EQClassic's Source Code - Page 2

**Shin Noir** · #1 10-09-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harakiri23

believe what you want, you have live data and real dumps - those do not exist for the old client - furthermore you cant tell me it *isnt* to hard to find structs with 20-30 members when you know NOTHING of them

seriously, what you have is totally different from what eqc has - you have live server packet dumps - you can login to live and check what the client does when the server sents X - eqc cant do that

dont try to belittle this, this is one of the good reason why to keep things closed

Ok, I have no idea where all this talk came from, but before you get up in arms, let's review here:

We're comparing keeping a project closed vs. open. We are saying, if the source is written for the server, and being served to a general population that can then be packet sniffed, the difficulty of doing this is not going to be HUGELY VASTLY MORE DIFFICULT than it is if you have access to the source. The server is broadcasting them after all, if you simply have the time to sit down and isolate what packets go where, you can figure it out. Eventually.

Doing this isn't going to be super easy. But it isn't going to be impossible either. If the source is open, you skip the boring task of sniffing packets and figuring out where the structs line up and such, so it is going to be quicker, but in both of the scenarios it isn't going to stop anyone who is determined to figure it out.

Now talking about eqclassic where the opcodes from the server are not sniffable from a pre-established server: This is a whole different story. I don't recall reading about this earlier, but if I did miss it: I'm sorry. I can see that's going to be pain stakingly hard since you don't have a server laying out the opcode structs on a platter, so it's going to take even more time to try to figure out what the client wants from this inexistant server.

However, even if your project is closed, the very moment you release any form of server any hacker with malicious intent can simply sniff the packets and get your hard work of figuring out op codes with relative ease. And this is where I say being closed vs being open is not going to really be a huge security difference.

If the information is available via open source or via a server, it's not going to take a lot of effort to eventually disassemble them. If the information is NOT available via open source or via a server, it's going to take a a whole lot more effort, but once that server is released anyone else wanting to infrige on that security can do so in the relative ease mentioned above.

Case and point: open vs closed for sake of opcodes != nill point.

pfyon · #2 10-09-2009, 02:39 PM

Security by obscurity isn't security at all. If someone wants to break into your software, they'll do it (and probably post the details online so others can do it too). The fact that EQEmu exists at all is proof that keeping your software closed won't protect it from being reverse-engineered.

This isn't to say that closed source is all bad, but there's a time and a place for it.

Ultimately the reasons given for keeping the eq classic source closed (showeq) are problems inherent with eq and can't exactly be solved by the server (the solution would could be like WoW's method of sending object updates). Personally, I don't think you would have anything to gain from keeping the eqc source closed.

Yeahlight@EQC · #3 10-11-2009, 05:55 PM

Keeping EQC a closed source projected has very little to do with discouraging cheating. In fact, while it may sound completely ridiculous to most, there exists one party that may benefit greatly from our work and—at the same time—utterly undermine any plans we may have for the future.

The critical difference between our projects (EQEMU & EQC) is the end result. The derivative works generated here add very little value to the original works, while the derivative works created under EQC may add substantial value to the original works. Those at EQC are not continuously exerting effort to boost some firm’s bottom line.

**trevius** · #4 10-12-2009, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeahlight@EQC

The critical difference between our projects (EQEMU & EQC) is the end result. The derivative works generated here add very little value to the original works, while the derivative works created under EQC may add substantial value to the original works. Those at EQC are not continuously exerting effort to boost some firm’s bottom line.

Maybe I am misinterpreting this, but it sounds like you are saying that EQEmu has everything to gain by getting access to EQC's source, and that EQC has nothing to gain by having full-time access to EQEmu's source?

Honestly, I don't see how the end result of between EQEmu and EQC is different. Ultimately, the end result is that both of them play emulated EQ. EQC simply decided to work towards compatibility with only a single client and add special features and fixes to simulate a certain time period of EQ, where instead it could have been added to EQEmu as it supports multiple clients and multiple types of servers via rule sets and such.

Zlandicar · #5 10-12-2009, 12:06 PM

Trevius don't worry about yeahlight, Hes someone that joined EQC back in 2008. The main devs from 2007 have decided to make it open source and bring it to the eqemu like they should of done from the start. They are in IRC eqemu channel EQC and i know some of them are trying to add it to the current eqemu source.

Yeahlight@EQC · #6 10-12-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevius

Maybe I am misinterpreting this, but it sounds like you are saying that EQEmu has everything to gain by getting access to EQC's source, and that EQC has nothing to gain by having full-time access to EQEmu's source?

Honestly, I don't see how the end result of between EQEmu and EQC is different. Ultimately, the end result is that both of them play emulated EQ. EQC simply decided to work towards compatibility with only a single client and add special features and fixes to simulate a certain time period of EQ, where instead it could have been added to EQEmu as it supports multiple clients and multiple types of servers via rule sets and such.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am not familiar with the policies of this forum, so I figured it would best if I did not drop any names.

What I was trying to say is that a finished product from this project (EQEMU) lends very little to SoE. I am not really sure about the state of their game, so I cannot really comment on what they may potentially take away from this project, but I cannot imagine that a mirrored work would grant them much.

On the other hand, a finished product from EQC would be everything they need to open a new server for the thousands of players that have been petitioning them for a classic experience. I have not been to their forums lately, but I believe I remember seeing a two hundred or more page thread requesting a classic server. They could have a server up and running with our work in about an hour and this is something I would really like to avoid.

Zlandicar · #7 10-12-2009, 07:37 PM

Why would they want EQC code ? They admited not long ago they have the classic code from the iron man server they still got. The Iron man server was 2002 i think it was so they got all the code they need.

**Rogean** · #8 10-12-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeahlight@EQC

They could have a server up and running with our work in about an hour and this is something I would really like to avoid.

Theres no way in hell SOE would ever use even a portion of an emulator code for one of their own servers.

**trevius** · #9 10-12-2009, 11:11 PM

Yeah, if anything, it is the opposite of what you may think as far as SOE is concerned.

I am sure SOE is at least as organized as PEQ is in that they should have every single revision of Server Code they have ever created as well as every version of the Database they have ever ran. In addition, I am sure they have backups of the source for every Client version they have ever built, which is one up on what we have.

Even if they didn't have access to that stuff for some odd reason (who knows, it is SOE afterall lol), I am 100% certain they would never use an EQEmu based source code to run any of their servers. Even at our best, we would still never have everything 100% functional and set perfectly as they could do easily given that they have direct access to the their own code, formulas, database, and so-on. So, I think SOE would have very little if nothing to gain from EQC.

You mentioned them not having anything to gain from EQEmu due to it mirroring Live, but that isn't really true either. Even though one of the main goals of the EQEmu project is to be able to emulate EQLive, that is not the only thing we allow in our source. We have many customized features that SOE could implement to improve EQLive right now. I think it is commonly accepted that the relatively new Merc system on EQLive is a derivative of the BOT system from EQEmu, since we had them first.

We have quite a few nice features that I think EQLive could make nice use of. I will be laughing if I ever see Say Links in EQLive as that will be 100% proof that they follow our work. But their are quite a few other great features like armor tinting for NPCs from the database (vs having to equip items on them), tons of special script commands, and even dozens of awesome ideas from the custom servers out there for content, rewards, and events.

I think SOE would be missing out on utilizing a nice resource if they aren't taking advantage of seeing what EQEmu and the servers here have to offer. Personally, I bet that is one of the reasons why they haven't pushed to shut down EQEmu servers in quite a while; they realize that they have more to gain from it than they have to lose. At least that is what I hope :P They essentially have a huge team of dozens of people all doing creative work for them free of charge!

**joligario** · #10 10-12-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogean

Theres no way in hell SOE would ever use even a portion of an emulator code for one of their own servers.

No, but they have been known to take "ideas" from MQ2 and others...

**Shin Noir** · #11 10-11-2009, 06:09 PM

Now if only I could find an EQ trilogy client for dirt cheap on ebay or something.. I may start working on a merger of EQC + EQEMU code.. :P But that'd be yet another project of mine i'd likely never finish. Sigh. haha.

ChaosSlayerZ · #12 10-12-2009, 11:10 PM

LOL yeah.
Its like Microsoft buying code from someone who created home-made replica of Win 3.1 =)

j0kie_smurf · #13 10-13-2009, 11:01 PM

Hi. I am still relatively new to this forum. I am an independent programmer who has recently gotten into EqEmu. I loved the classic game and its content. When a friend of mine came to me with the idea of running a server, I decided to give it a whirl.

Well, this particular discussion, in my opinion, is very important. Security is a big issue. But I have to agree pyfon on there being a time and place for closed source, as opposed to open source. In my experience a a programmer, I think that first stages of a project should remain closed. But only until you get the ground work finished and have working code. It is very true that if someone wants to get into your code, they will. Believe me, I know from experience, it is impossible to 100% guarantee the security of your source code. Unless you want to use some pretty strong encryptions and lock out the rest of your developers. Sure, if you are a solo coder, encrypt it out the wazoo. But when you have a team, you just can't do that.

SoD, being closed source, has worked for them, that much is true. But they are one of the rare exceptions of closed source success for so long. And by the way, just as a side note, their people are not as insanely loyal as some might think. (Again, I can speak from experience.) Their cookie is crumbling.

In the end, I think each individual team must decide if open or closed is the best choice for them. Not an easy decision to make. Especially in a community of developers. You just can't share with some and exclude others and you can't just hand your source out to the world either without it getting muddled or stepped on and others trying to take credit for work that isn't theirs.

I wish this community the best of luck in their endeavors. And as for those crack pots that tried to steal other people's work....they're lucky they didn't try that on me. I hope you guys stick it to them good. I hate thieves and liars.

Good luck and best wishes to you all.
EQ isn't dead!