quote:
Originally posted by effection
that's why it's over complicated compared to your method.
I understand you made the "idler" just as an example of what can be done. I was talking about the hooking method (and especially how it is scripted) itself.
As for the "idler" example itself, I don't find it a good example at all as I don't see any benfit with your method in any way. There is no advantage of the hooking and injected code at all and it is actually useless. All you do is in fact patching Messenger and forcing a status change so that Messenger changes the status to something else than original. This is exactly what I do in my script too.
Currently I see the method you used more as a POC (proof of concept)* than anything else...without any benefits. Since the user of this method can't do anything with the redirected calls. I mean, you can redirect a certain specific call (and one should be extremely carefull in what to redirect, you also can't inject a 'redirection' everywhere as you need a certain amount of opcodes to do it), but then what? It would be benefitial if people could actually use a callback function instead (big hint hint
). Without such a callback function I'm afraid your method is of not much use other than injecting some precompiled ASM code which isn't that usefull on its own. And overall it has some big disadvantages and is not so versitile as you might think (hence the just-a-POC-feeling).
still cool that you took the time to do it though
* which didn't needed much proof imho... You can use Windows APIs in scripting, that means you can patch stuff in memory and use ASM in scripting, that means you can inject code and direct a call...It is just a lot of work...
/ 
