Model Editing Detect0r

[Cypher]

If I can write a program in 12 lines of code that is able to detect whether model edits are being used, why can't Blizzard?

DL: Filebeam - Free Fast File Hosting
VT: Virustotal. MD5: 25e6e46a493133968f6a08ac58098ce4
.

If you are using model edits, this program will notify you.
This application is provided for entertainment purposes only. (And as a Proof of Concept of how easy it is for Blizzard to detect model editing?)

Its not that they "can't". Even if they wanted to though, I assume you're just checking the value of the global debug variable? Sorry but there's a little more to it than that.

[kynox]

If I can write a program in 12 lines of code that is able to detect whether model edits are being used, why can't Blizzard?

DL: Filebeam - Free Fast File Hosting
VT: Virustotal. MD5: 25e6e46a493133968f6a08ac58098ce4
.

If you are using model edits, this program will notify you.
This application is provided for entertainment purposes only. (And as a Proof of Concept of how easy it is for Blizzard to detect model editing?)

You realise that Blizzard has shown no intentions of actually banning someone for changing something such as your player model?

This program is useless and i take no precautions to hide the fact that you are model editing, never have.

[Cypher]

You realise that Blizzard has shown no intentions of actually banning someone for changing something such as your player model?

This program is useless and i take no precautions to hide the fact that you are model editing, never have.

^This.

Pretty much my unwritten elaboration on the "there's more to it than that" remark. There are uses for model editing they don't want to stop (machinima?), others they don't care about (cosmetic) and some they do (exploiting). I must say though, it would be nice if the BG exploiters or instance exploiters got a beating with the ban stick.

And yes, at the op:
Noone said it couldn't be detected (or at least, noone with a clue), so pointless thread is pointless.

[bind]

Sigh, this thread is filled with a truckload of fail.

It's rather ignorant to make the blind assumption blizzard lacks the ability to detect model editing. The deterrents in place are just that nothing more... As mentioned before, Blizzard quite simply, doesn't give a crap. They could very easily implement other routines for detecting model editing but why?

As I recall, Blizzard only started flipping out about model editing when people started removing the gates from BG's and such.

I realize your 'proof of concept' was just an example but, I find it amusing you feel the answer to the "problem" is as simple as checking for the existence of an executable in a static location, in the wow directory. I'd post your script, but I've caught shit for doing that in the past.

[Cypher]

Sigh, this thread is filled with a truckload of fail.

It's rather ignorant to make the blind assumption blizzard lacks the ability to detect model editing. The deterrents in place are just that nothing more... As mentioned before, Blizzard quite simply, doesn't give a crap. They could very easily implement other routines for detecting model editing but why?

As I recall, Blizzard only started flipping out about model editing when people started removing the gates from BG's and such.

I realize your 'proof of concept' was just an example but, I find it amusing you feel the answer to the "problem" is as simple as checking for the existence of an executable in a static location, in the wow directory. I'd post your script, but I've caught shit for doing that in the past.

AHAHAHA.

I didn't run an API check or reverse it to see how it works (didn't even bother looking caus its ****en pointless), but that's win. I assumed he'd at LEAST be doing a memory scan but all he's doing is looking for a file in the WoW directory??

@The OP:
You are officially a noob (and retarded to boot for assuming that is a legitimate detection method).

[bind]

AHAHAHA.

I didn't run an API check or reverse it to see how it works (didn't even bother looking caus its ****en pointless), but that's win. I assumed he'd at LEAST be doing a memory scan but all he's doing is looking for a file in the WoW directory??

Sigh, sadly yes, He's checking for the file "WoWME.exe" located in the base installation directory, he's then checking the file size, and if it's greater than 100 bytes, it flags his result "WoWME Found". So any file named "WoWME.exe" located in the base install directory > 100 bytes will set his check off. He's also doing a count of MPQ files in the /data/ directory and if you add an additional MPQ to that folder (Default MPQ count: 5 in the base Data directory.), it also flags the result "Modelchangeing" (Yes, it's spelled just like that..)

[Cypher]

Sigh, sadly yes, He's checking for the file "WoWME.exe" located in the base installation directory, he's then checking the file size, and if it's greater than 100 bytes, it flags his result "WoWME Found". So any file named "WoWME.exe" located in the base install directory > 100 bytes will set his check off. He's also doing a count of MPQ files in the /data/ directory and if you add an additional MPQ to that folder (Default MPQ count: 5 in the base Data directory.), it also flags the result "Modelchangeing" (Yes, it's spelled just like that..)

That is pure win, rofl.

[infinity007]

Sigh, sadly yes, He's checking for the file "WoWME.exe" located in the base installation directory, he's then checking the file size, and if it's greater than 100 bytes, it flags his result "WoWME Found". So any file named "WoWME.exe" located in the base install directory > 100 bytes will set his check off. He's also doing a count of MPQ files in the /data/ directory and if you add an additional MPQ to that folder (Default MPQ count: 5 in the base Data directory.), it also flags the result "Modelchangeing" (Yes, it's spelled just like that..)

Because that, its small like this :P.
And iknow that Blizzard could easy programming a "Anticheat Software" much better like this.

[Cypher]

Because that, its small like this :P.
And iknow that Blizzard could easy programming a "Anticheat Software" much better like this.

No, what you wrote is not "anti-cheat software". Any piece of software that implemented a method such as the one you use to detect cheats would throw so many false positives it could only be classified as "retarded software". It does not detect cheating, it detects the presence of files that may or may not be used, that is NOT an acceptable way to detect cheats, you are NOT allowed to guess about that kind of stuff because you WILL get it wrong and then there will be a mighty shitstorm.

Not only that, but look at what happened when it was revealed ages ago that warden hashed window titles. It just hashed them and checked a list, didn't send back ANY identifiable information. And what happened?

OMFG WARDENS LOOKING FOR MY PR0NZ!
OMG WARDEN IS REEDIN MAH EMAILZ!
OMG TEH WARDEN HAX MY COMPUTAHZ!!!

Please take this thread down, its not helpful to anyone, its just plain retarded.