Author Topic: Re: Urban Dictionary for Metis (non related debate) (Read 21144 times)

RebelMX · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2010, 07:47:20 pm »

Well to clear up the issue, there is no "reload" command as it was a trial command to test. There was no need to add a reload command as it was never meant for anyone but me.

I'm afraid this has nothing about ego's etc. I won't openly apologize to "the community" on the wmw forum as if noone has even tried, tested or used the software i have nothing to say sorry about. The commands were removed as soon as they were spotted therefore it affect 1 release which cannot even be d/l'ed any more to avoid people accidentally getting it for proper hosting on (if anyone wants a copy to compare to other version or to play with etc please contact me).

As for releasing sourcecodes, I have no intention on doing this; the same as fx, es and zcs aren't public either. I do not know my current legal standings on releasing the src publicly, and don't intend on breaching copyright protection, as those at WinMx World are so keen to highlight that you don't support this.

White Stripes · « **Reply #21 on:** August 03, 2010, 08:36:52 pm »

Quote

I won't openly apologize to "the community" on the wmw forum as if noone has even tried, tested or used the software i have nothing to say sorry about.

"the community" is anyone who uses the WPN whether or not they ever make use of your server in any form or fashion or not... hidden back doors can still affect them the same as anyone else...

...and you never addressed the "owned" message...

RebelMX · « **Reply #22 on:** August 03, 2010, 08:56:13 pm »

The "owned" message was a joke and was to test that i could delete and replace the config text with new text (i.e. old config with a new config file with the extra commands/passwords etc). Like i said, it was a private joke, the actual text I believe was "pwned" not "owned" so it wasn't anywhere near a direct comment AT anyone, merely a phrase or sentence to prove the replacement of text had occurred in my test.

-- edit --
My mistake the actual wording was "owned" but same difference, it was confirmation that the test was successful.

GhostShip · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2010, 10:19:43 pm »

I copied the words straight out of your release Ritchy so I was pretty confident they where the right ones

I still fail to see how if you added a remote delete config command that you would fail to add a remote reload config command, it seems that once again your just not prepared to apologise to anyone you have offended or upset by your openly wrong actions, you have my sympathies for not being as mature as I thought you where.

I wont ban you from here Ritchy I think you have had enough time in the shadows for your "upset" but expect to see mention of this topic whenever you ask folks to trust you, you do yourself no service by acting so poorly.

For those who want to check Ritchys releases for themselves can I suggest that you first "unpack" the exe file with PE Explorer and then you can look through the strings with a simple hex editor or for the more professional amongst you IDa Pro. I can say that at this time I believe the releases are fine but I cant hold my hand on my heart and say that is 100% guaranteed or that this will remain the case in any future release.

Pri · « **Reply #24 on:** August 04, 2010, 12:52:45 am »

Coming back to the RCUKICK command. You mention this doesn't appear in the chat, in the server window or the chat logs and your reasoning for this is that chat logs are published and you wouldn't want new configs being shown inside the chat log which may be published by the administrators. My question here is, when users login to the server the password they use is logged in the chat log file as /login <blah blah> in plain view. Did you change your server not to log logins unlike the default WCS?

Quote from: gypsyroadhog on August 03, 2010, 06:02:04 pm

Well said Richy
Also why would you think some1 would spend loads of hours into creating this
Then want those who use it to have their rooms killed....that done make sence 1 bit
I suppose those here who have ever made a script have never made a genuine error
Ive known Richy a while now and he is a cool guy and will help any1

Based on the way that the code was implemented and hidden he could enter your room and kick anyone he wants and you would never know why. No kicking would be logged, shown in the server window or the chat. For all you knew, your room was crashing or users internet connections had failed. Why would someone add such a feature? Probably for personal entertainment to use it against friends or maybe maliciously against rivals or general users who may be using the server. I'm not saying this is what happened I'm just giving you a logical reason in how it could be added and no one would never know anyway.

RebelMX · « **Reply #25 on:** August 04, 2010, 07:23:10 pm »

As previously stated Pri it was simply a test command to see if i could run commands through the server without them appearing, due to the rather harsh feedback I got when the commands were spotted, while they had been built into a previous version but were correctly commented out, the feature was never continued and the entire section where these test commands was deleted to ensure no further errors happened, and i also changed my testing style. Now i have a testing define built into the server which if its not defined all test commands are disabled. Clearly this is simpler but not having the knowledge about defines means development has improved safely.

As you stated Pri the commands could of been added to hijack the server however what use are the protect and no protect commands remotely? why bother adding them? Seems a fair bit of hard work to cover up some otherwise obvious commands which would be used against hosts who are using my rswcs, so again this would be ridiculous to attack a winmx user who is using my server what gain is there there?

Quicks, I'm sorry if you personally don't believe me, but I've provided ample explanations for each and every command as well as background information on the development of the server and my own background. Therefore I believe I've been open with each and every person who has queried these commands, and any continuation or defamation of the server on your part can only be as a personal vendetta. Feel free to unpack the server's, I'm happy to provide unpacked versions even, since the only reason they are compress is to reduce the sizes from around 400Kb to closer to 80Kb. Something most programmers also do/did including KM with his WCS releases. As you have the WCS sourcecodes, try compiling one of the more recent versions and look at the size of it in comparison to the KM released versions.

Pri · « **Reply #26 on:** August 04, 2010, 09:52:14 pm »

What I meant by my previous post was, you said you hid the commands from the log incase the admins published their log, so my question was if logins are shown in the log and opmsg and many other things then what is the need to hide this command from the log but not others? If you are protecting admins shouldn't everything be hidden? I'm just working off the explanation you gave originally.

GhostShip · « **Reply #27 on:** August 04, 2010, 11:10:05 pm »

Quote

I believe I've been open with each and every person who has queried these commands, and any continuation or defamation of the server on your part can only be as a personal vendetta.

Dont be a hypocrite Ritchy I have lost count of the amount of times you have defamed both me personally and WMW, you most certainly have not been open or even helpful when answers where asked for in the first instance when these commands where discovered, hopefully that can change but that's down to you recognising the scope of your character flaw.

When anyone attempts to subvert or destroy the WinMX community I always make it a personal vendetta, I will always have plenty of time to make folks aware of your short-comings and poor judgement, a guy that feels he is too big to apologise for the impact or offence he has caused by his own admittedly poor actions is beneath contempt and I would be proud to warn folks to steer clear of such a person and anything they had a hand in.

I had to laugh at your pretentious attempt to portray yourself as like KM, he unlike yourself wrote all his own programs and shared them, you have never developed anything yourself that I know of and we can all only continue to guess why you wont share anything and why you continue to use an exe packer when its not really necessary.
You might like to think I don't know about your room to room scaremongering each time you located a new exploit that could be used to bully folks onto your modified WCS, yes Ritchy Raven might not be around to call you out but I will always be here to do so and until you clean up your act and your attitude I'll be happy to let folks know what sort of guy you are, make no mistake I will be watching over your shoulder for as long as you remain a potential threat to the community.

I hope this is the response you wanted as you have been given plenty of opportunity to apologise and its clear to me your far too important (in your own mind) to ever understand the impart of the words "trust" or "honour". I leave the door open to others to let you know whether they trust you but I make it clear here that I wont trust anyone who puts themselves before the entire community.

reef · « **Reply #28 on:** August 05, 2010, 01:40:12 am »

Quote from: GhostShip on August 04, 2010, 11:10:05 pm

You might like to think I don't know about your room to room scaremongering each time you located a new exploit that could be used to bully folks onto your modified WCS, yes Ritchy Raven might not be around to call you out but I will always be here to do so and until you clean up your act and your attitude I'll be happy to let folks know what sort of guy you are, make no mistake I will be watching over your shoulder for as long as you remain a potential threat to the community.

You won't be alone quicks

RebelMX · « **Reply #29 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:15:18 am »

Pri, the idea was to fully hide all private information but that never happened. Maybe it will one day.

Quicks, when the commands were discovered I was not even given a chance to explain, if you read back through the thread at the time you can see that, unfortunately I can't be online all the time and real life takes priority for me as with many users.
I don't think you will find I have defamed wmw or you in any thread post or forum. Would love to see otherwise.
I don't portray myself like KM, I just demonstrate how I am continuing his work, using the very same processes and programs he used. Once again you have tried to shine the light on my "dubious" character, however I cannot be that bad since many many of my metis scripts have and still are used, some hosts still use RSWCS. That time your wasting trying to tell the community about my "character flaws" and "warn[ing] folks to steer clear" you could be spending it developing a new winmx clone as you keep stating your working on, or even correcting documentation that clearly has never even been read over. You pretend you know the in's and out's of the protocol but can't even pick on on a mistake that's pretty significant to the chat protocol, makes me wonder how many more there might be...

Pri · « **Reply #30 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:42:06 am »

Quote from: RebelMX on August 05, 2010, 05:15:18 am

Pri, the idea was to fully hide all private information but that never happened. Maybe it will one day.

May I make a suggestion if you do add this feature. Instead of removing the stuff from the log you set it so users can have 2 logs. One with all information intact and one that omits all connection info, user logins, opmsg etc something that is clean to post publicly. I think that would be more flexible and I believe users would want that more so they can keep there opmsg and other data intact for themselves and still publish public logs.

White Stripes · « **Reply #31 on:** August 05, 2010, 06:22:39 am »

is it just me or does it seem as if pri's questions get skipped around a little....

Bieb · « **Reply #32 on:** August 05, 2010, 07:55:14 am »

Quote from: RebelMX on August 05, 2010, 05:15:18 am

That time your wasting trying to tell the community about my "character flaws" and "warn[ing] folks to steer clear" you could be spending it developing a new winmx clone as you keep stating your working on, or even correcting documentation that clearly has never even been read over. You pretend you know the in's and out's of the protocol but can't even pick on on a mistake that's pretty significant to the chat protocol, makes me wonder how many more there might be...

At least ghostship is actually working on a replacement client (something that will actually be useful) as there are multiple chat servers so further development on them is not really needed at this time... But I guess since you don't actually do anything but copy and paste KM's code into your projects and as there is no KM-made clone client it must not be possible for you to make one yourself as it would involve learning.

And I think you have it wrong, the more time YOU spend criticizing ghostship the more time he has to waste correcting the false statements you make on here, and with your suspicious activities (publicly discussing the illegal act of dosing chat rooms offline) in your chat room along with king nut, and the psychopath named rreactor (that needs professional help) the more your reputation will be hurt and the more people look at you and your software as unsafe.

Even your comment about other potential exploits in the protocol makes it look like you're just looking for new ways to mess with people.

GhostShip · « **Reply #33 on:** August 05, 2010, 08:07:41 am »

I,m pretty disappointed with Ritchy, but to give him his due he has got one thing clear I should not have to waste time watching over him ,however lots of time has already been lost as someone has to look over his releases for further exploits, I had hoped he would after all this time simply say "sorry folks" but it seems he is not up to even that task and more of the valuable time I need will once again be wasted in the future, I had hoped to see an apology that would signal the drawing of a line in the sand, cheers for nothing Ritchy.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 05, 2010, 08:27:59 am »

Now, if those 'test' commands, had been something more innocuous, like changing colors, or changing the appearance of admins tags, or some other harmless thing, mebbe nobody would have cared, but test commands which are potentially damaging or lethal just kinda dont make a lotta sense

Its like saying we gotta test this bomb by killing lots of people...

2 lil words, Richy, would go a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to helping to restore your cred

I know that you won't like bein pushed to use 'em, no-one does when caught out, its part of denying ANY wrongdoing, real or otherwise, but it happens...

A wiser man than me has said before, that it is a VERY big man that can say, 'I was wrong, and I am sorry'

But boyoboyoboy, it does a LOT of wonder for the respect people have for you!

RebelMX · « **Reply #35 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:57:56 pm »

Sorry Simba, but I think you have the wrong end of the stick entirely. The comment about the protocol was about protocol documentation NOT the actual protocol, as I clearly stated. You read what you want to see instead of the words on the screen. Also, if you had tried, tested or even lurked in a RSWCS room you'd know many features are totally independent of any KM program. Also, almost all routers have dos blocking built in so the discussion of theory of how pc's works is not illegal, more to the point, neither is the discussion of most illegal activities anyway.

Stripes, which question was missed? I answered them all, hence why Pri understood and replied rather than repeating any missed questions.
And Pri I do agree a clean and normal version are probably best, but i may add it as a config option (set to on by default) to allow hosts to turn the feature on/off/both.

Finally Bluey. Bluey Bluey Bluey... I have said sorry to the people i need to, just because your weren't one of that (seemingly) select group, don't get all bum-hurt over it. Most developers will know that at the beginning it takes time to pick up new languages and the way I was compiling the program was a little naive with test commands in maybe. If you want to pick through the unpacked server commands, you'll notice there was a new colour code in the server for many versions before it was fully released (changing colours as you describe it) and there is even changed RSWCS tags code in there too that noone has picked up on yet either. There are test features to display packets received in the chat window and all sorts of other information that noone has spotted or complained about, all of which are legitimate stuff the same as the commands. Difference is noone can pretend those features arent genuine test features and really "backdoor takeover commands or features" as some of you guys have implied. Yet with all those test features in the programs its still tiny due to the use of the compress which can easily be decompressed as all it does is condense the code to make the file smaller it hides nothing. Therefore the reason people trust me, is because I TRY. Something the community has yet to see from you. Your quick to complain but can you check over the RSWCS executable and then say sorry to me "big man"?

GhostShip · « **Reply #36 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:58:11 pm »

*yawn* look more pigs have flown by folks

Someone here is simply wasting our time, they wont apologise because they have a list of everyone they offended and no one here is on that list it seems, they then go on to admit they where exposing folks rooms to attack with their poor or malicious coding ( no one is sure just what is the truth), and now they want to convice you all that your blind, stupid, and owe them an apology, and btw it wasnt them you all saw visiting your rooms talking of exploits that could crash the chats you use unless you used their offering, when something stinks so badly we dont need directions to the source.

RebelMX · « **Reply #37 on:** August 05, 2010, 07:19:43 pm »

LOL thats actually funny. So glad you still have your sense of humor to console yourself with.
Unlike you Quicks I have personal contact with people I help and support, without the need to feel that posting on 1 single forum will count as a sorry to people affected. Instead I apologized to each and every host and advised them to upgrade off the broken server. Therefore, yes i feel my "list" is likely to be as complete as a wmw blocklist shall we say

now we can hardly say the blocklist is incomplete so therefore my apologies are over.

Noone owes me an apology in the winmx community Quicks except you for trying and failing to attempt to make this small accident which was swiftly fixed, into a personal attack at me and my character, since this is no longer about the program but now about me in your previous post. I offer you the chance to check over an unpacked copy of the program, in pm I have offered you or any other member of the wmw admins the opportunity to test my new version I am working on, and due to the lack of issues you have lowered yourself to judging me on the small snippets you have seen or even heresay on what I have done.
Forget it Quicks. If any member of the community, programmer, newbie or wmw admin, wants to test or look over the RSWCS executable please contact me directly and I will do my best to get you a copy of the relevant version asap (including the new test version I'm working on). Theres not much fairer offer I can do really? Still believe I'm hiding something or am unscrupulous? Don't see wmw handing out copies of the cache software, patch sourcecodes or hidden "core" protocol discussions!

White Stripes · « **Reply #38 on:** August 05, 2010, 08:25:43 pm »

sure... a full list of undocumented commands (and their functions) in the 'release' versions and the prototype commands (and function... or at least function goal if command function is incomplete) in the dev versions...

RebelMX · « **Reply #39 on:** August 05, 2010, 09:03:01 pm »

There are no other commands other than those mentioned previously in this thread which were totally removed, all other debug additions are all additional information posted into the chat window (check the 1.9.3 release, 1.9.4 change log where it was removed, where the debug line was outside a testing define and made it into the final release) into separate debug files, or even into the chatroom.

Would you like examples?

Quote

   #ifdef __TESTING
      char temp[1024];
      if (ClientList[client].type != 0xFDE8)
      {
         sprintf(temp, "Type: [ 0x%04X ] Length: [ %u ]", ClientList[client].type, ClientList[client].got);
         Console(temp);
         #ifdef WIN32
            LogText(temp);
         #endif
      }
   #endif

Hopefully this makes sense to you Stripes if not feel free to ask the audience or phone a friend

This is a clear example of some test/debug information that most developers use. Currently there are only about 5 uses of the __TESTING define and 1 use of a custom define to produce a test version for Sean to use to assist with his client. This is due to RSWCS now being almost at its final point as far as new features are concerned. There are some tests being carried out on the latest version to ensure stability and each feature works as intended as well as no buffer overflows etc. Prior versions probably had a few more test features but since the sources of them are archived away and mostly history I don't have direct access to them currently.

In order to create many of the features or improvements as well as bug fixes, it often meant testing pieces of code before actually using it, which sometimes spanned releases on the more complex features. That is why the __TESTING define was used within RSWCS to enable sections of code to remain in the sourcecode without them appearing and causing exploitable codes and errors in the full release.