
Originally Posted by
Code4Dot
From what i see , the 54FF1660 is a static address already , You Got 3 ways Select any of them and i will explain :
1-you can use ollydbg to get the Region & The mask to make your trainer work as a cheat engine itself
2-if your address is changing , could you give me 2 examples ? {"client1"+offset , "client2"+offset} so i can give you a simple way to get it by yourself .
3-you could use ASM+ to code your own trainer that auto-gets the address ..
Answer the 2nd one for an easy solution !
(Answering the 2nd Question)
Alright, the client.dll+A51660 never changes, the address "54FF1660" changes (or rather, the address of client.dll changes). What I'm really trying to ask is how to get the address of client.dll so I can then increment it by A51660 to get the address I wish to write to.
If it helps to clarify, I'm attempting to create an external 'hack' that simply writes a value to an address, using the function WriteProcessMemory()
I have everything else already set up in the way that I want it, so none of the other code is needed to be posted. If it helps to illustrate, here's a snippet.
Code:
WriteProcessMemory(hProc, (LPVOID)addressToWrite, &newVal, sizeof(newVal), NULL)
Now, addressToWrite is the variable I've assigned to... well, the address I wish to write to (self explanatory)
The problem with it is that I can't just assign it the value of "client.dll"+0xA51660. (string + address)
I need to somehow convert client.dll into an address as such, which will then allow me to get the final address.
TL;DR: "client.dll"+A51660 never changes. The output of "client.dll"+A51660 changes each run, therefore the value of "client.dll" changes each run. How do I get the value of "client.dll" in c++?
NOTE: I'm not making a dll for injection, I'm making an external .exe file to write to another program.
Thanks in Advance!
Edit: Could you perhaps explain the first method/idea/point to me if we are unable to find a solution via your second point?
And regarding your third point, I'm not all that confident with assembly, so I think that perhaps it's not the best option for me.