mIRC Homepage

Version Reply

Posted By: Hjorten

Version Reply - 25/11/03 10:58 AM

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?
Posted By: Skip

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:25 AM

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...
Posted By: Karen

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:36 AM

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

Posted By: Hjorten

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 12:07 PM

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.
Posted By: Hjorten

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 12:17 PM

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.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 04:07 PM

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.
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 04:55 PM

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".
Posted By: Hjorten

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 05:13 PM

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.
Posted By: sparta

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 05:26 PM


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
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 07:56 PM

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.
Posted By: Narusegawa_Naru

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 09:08 PM

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)
Posted By: _D3m0n_

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 09:16 PM

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.
Posted By: Online

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 09:45 PM

The "long" script you are talking about can be found here:

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>.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:02 PM

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.

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?
Posted By: _D3m0n_

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:07 PM

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.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:21 PM

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.

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.

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?
Posted By: Narusegawa_Naru

Re: Version Reply - 25/11/03 11:39 PM

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.
Posted By: katsklaw

Re: Version Reply - 26/11/03 01:46 AM

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!
Posted By: sparta

Re: Version Reply - 26/11/03 03:00 PM

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..

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

Re: Version Reply - 26/11/03 06:16 PM

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.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 26/11/03 08:56 PM

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.
Posted By: Narusegawa_Naru

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 12:12 AM

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.
Posted By: sparta

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 08:02 PM


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..
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 08:34 PM

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?
Posted By: sparta

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 09:18 PM

I use 8 DLL's so far.. and i wouldent be supriced if i add a fev more wink
Posted By: katsklaw

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 09:44 PM

"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*
Posted By: sparta

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 09:55 PM

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
Posted By: katsklaw

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 09:59 PM

Then they should pay for what they use ... NOT paying violates the user agreement .. again, not your problem.
Posted By: Doqnach

Re: Version Reply - 27/11/03 11:43 PM

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
© 2021 mIRC Discussion Forums