What happened to the Messenger Plus! forums on msghelp.net?
Shoutbox » MsgHelp Archive » Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger » Scripting » [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler

Pages: (6): « First « 1 [ 2 ] 3 4 5 6 » Last »
[Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
Author: Message:
TheGuruSupremacy
Full Member
***

Avatar

Posts: 367
Reputation: 19
33 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2006
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
The code is stolen from my scripts(in which i credit CookieRevised for functions to write bytes memory and TheBlasphemer to have helped me to get the scripts working on windows vista/7).The Function patch was made by me not by Cookie.And also this code was stolen from my scripts

code:
var Handle = Interop.Call("Kernel32","GetModuleHandleW",null);
    var sBuffer = Interop.Allocate(PatchOld.length);
    Address = (Address - 0x00400000) + Handle;


I assume that at least the byte to patch is your own work.

This post was edited on 05-21-2009 at 06:19 PM by TheGuruSupremacy.
05-21-2009 06:09 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
Mnjul
forum super mod
******

Avatar
plz wub me

Posts: 5396
Reputation: 58
– / Other / Flag
Joined: Nov 2002
Status: Away
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by TheGuruSupremacy
I assume that at least the byte to patch is your own work.
No, I presume?
05-21-2009 06:39 PM
Profile PM Web Find Quote Report
blessedguy
Skinning Contest Winner
*****


Posts: 1762
Reputation: 25
31 / Male / Flag
Joined: Jan 2008
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
If it DOES contain copied code and stuff from other places, uncreditted and not-explicitely-allowed, shouldn't it be removed from the database?
[Image: Empty.png]
05-21-2009 06:56 PM
Profile PM Web Find Quote Report
TheGuruSupremacy
Full Member
***

Avatar

Posts: 367
Reputation: 19
33 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2006
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by Mnjul
quote:
Originally posted by TheGuruSupremacy
I assume that at least the byte to patch is your own work.
No, I presume?

On my dictionary both of them are synonyms of  suppose.I used assume because i heard it several times on tv

quote:
Originally posted by blessedguy
If it DOES contain copied code and stuff from other places, uncreditted and not-explicitely-allowed, shouldn't it be removed from the database?

Well it's not needed.He credited Cookie but he forgot to credit TB(To Credit me is not important my code to patch is anyway based on cookie's code)

This post was edited on 05-21-2009 at 07:07 PM by TheGuruSupremacy.
05-21-2009 07:03 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
blessedguy
Skinning Contest Winner
*****


Posts: 1762
Reputation: 25
31 / Male / Flag
Joined: Jan 2008
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by TheGuruSupremacy
quote:
Originally posted by blessedguy
If it DOES contain copied code and stuff from other places, uncreditted and not-explicitely-allowed, shouldn't it be removed from the database?

Well it's not needed.He credited Cookie but he forgot to credit TB(To Credit me is not important my code to patch is anyway based on cookie's code)
(Y)
Just being cautionous. =P
[Image: Empty.png]
05-21-2009 07:25 PM
Profile PM Web Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15519
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
psst, correction:

quote:
Originally posted by TheGuruSupremacy
The Function patch was made by me not by Cookie.
Sorry, but if you want to talk origins and be precise, then the patch function like it is written was actually made by me. (so are the many other code flows like the SignIn function etc, which are all almost literally copies of what I did before in my memory patching scripts). See all my patch scripts where I used the exact same code.

The patch functions in your NudgesToolScript and Idle Liar scripts for example are also a word for word 'copy' of the one I used in Auto-Emoticons, Unlimited Nudges, etc... including the variable names (but minus the comments from my scripts).

Not that I didn't wanted you to copy them though, but correct is correct ;)

---

and the code:
code:
var Handle = Interop.Call("Kernel32","GetModuleHandleW",null);
    var sBuffer = Interop.Allocate(PatchOld.length);
    Address = (Address - 0x00400000) + Handle;

Can't be 'be stolen' because it is almost strait forward stuff to convert a base address to the correct virtual address in case the module is loaded in a different base offset. Nothing unique at all. It is (should be) used in almost every program and script which deals with memory patching (although not always like in my scripts where I simply ignore the possebility :p). It is in fact a mandatory step for such programs and thus should be common knowledge* and can not be owned or be claimed that "someone came up with it" or "invented it" and thus "stole it". It's another thing when someone (eg: TB) points out the nessecity of it of course.

provided he who put that code in his program/script knows what it does and why it is there of course. Otherwise it is just plain script-kiddy copying (but still not "stealing unique code" imho).

---

All and still with huge respect to TheGuruSupremacy though ;)

---

quote:
Originally posted by NanaFreak
this can be easily done with the registry setting made available by Patchou with MP!L.

see Messenger Plus! Live - Registry Settings and search for "OverrideImgTransfer"

a simple .reg file would be all that is required to fix the issue...
No, that registry setting will not completely disable Photo Sharing....
This script does...

see OverrideImgTransfer and photo sending
in which you actually corrected the OP and said the exact same thing I do now: that the registry key does not completely disables Photo Sharing; it only disables Photo Sharing for pasted image data, not for dropped graphic files

---

PS: master4523, I suggest to change this:
code:
MsgPlus.DisplayToast("Photo Sharing", "Windows Live Messenger " + Messenger.Version.toFixed(1) + ".0" + Messenger.VersionBuild + "\nis not supported");

to:
code:
MsgPlus.DisplayToast("Photo Sharing", "Windows Live Messenger " + Messenger.Version.toFixed(1) + "." + ("000" + Messenger.VersionBuild).slice(-4) + "\nis not supported");
Since the buildnumber isn't always a 3 digit number anymore (since a long time actually).

Also, the function OnGetScriptCommands() is wrong in your code. You don't have any commands in your code to begin with.

And you might want to store the setting user specific, not globally (thus by using Messenger.MyUserId).

And I hope you didn't just blindly copied all the code from my scripts and from TheGuruSupremacy's scripts without understanding what it all does.

This post was edited on 05-22-2009 at 03:54 AM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
05-22-2009 02:22 AM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
NanaFreak
Scripting Contest Winner
*****


Posts: 1476
Reputation: 53
32 / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2006
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:
Originally posted by NanaFreak
this can be easily done with the registry setting made available by Patchou with MP!L.

see Messenger Plus! Live - Registry Settings and search for "OverrideImgTransfer"

a simple .reg file would be all that is required to fix the issue...
No, that registry setting will not completely disable Photo Sharing....
This script does...

see OverrideImgTransfer and photo sending
in which you actually corrected the OP and said the exact same thing I do now: that the registry key does not completely disables Photo Sharing; it only disables Photo Sharing for pasted image data, not for dropped graphic files
yea sorry.. i didnt know what the script did because he wasnt that explanitory. but yea, this is better than the reg... ;)
05-22-2009 05:20 AM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
TheGuruSupremacy
Full Member
***

Avatar

Posts: 367
Reputation: 19
33 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2006
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Sorry, but if you want to talk origins and be precise, then the patch function like it is written was actually made by me. (so are the many other code flows like the SignIn function etc, which are all almost literally copies of what I did before in my memory patching scripts). See all my patch scripts where I used the exact same code.

The patch functions in your NudgesToolScript and Idle Liar scripts for example are also a word for word 'copy' of the one I used in Auto-Emoticons, Unlimited Nudges, etc... including the variable names (but minus the comments from my scripts).

Not that I didn't wanted you to copy them though, but correct is correct

I have told that function patch was mine,just because i remembered to have written that function.As i already said in my previous post and as you said  that function was literally a copy of your code.But when i created that function in my first patching script i based my work on your idle on demand script in which the function is named Setidle or idle (i don't remember).In all my scripts i always credited you for that.What you didn't understand(probably because of my bad english)was that i just was answering to the blessedguy.And without doubts the creator of this script based his work on one of mine scripts(that are based on yours).

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Can't be 'be stolen' because it is almost strait forward stuff to convert a base address to the correct virtual address in case the module is loaded in a different base offset. Nothing unique at all. It is (should be) used in almost every program and script which deals with memory patching (although not always like in my scripts where I simply ignore the possebility :p). It is in fact a mandatory step for such programs and thus should be common knowledge* and can not be owned or be claimed that "someone came up with it" or "invented it" and thus "stole it". It's another thing when someone (eg: TB) points out the nessecity of it of cours

Well you are right(another time you corrected me because of my bad english):what  i wanted to explain is that probably he just copied the code from my script.Without doubts no one has invented it.However only in my scripts there is that code(written in the same way).I wrote that code after people have started to say my script didn't work on vista.And because i never had vista I asked to tb if he could try it(because i knew he had vista and he is a guru of r.engineering)



This post was edited on 05-22-2009 at 01:48 PM by TheGuruSupremacy.
05-22-2009 01:46 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15519
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
You got that patch function from the 'Unlimited Nudges' script I think. A few days after I wrote the 'Idle on Demand' script (already 3 years ago, wow :p) I wrote the 'Unlimited Nudges' script. And in that script there is a function:
Javascript code:
// Do the actual patching.
function Patch(nAddress, sByteString) {
    // Make a decent byte array out of the string.
    // This is again where Plus! comes short with its WriteString() function IMHO.
    // Also notice that older Plus! versions expect signed bytes with SetAt(), so we use WriteWORD() instead.
    var sBuffer = Interop.Allocate(++sByteString.length);
    for (var j = 0; j < sByteString.length; j++) sBuffer.WriteWORD(j, sByteString.charCodeAt(j));
    var hProc = Interop.Call("Kernel32", "GetCurrentProcess");
    Interop.Call("Kernel32", "WriteProcessMemory", hProc, nAddress, sBuffer.DataPtr, sByteString.length, 0);
}

looking familiar? :d
the 'uniqueness' of this code (hence why I reconize it as written by me) is the trick I did by using WriteWord to overcome a bug in Plus! and allocating the buffer one byte longer than needed because of it. I was also the first to report/notice that the SetAt()/GetAt() functions needed signed bytes. Nobody before had noticed it (that I know of) because several scripts at that time which used SetAt() or GetAt(), for different stuff that is, had this bug of not returning what the script creator expected it to return. After I reported this in public, several scripts started to use 'GetAt() & 0xFF' (as shown in 'Unlimited Nudges' script), instead of just GetAt().

Anyways, enough off topic history jabber talk, I'll shut up now ;)

This post was edited on 05-22-2009 at 06:39 PM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
05-22-2009 06:13 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
TheGuruSupremacy
Full Member
***

Avatar

Posts: 367
Reputation: 19
33 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2006
RE: [Release] Photo Sharing Disabler
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
You got that patch function from the 'Unlimited Nudges' script I think. A few days after I wrote the 'Idle on Demand' script (already 3 years ago, wow :p) I wrote the 'Unlimited Nudges' script. And in that script there is a function:
Javascript code:
// Do the actual patching.
function Patch(nAddress, sByteString) {
    // Make a decent byte array out of the string.
    // This is again where Plus! comes short with its WriteString() function IMHO.
    // Also notice that older Plus! versions expect signed bytes with SetAt(), so we use WriteWORD() instead.
    var sBuffer = Interop.Allocate(++sByteString.length);
    for (var j = 0; j < sByteString.length; j++) sBuffer.WriteWORD(j, sByteString.charCodeAt(j));
    var hProc = Interop.Call("Kernel32", "GetCurrentProcess");
    Interop.Call("Kernel32", "WriteProcessMemory", hProc, nAddress, sBuffer.DataPtr, sByteString.length, 0);
}

looking familiar? :d

Anyways, enough jabber talk, I'll shut up now ;)

What you say has no sense.First of all you seem really arrogant.I have written the function coping YOUR code from the signin function of idle on demand script.So it is anyway a copy of YOUR code and saying that i think i had no reason to declare the false when i say that i wrote by myself the function.Because what i said is that i copied YOUR code and pasted it in a function called patch.So i have anyway no credit for that function.The only reason i REPEAT why i said that the function was mine,it's just to reply to blessedguy.Moreover in a previous post i replied again to blessedguy saying that the creator should have not credit ME because that code is YOURS.So i don't understand why you continue this squabble.To Continue with a no sense polemic is useless.I have never credited myself for your works(i have credited you everywhere:here,in the script description,in the about window)so i think to be correct and as i explained before i would not have no reason to lie.

[edit]removed useless info[/edit]

This post was edited on 05-22-2009 at 08:50 PM by TheGuruSupremacy.
05-22-2009 06:54 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
Pages: (6): « First « 1 [ 2 ] 3 4 5 6 » Last »
« Next Oldest Return to Top Next Newest »


Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new threads
You cannot post replies
You cannot post attachments
You can edit your posts
HTML is Off
myCode is On
Smilies are On
[img] Code is On