Nice Client Going Around Here

[Platyna]

Jjk: You are a new member, it is possible you wasn't enlighted yet...anyway I am shocked.

 

Regards.

[jjk]

Please put that in more formal english, i cannot understand that..seriosuly..new? I have played 16 months, or is this stat wise?

[Hazor]

I think she meant new to the guild.

[teranoz]

Zeplin, I didn't downlaod and test your client because it's the binary version, and who knows what not so nice things there are inside (such as key loggers, etc.).

Some also say that about the official client.

[vartican]

all i got to say is that it really was a stupif thing to do...how can you enjoy a game when you cheat at it? ffs you use cheats on a console game and its fun for an hour or so then the novelty wears off and you stop playing the game..if you want to be the best do it like everyone else does...hard work and have lots of free time

[monoceros]

No one cheated. That client/code is BS. Uti wouldn't/didn't do that.

[Wytter]

First of all. Wait for Zeplin's ISP to send him the content of the site before you put blame on him or any other UTi in any way.

A person is always innocent untill proven otherwise - if what he says is true the client and that site was a scam an appology would be in order. If not, it's clearly breaking the license.

As Entropy did not try the client, he cannot say anything about what it can do and what it can't. And of course he shouldn't just have logged in via that client using the Entropy account etc., but the least you could do was to do some forensic research - i.e. a strings -n 6 <client> and some disassembling.

 

What has been posted here is really not evidence, just indicators that something fishy was going on - not anything that you can use in a court. So for now, take it with a grain of salt.

[jjk]

Zeplin, I didn't downlaod and test your client because it's the binary version, and who knows what not so nice things there are inside (such as key loggers, etc.).

Some also say that about the official client.

i agree, not saying anything is happening, i have had eople quit for prrof of backdoor programs associated with el...otherwise, and plat, i have been UTi for about 6 months

[Cicero]

Zeplin, I didn't downlaod and test your client because it's the binary version, and who knows what not so nice things there are inside (such as key loggers, etc.).

Some also say that about the official client.

Yeah, EL is an open-source trojan.

[Platyna]

I don't underestand something...Zeplin says he didn't knew these files are there and he didn't put it

there? Especially that now there is empty directory...err...so I don't get it. It smells funny.

 

Regards.

[Xilcox]

"There is no proof because Ent didn't try out the binary clients there ?"

What BS !

Anyone who reads that and has a clue about programming realises that is the description of an existing program. Everything fits together, that's EXACTLY how a modified client for macroing would look like.

And it's not so much the features but the change log ! Someone making a credible history of (credible) bugs and features added ? That match the official client changes ? Yeah, right...

Just one little detail that seals it for me: the mention of the "capa incident".

http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.p...89&hl=capa&st=0

I mean read that thread again after you've read this.

Why do "proeminent" people that weren't even there to witness the incident defend capa? Why do they defend UTi here ?! Look at the posted logs on that thread, and at the description of the macroing by the people blocking capa, they fit perfectly with what the output for one of this client would look like.

 

I am convinced this client EXISTS. There's nothing very technically difficult about it (although it probably took quite a lot of work), the toughest parts - pathfinding etc.. are already in the client, a "run" is just a script - a succesion of harvests, movetos, storing/droping, comands that are implemented separatly in many bots/legal clients.

 

The only defense that could be used is that somebody else made this client and tried to frame UTi... is/was capa (who i think should be banned) a member of UTi at the time or had any connection to them ? Maybe rather then examining future logs, maybe they should examine existing logs from the guild members, for similarities with capa's ? Maybe that would clear them of suspicion but maybe not...

 

Sorry if i'm accusing innocents here, but i really hate people turning a blind eye because someone's an "oldie" or whatever the reason might be.

This evidence is very damaging, and that "this client dosen't even exist" line looks worse then "my bro did it".

[crusadingknight]

Please put that in more formal english, i cannot understand that..seriosuly..new? I have played 16 months, or is this stat wise?

Is it January already? Time really flies.

 

Well zeplin, I certainly hope there was no such client

[Wytter]

Xilcox:

Yes, a client like that would not be hard to make, and I do think that these clients exist - from a programming perspective it's really just a few hours of work if you know the client. When that is said these are hard allegations and you should have more evidence than a changelog. That's the only evidence I've seen here, and yes it doesn't look good - but there is still a possibility that someone set UTI up hence we should wait till there's more evidence.

 

You cannot prove a negative - noone can prove that UTI did not use or create such a client. More research on these clients is needed before passing judgement imho as this is not enough evidence to say that they did.

[Cicero]

You should note that we haven't banned anyone over this yet. If you are using ANY client like this, you will be banned. If no UTI members are using it, then they won't be banned.

 

Ent, you probably should have told me, so that I could have checked it out in a controlled environment, like we've done before.

[jjk]

Please put that in more formal english, i cannot understand that..seriosuly..new? I have played 16 months, or is this stat wise?

Is it January already? Time really flies.

 

Well zeplin, I certainly hope there was no such client

crusading, i dont think u understand O-o

[frak]

"There is no proof because Ent didn't try out the binary clients there ?"

What BS !

Anyone who reads that and has a clue about programming realises that is the description of an existing program....

if there was sourcecode of that client then u dont need to run the binary or refer to the documentation to proof that it does macroing.

Thats if u know C of course. But i guess ent knows that :lol:

[Entropy]

You should note that we haven't banned anyone over this yet. If you are using ANY client like this, you will be banned. If no UTI members are using it, then they won't be banned.

 

Ent, you probably should have told me, so that I could have checked it out in a controlled environment, like we've done before.

That would have been pointless, since the client checked if you had the UTI tag. Of course, I can make myself an UTI member (or make others UTI members) but it is plausible that mayeb the client also needed some secret activation code, in order to prevent exactly this kind of problems.

 

Frak: There was no C source on their site.

[I_am_Spock]

To all you guys accusign uti. I have nto once seen byte,dragons,zep, or any other UTi, afk for long. More then 5 minutes. They are always on. With 5 mintues that's likE load up tiem on ore, so i dont' think it's too bad. The only pLace i have seen them go afk is liek around storage, which would indeed, so these macros woudl be hard to accomplish if your next to the computer. I am not gonig either way on the subject, but thats just my 2 cents.