Shoutbox

I'm bored of the online status checkers, and the lack of plugins (due to the bug fixes in msn). I have a few plugins though that can tell you when someone has deleted you from their contact list etc...
Does anyone know if there is a hole in the protocols that would allow a plugin to detect when someone has blocked you? There has to be something in the API to stop the user showing online to you when you're blocked, so it must just be a case of finding out where?

Any ideas?

Last time I heard anything was on mess.be saying that the MSNP has been fixed to avoid any bugs to check whether a contact has blocked you and has the option "All other Users" blocked in his\her preferences.
Of course you can still check if they have allowed "All other Users" by a clone account, otherwise sorry M$ have probably stopped it permanently...

Edit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Actually...anyone know where I can get the LATEST release of the protocols which are used since the bug fixes if they actually changed since then?

---

That isn't openSource, if it was imagine the problems...however you could learn about the .NET Framework, wouldn't help you much though.
And please do not post more than one post in a row as it is against the forum rules instead use the button...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis
Last time I heard anything was on mess.be saying that the MSNP has been fixed to avoid any bugs to check whether a contact has blocked you and has the option "All other Users" blocked in his\her preferences.
Of course you can still check if they have allowed "All other Users" by a clone account, otherwise sorry M$ have probably stopped it permanently...

---

Surely though there is something somehwere in the protocol to determine if the blocked user sees the contact as offline or not? Otherwise it would cause everyone to be blocked when they blocked a user. I noticed as well that the blocked people list is stored on the server since it loads no matter what computer you log in from. If messenger can access this, and determine if the user should be allowed to see you online then theoritcaly it can be intercepted and manipulated to your advantage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Surely though there is something somehwere in the protocol to determine if the blocked user sees the contact as offline or not? Otherwise it would cause everyone to be blocked when they blocked a user.

---

No it wouldn't, when you block someone the server makes the other user see you as offline, end of story...

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
I noticed as well that the blocked people list is stored on the server since it loads no matter what computer you log in from. If messenger can access this, and determine if the user should be allowed to see you online then theoritcaly it can be intercepted and manipulated to your advantage?

---

Not without hacking into the server, which is illegal, and impossible, and I will talk no more of it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis

Not without hacking into the server, which is illegal, and impossible, and I will talk no more of it

---

Something tells me thats also impossible given the owners. Although they probably screwed up somewhere as with most things.

Ah well, was all worth a try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Although they probably screwed up somewhere as with most things.

---

They don't screw up, most M$ software is the most stable out there...if a securety bug was found in WinAMP they'd be less scandle than in Windows Media Player because its made by M$, I assume you are just hating M$ for no reason...

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Ah well, was all worth a try.

---

The best Block Checker creator was a guy named Daniel, he made the mess.be checker work with the protocol for as long as he could, but when he gave up because it was impossible, we all did...sorry, but there's really nothing that works unless you use a clone account (and the contact you check on has allowed "All other users") send them a message over the clone account and if it doesn't bounce back and they're offline in your account, you've been blocked...although 95% of users have blocked "All other Users", however some of the older users haven't...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Although they probably screwed up somewhere as with most things.

---

They don't screw up, most M$ software is the most stable out there...if a securety bug was found in WinAMP they'd be less scandle than in Windows Media Player because its made by M$, I assume you are just hating M$ for no reason...

---

I have my reasons lol...stable isn't the word I would use. I made more stable software in college. Although I'll give them credit - they have made some pretty good software, and can be stable *sometimes*.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
I made more stable software in college.

---

You wrote whole operating systems and whole "office"-like packages in college?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anubis

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackenedSky
Actually...anyone know where I can get the LATEST release of the protocols which are used since the bug fixes if they actually changed since then?

---

That isn't openSource

---

http://www.msnfanatic.com/index.php?module=pagema...2&MMN_position=7:7
http://www.msnfanatic.com/re.php?p=51&9a93ee14400...196aa4749c70542da5
and above all:
http://www.hypothetic.org/docs/msn/

BlackenedSky: you better learn the msn protocol before you talk so it won't make you look stupid. baka! ^_^

It is indeed the case, it used to be possible to determine if someone had blocked you, but only when they are online. It was neccessary to write a new client to be able to fool the server into telling you if the contact was online or not.

Using your new client you could try and invite a contact to a switchboard (conversation) session.  If the contact was online (but had blocked you) then it would reply with error 216 (meaning you are not authorised to invite the contact). If they were infact just offline (even if they had blocked you) then it would reply with error 217 (meaning that the contact is offline).

Now (as should always have been the case) both senarios produce the same error (217) indicating that the contact is offline.


Hope this makes things clearer.

Geoff