[DiscordArchive] what is the actual ban reason? That a result arrived twice? Or does it somehow corrupt other results
[DiscordArchive] what is the actual ban reason? That a result arrived twice? Or does it somehow corrupt other results
Original source
I'll fix it up anyway when I install the breaking news but that's not gonna be soon :/
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 04:38 PM #61Archived author: Dedmen (∩｀-´)⊃━☆ﾟ.*･｡ﾟ /\(O_O)/\ • Posted: 2023-11-21T16:38:29.037000+00:00
Original source
I'll fix it up anyway when I install the breaking news but that's not gonna be soon :/
Original source
alright
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 04:38 PM #62Archived author: Anchy • Posted: 2023-11-21T16:38:43.483000+00:00
Original source
alright
Original source
I have no idea how it works yet so just throwing random ideas into the air.
RC4 encryption has a running crypto for input/output.
After every data block the offset of the crypto stream is updated.
That means for decryption to work, it needs to be decrypted in the same order as it was encrypted.
Maybe the results are not corrupted, but they just arrive out of order (which makes sense as you are injecting a out-of-order instant thing into the middle), and thus with the cypher at a wrong offset.
Which makes them look corrupted after decrypt.
But that should mean all results after the instant payload should corrupt, not just one. Unless there is something that resets the...
WardenWin::HandleHashResult resets the cypher.
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 04:57 PM #63Archived author: Dedmen (∩｀-´)⊃━☆ﾟ.*･｡ﾟ /\(O_O)/\ • Posted: 2023-11-21T16:57:53.576000+00:00
Original source
I have no idea how it works yet so just throwing random ideas into the air.
RC4 encryption has a running crypto for input/output.
After every data block the offset of the crypto stream is updated.
That means for decryption to work, it needs to be decrypted in the same order as it was encrypted.
Maybe the results are not corrupted, but they just arrive out of order (which makes sense as you are injecting a out-of-order instant thing into the middle), and thus with the cypher at a wrong offset.
Which makes them look corrupted after decrypt.
But that should mean all results after the instant payload should corrupt, not just one. Unless there is something that resets the...
WardenWin::HandleHashResult resets the cypher.
Original source
Ah all check results are sent in one message block.. So there is no reset inbetween. So if it were a cypher issue then indeed at some point inside the result data, everything will be corrupted and wrong.
Not just one result
And we should see that on the checksum check already. So probably not the issue
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 05:01 PM #64Archived author: Dedmen (∩｀-´)⊃━☆ﾟ.*･｡ﾟ /\(O_O)/\ • Posted: 2023-11-21T17:01:57.917000+00:00
Original source
Ah all check results are sent in one message block.. So there is no reset inbetween. So if it were a cypher issue then indeed at some point inside the result data, everything will be corrupted and wrong.
Not just one result
And we should see that on the checksum check already. So probably not the issue
Original source
Typical buffoon behavior
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 05:09 PM #65Archived author: Natrist • Posted: 2023-11-21T17:09:47.823000+00:00
Original source
Typical buffoon behavior
Original source
I would like to remove the config for announcing GM characters when they enter a chat channel.
The official behaviour is to announce players if they are not GM Invis, which is what I would like to change it to.
My reasoning is that there is no point in having such a trivial config option and if anyone really wanted to change it to their liking all they have to do is change 1 line of code.
What do you guys think? <@224931509046345729> <@203326888888893440>
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 05:49 PM #66Archived author: Natrist • Posted: 2023-11-21T17:49:43.267000+00:00
Original source
I would like to remove the config for announcing GM characters when they enter a chat channel.
The official behaviour is to announce players if they are not GM Invis, which is what I would like to change it to.
My reasoning is that there is no point in having such a trivial config option and if anyone really wanted to change it to their liking all they have to do is change 1 line of code.
What do you guys think? <@224931509046345729> <@203326888888893440>
Original source
I'm only asking because I had to rewrite a condition check that uses the config option as part of a refactoring that I'm almost ready to send a PR for.
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 05:50 PM #67Archived author: Natrist • Posted: 2023-11-21T17:50:18.170000+00:00
Original source
I'm only asking because I had to rewrite a condition check that uses the config option as part of a refactoring that I'm almost ready to send a PR for.
Original source
I dont see a reason to remove it, it hurts nobody
rektbyfaith
11-21-2023, 05:57 PM #68Archived author: Kitzunu • Posted: 2023-11-21T17:57:43.442000+00:00
Original source
I dont see a reason to remove it, it hurts nobody
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)