One Master to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Announcements, Important Things and other Cool Stuff

Moderator: Moderators

241 Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:30 pm

The chr(1) is probably implying packet #1

I think the buff[4] and buff[5] bytes represent a word value that is considered a "key".

The master echoes back the values supplied by the client.

Suppose you put in 0x1234 in the client packet that is sent to the master.

The client expects that value in the reply. This gives the client the potential
to discard spoofed replies.

The 00 66 bytes are curious - I was guessing it was an internal version number or
internal format identifier.
Last edited by bugs_ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bugs_
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 303

242 Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:31 pm

or001, your packet structure isn't up to specification: It's missing stuff and some things are just off.
User avatar
Crotalus
I DEMAND A TITLE!
 
Posts: 2833

243 Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:14 pm

Oh, but ... Crotalus, he spent a few minutes, and figured out the entire packet structure! Too bad you didn't, or you would know this.
NoFiXette
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2425

244 Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:53 pm

NoFiXette wrote:Oh, but ... Crotalus, he spent a few minutes, and figured out the entire packet structure! Too bad you didn't, or you would know this.


:rofl:
User avatar
Crotalus
I DEMAND A TITLE!
 
Posts: 2833

245 Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:03 pm

Crotalus wrote:or001, your packet structure isn't up to specification: It's missing stuff and some things are just off.


What specification are you referring to? I have not heard of any such specification.

Please, if you would be so kind, point out what you think the problems are and explain to us why you think so.

NoFiXette wrote:Oh, but ... Crotalus, he spent a few minutes, and figured out the entire packet structure! Too bad you didn't, or you would know this.


Oh, but.... I did spend more then a few minutes. I spent a few days working on this. I know, I know, it isn't anything close to the ten years you have been working on it...

All we are trying to do here is have an insightful conversation about packet structure and all you have to say is... Nice way to help out NoFiXette.

Seems like every time you open your mouth, you are showing us just how helpful you can be.

Anyways, I never claimed to know what every single byte in the master server packets were used for.

Do you know what every byte does? If so, why don't you enlighten us. Oh wise one.

buff[4] and buff[5] are just what bugs_ said. The client expects to get them back from the master.

The buff[5] is what is missing from the qstat request.

The reason I know this is because I built proxy server to relay the client request to and from the master server. By doing so, was able to capture the complete request from start to end.

buff[4] seems to be an unique ID of some sort
buff[5] seems to be a counter for the number of the request
at least it incremented by one with each request from my client.

buff[6] never seemed to change from 0x00
buff[7] never seemed to change from 0x66

So, I could not tell what exactly they did.

Again, I never claimed knowledge of each and every byte that the master server returned. Only that I understood what it took to make it work.
or001
Ensign
Ensign
 
Posts: 79

246 Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:39 pm

bugs_, you should follow that comment up with an explanation.

or001, yeah, well, if you would've spent a few more minutes, like everyone else did, you would've seen that game spy queries are different than t1client queries.

oh well, maybe if you google enough, you'll find the answers you're looking for.
NoFiXette
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2425

247 Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:49 pm

NoFiXette wrote:or001, yeah, well, if you would've spent a few more minutes, like everyone else did, you would've seen that game spy queries are different than t1client queries.


Where did I talk about game spy?

I have never mentioned anything about game spy queries. I have only talked about qstat, the T1 client and my home grown queries...

Show me where I talked about game spy please...
or001
Ensign
Ensign
 
Posts: 79

248 Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:21 pm

or001 wrote:Where did I talk about game spy?

I have never mentioned anything about game spy queries. I have only talked about qstat, the T1 client and my home grown queries...

Show me where I talked about game spy please...


qStat uses the gamespy query routines, does it not?
NoFiXette
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2425

249 Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:55 am

or001 wrote:(...)
buff[4] seems to be an unique ID of some sort
buff[5] seems to be a counter for the number of the request
at least it incremented by one with each request from my client.

buff[6] never seemed to change from 0x00
buff[7] never seemed to change from 0x66
(...)


i still dont get why you see every single byte as something different
robindegen
I ril pr0 men
 
Posts: 6698

250 Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:29 am

Even if I looked at buff[6] & buff[7] as a 2 byte char, it still never changes.

If one was to ass-u-me that you would calculated it like you would the port number, then you would come up with an int of 26112. Ok, now what this give us? Possibly a different calculation is needed perhaps...

buff[4] always seems to be a random int while..
buff[5] always seems to be a sequential number incrementing by 1 with each request made by the client.

If you would, show us why you think it is wrong. Tell us why you think they are 2 byte ints and what they mean/represent, instead of pointing fingers and not showing anything to back it up with.

This is to everybody, let YOUR code speak for itself. Give examples...
or001
Ensign
Ensign
 
Posts: 79

251 Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:53 pm

; MOTD Packet Header
MASTER_MOTD_HEADER STRUCT
bVersion BYTE 0 ; Query Protocol Version (Constant: 0x10)
bType BYTE 0 ; ResponseType (Master Server Response: 0x06)
bPacketID BYTE 0 ; Current Packet ID(Number)
bTotPacketCount BYTE 0 ; Total Packet Count
dwKey DWORD 0 ; key
MASTER_MOTD_HEADER ends

MASTER_HEADER STRUCT
bVersion BYTE 0 ; Query Protocol Version (Constant: 0x10)
bType BYTE 0 ; ResponseType (Master Server Response: 0x06)
bPacketID BYTE 0 ; Current Packet ID(Number)
bTotPacketCount BYTE 0 ; Total Packet Count
dwKey DWORD 0 ; key
wServerCount WORD 0 ; Packet-Based server count
MASTER_HEADER ends
NoFiXette
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2425

252 Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:33 am

Look guys, here's what all of you need to do:

You need to accept the fact that Crotalus and Nofix are right. Don't question them, don't ask them to prove why they're right, and don't make stupid arse posts towards them and what they say, because they are both 100% right in what they say.

Don't ask me why I say this, you won't get a reply. Just shut the hell up and listen to them (or don't write your own master, I think that's a better move).
WorstAim
sqrt(1000000)
 
Posts: 1341

253 Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:04 am

thets wat i sed



o sheht its worst..
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRST!!!!
User avatar
bob
Banned
 
Posts: 2575

254 Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:09 am

Crotalus wrote:or001, your packet structure isn't up to specification: It's missing stuff and some things are just off.


How can it not be up to specification when it is written 3 weeks ago and it uses the current format that my client uses?

Not sure, but would you then say that my client (which is running patch 1.11) is not up to spec?
or001
Ensign
Ensign
 
Posts: 79

255 Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:37 am

WorstAim wrote:or don't write your own master, I think that's a better move


One could have gambled that GG would come through. So far we got no juice from
that quarter so the bet that we'd have to do our own plan B is looking less like the
sucker bet.

The plug could be pulled at any moment and then everybody else will have to take this
more seriously. The latest rumors do not sound good for the A team.

Unless we all get demand letters to cease we now have a reasonable set of master
servers to keep the tribes 1 community going.
bugs_
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 303

256 Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:56 am

WorstAim wrote:You need to accept the fact that Crotalus and Nofix are right.


Not without proof! Sorry, but I am one of those scientific type of people. I need to have things proven to me before I will believe in it.

WorstAim wrote:Don't question them, don't ask them to prove why they're right, and don't make stupid arse posts towards them and what they say, because they are both 100% right in what they say.


I have the right to question anything that I want. Where did I make a "stupid arse" post? Please point it out... I cannot believe, and I bet they would agree, that they are right 100% of the time.

WorstAim wrote:Don't ask me why I say this, you won't get a reply.


I do not care why you say it or if you don't care to reply. Why don't you try asking nicely? You will usually get better results by ASKING and not TELLING! Didn't your mother teach you that? It works wonders with my kids, maybe it will work here...

WorstAim wrote:Just shut the hell up and listen to them (or don't write your own master, I think that's a better move).


For starters, you're TELLING me what to do. Bad approach. I live in a free world, don't you? I can write a master server if I want. Especially if I feel the community will benefit from me doing so.
or001
Ensign
Ensign
 
Posts: 79

257 Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 am

or001 wrote:
WorstAim wrote:You need to accept the fact that Crotalus and Nofix are right.


Not without proof! Sorry, but I am one of those scientific type of people. I need to have things proven to me before I will believe in it.

Lets see, NoFix is one of the persons who knows most about tribes and its engine and he has proven that many times before.

WorstAim wrote:Don't question them, don't ask them to prove why they're right, and don't make stupid arse posts towards them and what they say, because they are both 100% right in what they say.


I have the right to question anything that I want. Where did I make a "stupid arse" post? Please point it out... I cannot believe, and I bet they would agree, that they are right 100% of the time.

Forums aren't a democracy...

WorstAim wrote:Don't ask me why I say this, you won't get a reply.


I do not care why you say it or if you don't care to reply. Why don't you try asking nicely? You will usually get better results by ASKING and not TELLING! Didn't your mother teach you that? It works wonders with my kids, maybe it will work here...

Get over it, nofix is right, he always was and always will be if it's about tribes.

WorstAim wrote:Just shut the hell up and listen to them (or don't write your own master, I think that's a better move).


For starters, you're TELLING me what to do. Bad approach. I live in a free world, don't you? I can write a master server if I want. Especially if I feel the community will benefit from me doing so.

Actually don't be so sure if you can write a master. Maybe sierra licensed the protocol...
User avatar
BART_SIMPSON416
Homerbane4000
 
Posts: 2207

258 Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:31 am

you cant lisence protocols that use tcp or udp bart. They can forbid the reverse engineering of it though.
robindegen
I ril pr0 men
 
Posts: 6698

259 Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:39 pm

or001 wrote:Not without proof! Sorry, but I am one of those scientific type of people. I need to have things proven to me before I will believe in it.

I have the right to question anything that I want. Where did I make a "stupid arse" post? Please point it out... I cannot believe, and I bet they would agree, that they are right 100% of the time.

I do not care why you say it or if you don't care to reply. Why don't you try asking nicely? You will usually get better results by ASKING and not TELLING! Didn't your mother teach you that? It works wonders with my kids, maybe it will work here...

For starters, you're TELLING me what to do. Bad approach. I live in a free world, don't you? I can write a master server if I want. Especially if I feel the community will benefit from me doing so.


You must not know 'bout me.

Look man, sometimes it just comes down to the fact that you have to trust strangers on the internet. Trust me when I say they have it hammered out, and they've got it right (sometimes internet strangers know more than you do about situations). Don't worry about it.
WorstAim
sqrt(1000000)
 
Posts: 1341

260 Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:39 pm

robindegen wrote:you cant lisence protocols that use tcp or udp bart. They can forbid the reverse engineering of it though.


You can license methods though. While the transport itself might not be licensed the contents of the packet might be licensed.
User avatar
BART_SIMPSON416
Homerbane4000
 
Posts: 2207

PreviousNext

Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron