and that they should register, you have 1 month free "test period", and my script is in many ways much easyer to use then mirc by it self, the reson i know this is that every time somthing happens a dialog pops up that explains what happened and why, and i have a day time job so cant spend top much time rewrite every dialog and every code to make it 100% compatible with the new mirc version, thats why i want to see a fix for the DCC exploit with the old mirc.exe file (6.03), i guess somone else will find a way to make a patch for 6.03 so i wait untill that one is out, but it would be much easyer for Khaled to fix it, and if he did then no one had to hack hes code and try to solve the problem "I wont even try, but i know about people trying".. and i dont aprove to it, but they answered me when i asked WHY.. "we want to be secure with the old version, and will keep on working on it untill the problem is solved".. and i think the best would be that mirc stays on www.mirc.com , but people will be able to download fixes on other pages too soon..

Note:
I dont suport them in any way, just telling.. so dont shot the messanger wink


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
Re: Version Reply #61769 26/11/03 06:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
you speak of tho the entire scripting language has been radically replaced by something else. What could possibly have changed that forces you to redevelop your entire script? every dialog every window every alias .. If your relying on the undocumented things then thats just poor programming.

A year to fix it? You could write an entire full featured script, delete it,do it again 6 times in a year. Ive seen large scale applications go from a twinkle to a beta in than time.

Its a scripting language not an OS or some other large scale program. It wont save the world. It wont make you rich. It cant even run without mirc.exe . Scripting was meant to be fun. A way for people to spend time learning. If you have to rewrite a few alias for the next build boo hoo.

As for the registration dialog _everyone_ should register. You, the users of your script, everyone. Otherwise dont use it. khaled has been real easy going about registeration over the years and its what 20 bucks? You mean to tell me that in the "year" it takes you to rewrite your script you cant float the man a freakin 20? Your using his app. imo no difference than stealing it.


Have Fun smile
Re: Version Reply #61770 26/11/03 08:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
I can't think of a single thing that I had to change in any of my script files when changing from 6.0x to 6.1x. Not a single thing. I'd honestly like to know just what you were using that means every dialog and line of code in your script must be rewritten, the only thing I can think of is that you use /setlayer about 10,000 times in your script because that's pretty much all that was really changed from the existing 6.03 commands and identifiers. As Naru has already said, if people don't register that's their own fault, you make it sound unreasonable that Khaled should expect payment for his work and that you should do everything you can to help them break the law by maintaining your script for 6.03 alone.

We've already been through this several times before but... very little of the mIRC GUI has changed, about 3 or 4 toolbar icons and some tiny changes in the Options dialog. Yes, I can see why that would be a minor inconvenience for people who use their own toolbar images, but it would take maybe a couple of hours to make a few new 16x16 icons. Beyond that, if you find the changes in mIRC's GUI to be that mind-blowingly difficult to come to terms with I can only imagine what will happen when the next version of Windows comes out with crayola-matic GUI.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61771 27/11/03 12:12 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
another thing about the UI. Altho the option dialog changed I dont see where thats such a big deal. Most scripts ive seen have thier own auto join favorites setup dialog thingies anyway. I almost never use it i just type /server and /join.

what happens when 7.something is released and we now have all the nifty dialog controls such as listviews and toolbars or for is added etc.. will you complain about making a 6.03 version with them as well? How about when were up to build 22.1 should khaled maintain a new 6.03 for every build he puts out?

I think the better solution would be to make a request to put back the options dialog the way it was if that is indeed what troubles you so much. I wouldnt halt progress based on a version reply or some dcc exploit. DCC imo is a waste of space. If you have a legitimate purpose for swapping files theres literaly a plethera of methods to choose from. DCC is most handy when you want to shell out illegal files to just anyone who can type /ctcp blah some lame trigger here. If its the exploit that troubles you dont use dcc it can be ignored. If its the size of the scripts that bother you script your own.

I can see a reason for _altering_ the version reply as ive said some channels dissalow 6.03 because of the exploit maybe allowing the version ctcp event to _append_ something wouldnt be such a bad idea but I as well as many others feel that removing it entirely would be ethically challenged to say the least.


Have Fun smile
Re: Version Reply #61772 27/11/03 08:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
sparta Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
Quote:

A year to fix it? You could write an entire full featured script, delete it,do it again 6 times in a year. Ive seen large scale applications go from a twinkle to a beta in than time.

I didnt say it would take me a year to fix it.. but my example was that it took Khaled a yer to fix these bug fixes and other changes to mirc, and if i look at it i think it took a bit long time.. so if i would rewrite everything that arent compatible in my script, then i had to work allo, and i dont know how much i have to reewrite, but if i would do that, then i had to beta test every feture in my script.. and then fix the ones that dont work, i cant say that i would know every bit of code in my head, and that means that i cant say "ahh, i have to fix this and that".. i have to look over every single line of code and test it with the latest version of mirc, i also have to rewrite everything that dont work with the new version, and as you have seen in these forums it have been reported many bugs in the new exe file that didnt exist in the old ones, and i also have seen many reports about people using a script, then asking whi this or that dont work with the latest mirc.
PS: i rewrote my script and was done with it 3 days befor the new mirc was relesed.. and i dont have time to start all over again.. and i belive that many script's will be using 6.03 for a while longer.. but time will tell..


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
Re: Version Reply #61773 27/11/03 08:34 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Very little, if any, of the scripting language as it was in 6.03 has changed to the point that it breaks in 6.12. $submenu was broken in a previous 6.1x release and then fixed again in 6.12. Unless you use DLLs your script will probably run fine without any changes whatsoever. And even if you do use DLLs there's probably a new version for them out by now so your actual script probably won't need changing anyway.

Your reasons for not upgrading don't make sense - yes you'll have to test your script again, but you have to do that for every new version - it's not like 6.12 is some magical version which breaks scripts whereas no other update has ever done so. Do you think that anytime someone releases a script of addon they should demand that mIRC never change from that moment because it might break their script?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Version Reply #61774 27/11/03 09:18 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
sparta Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
I use 8 DLL's so far.. and i wouldent be supriced if i add a fev more wink


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
Re: Version Reply #61775 27/11/03 09:44 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
K
katsklaw Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
K
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
"and i dont want any new mirc user to see that anoying screen popup every time they start mirc and that they should register, you have 1 month free "test period""

The only way a user would see this pop-up is if they have yet to purchase mIRC. That is between Khaled and that user and it has absolutely nothing to do with you or your script.

I also have been using my script for almost as long as mIRC has been around .. and everything still works, with the exception of the few things that have been dropped. ie $parm and $1*


--

katsklaw
Rather experienced Admin
Rather experienced mIRC Scripter
Amateur C Coder
Re: Version Reply #61776 27/11/03 09:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
S
sparta Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,432
If you are a new mirc user, then that screen will make you drop mirc, and that wouldent be so good, as i said, that popup screen makes people mad, they have to close it every time they start mirc.. and if you have 1 month to test somthing, then you shouldent have to see that stuff popup every time u restart the porgram, i havent seen any programs with the same fetures that dont have a "disable" on it, and when your 30 days is up, then you get the popup without the option to disable it.. and i must say the old way was much bether.. you didnt have to see it every day.. and i dont think less people registered mirc then.. now it makes people scared that if they dont pay, then mirc wont work after 30 day, and yes. i know that have been explained here on this site, but people dont read old posts, they dont bother open the readme file or somthing like it, they want to install then run the program, same with mirc and all the script out there, they wont spend 1h trying to understand the help.. and i can say i do the same if i can.. if i need to, then i read the help.. but often i just skip it smile


if ($me != tired) { return } | else { echo -a Get a pot of coffee now $+($me,.) }
Re: Version Reply #61777 27/11/03 09:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
K
katsklaw Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
K
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
Then they should pay for what they use ... NOT paying violates the user agreement .. again, not your problem.


--

katsklaw
Rather experienced Admin
Rather experienced mIRC Scripter
Amateur C Coder
Re: Version Reply #61778 27/11/03 11:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,063
D
Doqnach Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
D
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,063
I know ALOT of shareware programs that uses a splash screen with every startup of the program during the trial period...

some of them don't even have the ability to click on OK, but you just have to wait for them to disappear for the program to start...

why bother with it?

just click it away and be done with it


If it ain't broken, don't fix it!
Page 1 of 2 1 2