Real Bypass[Ideas]

just jumped over to this forum for a little look, and seems you people need a "bypass" for XFire(only because your using the same source code over and over again) Anyway the best way to bypass anything is to understand what they are looking for, Just like a AntiVirus engine looks for signatures so does anti hack software, Now think about this.... If you use the same source code over again and again your going to have the same signatures, My suggestion to you is encrypt your string with your own custom function(I will post some examples later) and load your API function dynamically and encrypt them also(I will demonstrate this also) with your encryption functions make sure it takes a "key" that way the encrypting strings and API functions will be different from person to person... People who "Copy , Paste, Compile" on this forum(which looks like most of you's) Will always get detected, changing a function name or adding string is not real bypassing, you really need to either learn the language your programming in or atleast learn how to encrypt your strings... But the best thing you can do and should do is try and not run before you can walk.....

nice ....................................

Not a bad idea

Yeaa,its not a bad idea! Nice Man

cool man .. can't understand some

Cool Man Nice Thinking You Got There !!!

nice job
/msg2shrt

Wow man the thing u said was EPIC! And i didnt understand anything of it

well thanks a fuking lot captain hindsight but this is completely useless. ITT: 13 yearolds shitting their pants over use of big complex sounding words.

Omfg nice! He is saying that X-trap will always find the sigs of old hacks but you could encrypt the hacks to make it where you can use them easy as that(if only we new to encrypt)

exactly...

And im sure they are sig checking because I converted a Combat Arms hack to delphi which does the exact same thing as C++ hack, but today all these public C++ hacks have been detected and wont work, Yet the Delphi one works perfectly(this is because it has a a different signature than reused C++ code).

for example ...

mov ECX, 0 <----- one way of making ECX = 0
xor ECX, ECX <---- Does the same thing making ECX = 0
sub ECX, ECX <---- Once again does the same thing by making ECX = 0

3 examples there that will do the exact same thing but has been written differently on each line, which means each of these has a different signature, and that not even using encryption yet....

Conclusion:
I dont mean to use "fancy words" I just want point out that changing your code around or encrypting your functions and API's will give a different signature when the game scans it own memory looks for current hack signatures...