Author Topic: DLL Patch (Can someone please explain) (Read 2771 times)

Faithless_Sniper · « **on:** August 04, 2006, 11:47:04 am »

Sorry to be so understanding but can someone please explain how the DLL patch works. I understand how the Hosts file patch works but i just do not understand how a DLL file can change the way WinMX works.

I would have asked KM but everytime i try and speak to him he is either offline or busy or for that matter i am busy.

KM · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2006, 12:37:48 pm »

winmx does a DNS lookup by calling the gethostbyname() function in winsock, all the patch does is modify the import tables in winmx so the address of that function is changed, so it instead calls my replacement function (which just happens to be named n_gethstbyname() in the source), then my function calls the original but instead of looking up the winmx.com hostname it looks up one of the new winmxgroup hostnames, then it returns the result to winmx - as far as winmx is concerned it looked up one of the original hostnames then it got an answer

that's the basic redirecting to the caches anyway, the various other features of the patch work in the same sort of way but by replacing a load of different functions instead (for example replacing accept() so when a connection is accepted the patch can close it before returning the socket to winmx, to effectively block it)

Faithless_Sniper · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2006, 01:17:12 pm »

Thank you ever so much KM that as helped i did think it would be something like that but i was not sure so i thought i would ask.

~~Josh~~ · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:32:31 pm »

What about how the fast channel listing and fake file blocker works?

Faithless_Sniper · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:52:27 pm »

yeah that would also help as my understanding of WinMX since the crash is at a all time low. All i know is that the method we use know works and is far better than WinMX was i keep trying to get users back to WinMX but i can not get them back quick enough.

KM · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2006, 08:03:55 pm »

erm, in the same way... it just intercepts a load of functions, for example when winmx goes to receive data using recv() it calls a function from the patch instead, which receives data from the real socket, and in the case of the filtering it only passes some of it to winmx, and in the case of the fast list it passes it to winmx along with additional data - of course adjusting for the encryption each time as soon as it modifies any data the encryption gets out of sync as the winmx on each end has a different record of what has been sent/received so it keeps track of the difference and compensates

filtering on primary is much easier though as it just uses a single UDP packet for each result from recvfrom gets an entire packet as input, and simply either passes it on to winmx or doesn't and doesn't need to worry about keeping track of encryption differences or packet fragmentation or anything like that

fast list gets the extra data for injecting in to the data before passing to winmx by downloading it from a webserver from the URL http://fastlist.winmxgroup.com/list.txt (currently hosted off of pegasus) - you'll notice that it uses a similar format to the fastlist plugin for nushi even though it isn't very efficient or very easy to deal with - just opens up more options for contingencies (even though the list isn't completely compatible with the nushi plugin so it won't take my list, the patch can take the plugins original format without a problem)

Faithless_Sniper · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2006, 08:28:04 pm »

umm sounds good i think i understand a tiny bit more about the new WinMX Network. I have one more question if thats ok KM what is to stop the RIAA/MPAA from shutting down the new servers. I know some people will not want to hear this but i certainly do.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2006, 08:38:23 pm »

problem #1 they'd have is riaAmerica & mpaAmerica would have to be closing servers which don't reside IN America.. could cause a slight international incident....

Faithless_Sniper · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2006, 09:23:47 pm »

oh right so it would be posible but they will not do it because of International laws lol i love this goverment in ways. Bearded Blunder i have seen your name posting very technical posts you do seem to know what you are talking about.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2006, 10:22:39 pm »

I'm only a poor little half-geek (to tune of i'm only a poor little sparrow)
KM is the one that knows stuff.. i just blunder my way through

Faithless_Sniper · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2006, 07:44:17 am »

Well you both helped me and thats all that counts.

KM · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2006, 11:18:35 am »

it's quite simple... why/how could they anyway? they never closed down the original ones, frontcode did that - there is nothing illegal about a peer cache in any country

however there is of course the possibility of them doing the same sort of thing that they did to TPB and convincing a government with threats to launch an illegal raid and shut down a completely legal operation, however that is why the servers are located in multiple countries - there is no way they could get all of those governments to do it, and if they don't get them all then there is no point in getting any

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2006, 05:20:49 pm »

Plus the caches are in a country where the US is very unlkely to put any pressure on the government

KM · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2006, 06:29:50 pm »

the caches are in multiple countries, rocks is located in the US, as is the server hosting the main website (not currently running a cache on that server though due to technical difficulties) and an additional cache which will be on shortly will also be US based... then there are caches in england and germany (as well as one in ireland but that will be going shortly, along with one of the german ones)

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2006, 02:34:47 pm »

Wel, yes there are caches in many countries, but I was talking mostly about your's as they have maximum traffic. This will make it difficult for the Riaa and also the fact that the US is not likely to bully them like they did to Sweden.

Cheers

KM · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2006, 03:12:04 pm »

erm, those are my caches... except rocks which isn't mine...

SamSeeSam · « **Reply #16 on:** August 06, 2006, 03:30:27 pm »

Yes all except rock's are your yours.... I must have mentioned that, my mistake Sorry ... Well, I won't forget to mention that from now on . I promise...

Cheers