RMTers discuss P1999 dsetup.dll "includes some NSA-level intrusive scans on your PC"

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by simp403 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please just stop talking. It's obvious to anyone with actual technical knowledge that you're talking out of your ass.

Your posts are just like Secrets, not relevant to the discussion.

Put up or shut up if you know all these guys who do "ASM" in the P99 community (As if ASM is a programming language)

I had enough watching you "well its possible" smoke blowers. Not even your precious scummy rmtsite could make sense of it.

Want to try to make another post that's relevant again?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Alaron01 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree with you. But I still think there is a good chance Secrets is talking out their ass.

Tell simp to put up or shut up. ASM isn't required for any programmer, its not a language.

You can't decompile a .dll. Suggesting so is a slur of the word decompile. You would still be speculating as to some of the functions of the .dll even if you could make sense of some of it.

rmtsite is incapable of it, simp is incapable of it, Secrets is incapable of it as well. Not relevant to the discussion. This isn't about "well anyone can decompile it" because you cannot.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by simp403 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong. It can be done, as demonstrated by my previous link and the one provided below. Will it be done? No, because



That's some nice shifting of the goalposts. At what point did I ever say that I thought they actually decompiled it? I mentioned that they talked about "reverse engineering" in lieu of just saying they decompiled to try sounding knowledgeable, but I still said that I thought they're full of shit.

However, it's not even necessary to actually obtain code from the dll file to realize that this is all a load of shit. That's the conversation prior to your posts was concerning.



You're still the ass.

Let's get another thing straight: "decompiling" typically refers to the use of a decompiler to convert from bytecode to assembly, then from assembly to a higher level language. On the other hand, someone can use a debugger to get the actual bytecode of the program being run, and then directly translate that to the assembly language dictated by the processor's instruction set architecture. Once they have the assembly code, then they can translate it to a higher level langauge. These are two different concepts, though, and you keep conflating them because you really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm guessing that Secrets is referring to using OllyDump to get the bytecode and then translating that into assembly and then into C++. This would be a pretty big pain in the ass, but it's entirely possible for someone to use any number of programs to obtain the bytecode being executed and work from there. Someone who is used to reading x86 wouldn't have too much trouble with that.

To re-iterate, though, any code in the dll would have to hijack the Everquest process in order to do things like read web browser information, and this would be picked up very easily by any AV/anti-malware programs as Ostros mentioned.



I can smell the mad through my own computer.

It's funny that you say my posts are irrelevant when you've been adding nothing but uninformed bullshit to the conversation.

Also, "asm" typically refers to assembly, and assembly is most definitely a language. "asm" is a keyword in C that allows someone to implement a function using assembly, which is why it's used as shorthand for "assembly language". Good job on doubling down on your stupidity.

Go to IBM and tell them you want to "program" for them with ASM, and that is your only expertise with a "language". Watch the horrific cringe and no followup interview.

Thank you for reinforcing and agreeing with me that ASM is absolutely not a programming lanugage in any way shape or form.

And good job doubling down on your off-topic derail.

[simp403]

Originally Posted by Alaron01 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

he thinks it's easier than it is (getting reasonable C++ code from byte code is just... not gonna happen buddy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]).

I didn't mean to give the impression that's it's easy. Translating assembly to a higher level language requires a good deal of creativity and interpretation, but it's not a skill that's limited to a handful of people. There are entire communities out there full of people who reverse engineer code, especially when it comes to videogames.

However, I agree with your earlier statement that expecting the P1999 community to do this is unreasonable. Secrets presents it as a trivial matter, even though someone with experience would still have to spend a non-trivial amount of time working out the actual code from the mass of assembly.

[simp403]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go to IBM and tell them you want to "program" for them with ASM, and that is your only expertise with a "language". Watch the horrific cringe and no followup interview.

Thank you for reinforcing and agreeing with me that ASM is absolutely not a programming lanugage in any way shape or form.

lol

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And good job doubling down on your off-topic derail.

The irony of this is that you're the one who drove the conversation on a tangent when you started spouting bullshit about the NSA. In fact, the conversation was effectively finished with Ostros' post regarding AV/Anti-maleware. Of course you had to butt in and start pontificating on matters you know virtually nothing about.

[Alaron01]

Originally Posted by simp403 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, I agree with your earlier statement that expecting the P1999 community to do this is unreasonable. Secrets presents it as a trivial matter, even though someone with experience would still have to spend a non-trivial amount of time working out the actual code from the mass of assembly.

Here's some common ground between you and Azzar as well. Not sure why you're at each other's throats. The difference of opinion you have seems small to me. I guess because R&F? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nevermind, kill each other! Fight!

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by simp403 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To re-iterate, though, any code in the dll would have to hijack the Everquest process in order to do things like read web browser information, and this would be picked up very easily by any AV/anti-malware programs as Ostros mentioned.

Mmmmhmmmm. Most AV are detecting the .dll and prompting action for some years now. The advice from P99 and the community for the past 5 odd years or so has been to ignore the AV and add it to your AV ignore list.

So relevancy? You propose AV hasn't already been a problem in the past or present with regards to P99 custom files. So who's the ass again? How long have you been in the community, I wonder now? You don't seem aware of the fact AV has already been a problem with P99 custom files.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by simp403 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol



The irony of this is that you're the one who drove the conversation on a tangent when you started spouting bullshit about the NSA. In fact, the conversation was effectively finished with Ostros' post regarding AV/Anti-maleware. Of course you had to butt in and start pontificating on matters you know virtually nothing about.

Mmhmm, ASM is still not a "programming language." You towed the line for Secrets, Ostros, and other smoke blowers. I centered the discussion on more transparency and you went with technicality and distraction to detract from the privacy issue.

How about the fact you demonstrated that you are completely oblivious to the AV problem? Seems you have just been posting out of your ass all this time in an effort to derail. Wondering who the ass is again?

[simp403]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mmmmhmmmm. Most AV are detecting the .dll and prompting action for some years now. The advice from P99 and the community for the past 5 odd years or so has been to ignore the AV and add it to your AV ignore list.

So relevancy? You propose AV hasn't already been a problem in the past or present with regards to P99 custom files.

The detection of a foreign dll and an actual process hijacking are two separate events. Not only would the AV/anti-malware warn someone of a foreign dll, but it would also catch the process being hijacked if the dll was actually doing so. The issue you refer to lies in the former category, whereas Ostros was talking about the latter category.

I wonder what you're going to get wrong next.

[Alaron01]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mmhmm, ASM is still not a "programming language." You towed the line for Secrets, Ostros, and other smoke blowers. I centered the discussion on more transparency and you went with technicality and distraction to detract from the privacy issue.

It is definitely a programming language. Most people even call it "assembly language" (see Wikipedia). In any case, this is not relevant other than to say "I know something you don't know."

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How about the fact you demonstrated that you are completely oblivious to the AV problem? Seems you have just been posting out of your ass all this time in an effort to derail. Wondering who the ass is again?

Yes, this is a valid point and should be taken into account. It shows that having AV installed is not the end of the story here.