Oh come on, at least use IDA Pro when you use a program to extract ASM.

OMG No way. You are like the coolest person ever. SOE better watch thier backs now....

/end sarcasm

First of all, I was trying to be a gentleman about it and tried to compliment you on the skills that you have. But, I see you those compliments are beneath you as you refuse to accept them.

Comments on the source you provided:
1) What I see in that code is basically a assembly dump (in C form) of the code. The only place there is any thing useful, is where you find the raw strings being pushed onto the stack before function calls:
(save)"============================";
(save)4492544;
L0040381F(L004031EC());
2) What you posted hardly qualifies as "decoded" in my eyes, it is not much more useful (if at all) than the raw assembly from a disassembler.
3) Nor does it come close to compiling (at least on Linux). It produces 2235 lines of errors/warnings during compile.

Good luck in your endeavors. But, honestly, if you wanted to recreate MiniLogin source, starting from a decompilation of the .exe is not where I'd start. The protocol is not exactly hard to figure out. Plus, if you'd look at a tcpdump of the interaction, you'd easily see that it is not "encoded" whatsoever.

No... That just made sense of the unpacking =)

If I had access to your most sensitive information, you infrastructure, your venerabilities, if it were all worth more than about 5 million dollars, I bet I could say the same about you too =)

Thats a little higher up than just a disassemble to be honest...

The only thing that needs to be done to make it work, is to do the ass-numbingly boring part of creating a bunch of files according file mapper, (you know the .h files) and splitting that .cpp file down into separate files putting the correct calls in the right file names (like 0023DFRsomerediculious.name)

I kind of doubt it when a quick google search can produce the same code you posted.

Reverse Engineering Decompiler

Also, that doesn't compile. It just doesn't. It produces a C-like code, so you know what's going on when reverse engineering. If you really wanna get the source code, watch packets with Wireshark, dump the packets, create a program which can interpret the packets, because as doodman said, they arn't encrypted.

Simple as that, you need to code from ground up. If you wanna do that? Good for you, just respect other's wishes. I hate when people think they are badass over the internet, especially admins/sysops, because chances are they arn't trustworthy.

I don't see how this explains deleting an entire thread that would have benefited the community greatly.

You do know there is no "one" decompiler for cpp right? =S

The communications I agree is very open going to the login server. However just sniffing the signals and interpretors will not give you enough info to reconstruct the mini-login server as *caugh* the server gives different responses to some of the same things indicating some kind of custom hand-shake.

I'm aware of that; It's just silly to go about this way.

You're threatening a community with a google search, pretty much.

No... Most of the decompilers out there are searchable on Google, but this program does NOT decompile like you said.

Like you reiterated I said, it does make sense of the code after the disassemble.

Again find the threat, or are you one of those gullible and mentally challenged ones that easily falls to one word of slander?

Well, for some odd reason, I just forsee you as no real threat to SOE. I really dont think you could cause them lots of suffering with your knowledge of thier networks. You said officer right, not administrator....

Furthermore, if your so knowledgable about thier networks, why in the world would you be decomiling the mini-login of all things, and then talking about how its going to cripple servers if someone else with bad intentions did the same thing. Do you understand that there is a different type of crypto on the LS, as well (you should know) on SOE servers. Now sure, the super cool hacker could come in and cause havok on my little 1 person minilogin. Im really worried about some major security breach like that happening.

I never claimed to know that part of their code.

There are some things they horde very closely, things that only 4 people in this world know lol... Their login server and game server mechanics are one of them. I never had access to that code sadly.

But am I a threat? I very well could be -or- lets say, I have the potential to be.

A grand-daddy long-legs is hardly a threat to us, your kids play with them, however if their fangs were 1 mm loger they would be the greatest threat to man kind.

Get me a pc worthy of breaking 1mbit encryption and I'll be come one of the greatest threats to SoE... And the US Government for that matter. Hell everyone for that matter... lol someone able to break that kind of encryption, thats even scary to me, but I think the hint is quite clear.

Not really. See image's post.

1) Most routers (that cost more than the $5 ones from wal mart) are capable of doing at least basic packet filtering. So, I stand by my previous statement that any router should reject the packet.

2) It was humor. Lighten the **** up.

3) If the things I've heard about Navy sailors on subs are true... Madonna should feel perfectly secure on their sub (yes, even in a thong)

4) Any Navy sailors IRL that just got offended by #3... see #2

As for it being decompiled, yeah, it is able to be decompiled. No question about that. What was the dev team supposed to do, asprotect it in 2000?

My point being, you posted something anyone can access, not an actual workable source. Hence it being the fabled decompiled minilogin, not the minilogin source.

If you want to impress us, don't try and reverse engineer minilogin, play by the rules and just help out on the project, and use that skill to progress the emulator. Surely there's some functions still to be found in eqgame, right?

LOL @ RangerDown no, they don't forcefeed saltpeter any more =P That was made illegal by the UCMJ about 10 years ago.

The objective was not to impress, it was an attempt to "open source" the entire project with little effort.

I do not have the time or patience any more to construct a cpp program from ground up. I can look at the code and figure out a mistake or bug fix, ask KLS, but I'm simply not patient enough any more to sit and code from ground up... IF someone wants to sniff those packets and figure out what's going on, and assimilate that, go for it... However I must say I'm a big non-supporter of emulating and emulator of a program.

Now, here is the point...
1) The source has been cracked.
2) I was told it could not be done by several people
3) The code IS VERY intelleagable after being told it was impossible.
4) I was told I found "Nothing", so the "nothing" of a source of what was cracked was posted for any with intermediate cpp backgrounds to have a hay-day with being its "nothing" and being I don't have the patients to do it =).