Tassader2

I personally like the Neo2003's version more, both the code and the DB layout, but the neccessity to be able to run win32 code is fatal weakness. That could be avoided by using (few) pre-generated seeds and keys for each module, stored in db.

There are false positives indeed. A friend of mine told me warden is banning for having Ati Tray Tools opened, which only changes Anti Aliasing and other graphic stuff. This quite screws up everything if not fixed. Checks that found Ati Tray Tools as cheat are page ckecks with id 88, 261 and 783 (with `address` = 174688 AND `length` = 37) This one looks to be false positive as well (TOM_RUS version, MEM_CHECK) (438, 243, '', '', 11287980, 8, '04000000903C9F00', NULL);

what do you mean by creating database? wd->str.c_str() is NULL and wd->str.size() is 24 ? :-o

There are some dupes in SQL data (TOM_RUS version) SELECT MAX( id ) FROM`warden_data_result` GROUP BY address, length, data, result HAVING count(*)>1 ORDER BY MAX( id )ASC; DELETE FROM `warden_data_result` WHERE id IN (385,450,473,476,477,482,483,484,488,497,554,569,617,626,652,655,667,694,747,758,763,765,791);

It may check only the code, not data (as data that are dynamic probably can't be digitally signed) - like run speed that's just a variable in memory, that may change every now and then. But I don't know - that's why I was asking ;-)

Can someone explain what the "checks" check for? If I understand it correctly (which I may not), this check types PROC_CHECK = 0x7E, // uint Seed + byte[20] SHA1 + byte moluleNameIndex + byte procNameIndex + uint Offset + byte Len (check to ensure proc isn't detoured) MEM_CHECK = 0xF3, // byte moduleNameIndex + uint Offset + byte Len (check to ensure memory isn't modified) MPQ_CHECK = 0x98, // byte fileNameIndex (check to ensure MPQ file isn't modified) LUA_STR_CHECK = 0x8B, // byte luaNameIndex (check to ensure LUA string isn't used) TIMING_CHECK = 0x57, // empty (check to ensure GetTickCount() isn't detoured) check for modification of the client itself and theese DRIVER_CHECK = 0x71, // uint Seed + byte[20] SHA1 + byte driverNameIndex (check to ensure driver isn't loaded) PAGE_CHECK_A = 0xB2, // uint Seed + byte[20] SHA1 + uint Addr + byte Len (scans all pages for specified hash) PAGE_CHECK_B = 0xBF, // uint Seed + byte[20] SHA1 + uint Addr + byte Len (scans only pages starts with MZ+PE headers for specified hash) MODULE_CHECK = 0xD9, // uint Seed + byte[20] SHA1 (check to ensure module isn't injected) look for malicious programs/drivers, ok? And let's say I have the source code of of some well-known cheat program, like WoWEmuhacker (I don't, but _someone_ does). And I rename it, do some really minor modifications in the code and recompile it, so its checksums are different. Now it can't be detected by any of the last four checks and probably naither can it be by the rest, because it does not modify the client, only it's data in memory (like movement speed). Is this correct?

I merged master into blink1 & blink3. It should work, but is not tested (I am still on 3.22a client). Blink3 most likely cannot be applied on preWotlk branches due some changes in teleport code. As for the development: I chose to make various patches (v1, v2, v3, and wanted even v4) mainly because I thought that slighter modifications would have bigger chance of being accepted than complete (and maybe incorrect or hacky) rewrite. Patches 1-3 only modify and correct the clearly incorrect pre-cast check ;-) I was afraid that modification of the actual "blink" code could cause performance issues or likely be too hacky. Maybe I should have post it in Under Review Anyway I never finished v4 probably of 2 reasons - 1. few people posted better patches (at least they said they were ) and 2. I (playng a mage) was perfectly happy with results of blink3. Both meaning that further develompent is not that necessary and I better iinvest my time elsewhere The server where I play switched to TC, where blink works fine (similarly to blink3 ;-) but in TC it teleports you a little higher in the air) so I have no further plans with this patch (exept for maybe creating a 0.12-compatible blink3 version). 2sidsukana if it does not teleport in instances, then you probably don't have vmaps. Without them blink cannot function properly (but my patch will still improve it ).

It's a pitty that previous versions with not removed icon check are not aviable

Dodge and parry are not diminished. Gains from dodge rating, parry rating, agility and defense (and maybe from strength for DKs?) is what is subject to DR ... and that should be calculated during "rating->%" and "stat->%" conversion For miss you need to separate base miss and miss from defense rating, however I am unsure what if you do not have maxed "base" defense skill ... ? Or is it simple 5% base miss and everything else is diminished (ie. there's no difference between "skilldiff" from level difference and from defense rating) :confused:

bump ;-) what about keeping the icon check as last resort check if removing it causes problems?

maybe just remove all auras with AURA_INTERRUPT_FLAG_UNK15 = 0x00008000, // 15 removed by casting a spell? ?

Then maybe replace + const_cast<CreatureDataAddon*>(addon)->move_flags &= ~(MONSTER_MOVE_JUMP|MONSTER_MOVE_UNK4); with + const_cast<CreatureDataAddon*>(addon)->move_flags &= ~(MONSTER_MOVE_UNK4); ?

Well, it's incorrect anyway ... I think that EffectMiscValue determines the horizontal speed and vertical speed (or angle?) should be calculated from distance and horizontal speed so target lands (+-) right in front of caster (damage can probably be used to override it) For example http://www.wowhead.com/?spell=37370 (EffectMiscValue=300) should pull players very fast, with very low vertical speed ... and to the caster, not far behind him like on mangos And http://www.wowhead.com/?spell=32265 (EffectMiscValue=125) pulls players at much smaller horizontal speed, but higher vertical. And comments says "If you are far away, you are also pulled significantly upwards" ...

I don't think so - last time when I looked into spell_bonus_data table there was only "direct_bonus" column, not "direct_bonus_damage" and "direct_bonus_heal" and because healing and damage is done by the same spell, it gets same bonus for damage and than again for healing.

Well, yes, I just thought that there is (although a very little) chance that this bug gets magically fixed by switching to new formula (and using max level instead of spell level)

That's quite common amongst all HoTs/DoTs and delayed spells - their bonus damage, crit chance, multiplier ets. should be taken from the moment the spell is cast, but Mangos calculates that when they deal damage. Damage done does not include effects that increase/reduce damage taken - eg. dampen/amplify magic, curse of elements. And yes, theese should be calculated on hit. Unsure how crit chance should be calculated, but most likely chance to critically hit should be calculated on cast and chance to BE critically hit (ie. modiifers like Molten armor or resilience) should be calculated on hit.

The triggered spell is 31117 EDIT: Strange that I wrote this post in reply to the following one, but it is shown before it :-o

Just note, talent Warbringer applies 3 auras. I think that 262 only enables charge in combat. Making charge usable in any stance should most likely be handled by aura 275 (ignore_shapeshift) and making charge remove movement impairing effect may be aura Override Class Script (so instead for aura 57499, you should be looking for SPELL_AURA_OVERRIDE_CLASS_SCRIPTS with misc value 6953 .... and maybe move it to separate patch ) And triggering juggernaut spell (crit bonus) is IMO not related to aura 262 as well

Note that, at some point beween 2.2 and wotlk, the downranking formula has been changed. AFAIK Mangos still uses old formula.

Arena UnitID is NYI in mangos and addons for 3.x use it

Are you serious? The fact that db data are used only for "normal" spell damage and not spell specific (judgement is holy isn't it?) would render the table useless for most spells

better use delete/insert, because afaik REPLACE works only in Mysql

Which auras?

lol ... that's already mentioned above :-)

Then maybe incorrect (outdated) base HP ?