[C++] Two-Stage Pack Security (First stage)

[blaxis 261]

Hello, I have been hearing about the existence of such an event from time to time. I thought of creating such a solution. I haven't had any problems so far in my tests.

To briefly talk about the incident; Some pack files can be opened and edited while the game is open. This may pose a problem in some exceptional cases.
Most of the time, changes made due to cache may not be reflected in the game unless the client is reset, but I still thought it wouldn't hurt to prevent this situation.
In addition; Nowadays, foxfs etc. methods are used, so you can also consider this as additional security for your game.

The codes are completely open to development and customization, you can progress them in any direction you want.
I should point out that this method will work more efficiently with autopatcher. So, you also have a job to do here, the codes I share here are the first stage of this system. The necessary adjustments you will make to the autopatcher depending on these codes will be the second stage.

To give an example from the working logic; As soon as the pack file named x is edited, the game will close completely, and when it is opened again, autopatcher (if there is a file integrity feature, etc.) will download the original instead of this edited pack file and allow you to log in from the original file.
Likewise, if there is any intervention in the pack files again, these operations will be repeated automatically. (This is the idea I suggested, anyone can use it however they want.)

Now let's get to the point..

Here's a short video showing it before editing:

• https://metin2.download/video/WH7a0piIk1Q6924KfEpC242tUjK9BEgQ/.mp4

After video:

• https://metin2.download/video/34kvP0IdaW87pNd5Y9EL7Gg9Kl35BfC4/.mp4

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

For those who are curious; The codes run only once when the client is opened and only keep track of the pack files as long as the game (client) is open. In other words, it does not work repeatedly in situations such as teleportation or casting a character.

Edited February 16 by Metin2 Dev International
Core X - External 2 Internal

[Helia01 2065]

Check the file size during rendering. "brilliant"

[blaxis 261]

9 minutes ago, Helia01 said:

Check the file size during rendering. "brilliant"

I didn't claim that it was a great idea, those who want can convert it to SHA256 type and use it. It's just an idea.
It's better than "nothing at all".

[Filachilla 28]

I cant see code before reply, but so when I can bypass patcher?


Edit: Ah sry, that was browser lag :DD

Edited February 16 by Filachilla

[CONTROL 5]

Thx,

You might consider using a separate thread and sleep() if you're worried about performance or just check the root (if your index is from the source) nothing else really matter,

but the thing here is that you can just cython your root and avoid all this non sense + improve the performance ,

And if you wanted an extra protection on the root you can also use dynamic python moudles,

Both of these things are already shared in here..

Edited February 16 by CONTROL

[blaxis 261]

12 minutes ago, CONTROL said:

Thx,

You might consider using a separate thread and sleep() if you're worried about performance or just check the root (if your index is from the source) nothing else really matter,

but the thing here is that you can just cython your root and avoid all this non sense + improve the performance ,

And if you wanted an extra protection on the root you can also use dynamic python moudles,

Both of these things are already shared in here..

Yes, they can be used too. However, the point I am talking about here covers all pack files, not just root. The root file does not continue the game after any editing and it gives an error and closes. But this is not the case for other pack files, the game continues even if intervention is made. Here I just presented a small idea to prevent this. Anyone can customize it as they wish and use it as a small add-on. Or he may not use it.

[Abel(Tiger) 1141]

 what if I just edit the pack before opening the client 

[blaxis 261]

4 minutes ago, Abel(Tiger) said:

 what if I just edit the pack before opening the client 

The answer to this question is already written in the content of the topic. I recommend you read it carefully.

[Filachilla 28]

 

Yesterday, I got motivated to do at least some small things with the keys. It seems like a good idea to share it in one thread, in case someone wants to explore more options without having to search for them.

 

Spoiler

#ifdef __OBFUSCATE_KEYS__
#include <string>
#include <array>

constexpr int NUM_VALUES = 10;

using EterPackKey = std::array<std::string, NUM_VALUES>;

static std::array<EterPackKey, 4> s_strEterPackKey = {{
	{ "4", "5", "1", "2", "9", "4", "0", "1" },
	{ "9", "2", "3", "6", "7", "2", "1", "5" },
	{ "6", "8", "1", "2", "8", "5", "7", "3", "1" },
	{ "1", "7", "1", "0", "2", "0", "1" }
}};

static std::array<EterPackKey, 4> s_strEterPackSecurityKey = {{
	{ "7", "8", "9", "5", "2", "4", "8", "2" },
	{ "5", "2", "7", "3", "4", "8", "3", "2", "4" },
	{ "1", "6", "3", "2", "9", "4", "2" },
	{ "4", "8", "6", "2", "7", "4", "7", "2", "6" }
}};

static unsigned long s_EncryptEterPackKey(int key)
{
	std::string sEterPackKey = "";
	unsigned long iEterPackKey = 0;

	for (int iter = 0; iter < (sizeof(s_strEterPackKey[key]) / sizeof(std::string)); ++iter)
	{
		sEterPackKey.append(s_strEterPackKey[key][iter]);
	}

	iEterPackKey = std::stoul(sEterPackKey);

	return iEterPackKey;
}

static unsigned long s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(int key)
{
	std::string sEterPackSecurityKey = "";
	unsigned long iEterPackSecurityKey = 0;

	for (int iter = 0; iter < (sizeof(s_strEterPackSecurityKey[key]) / sizeof(std::string)); ++iter)
	{
		sEterPackSecurityKey.append(s_strEterPackSecurityKey[key][iter]);
	}

	iEterPackSecurityKey = std::stoul(sEterPackSecurityKey);

	return iEterPackSecurityKey;
}
#endif

#ifdef __PACK_ENCRYPTION__
static unsigned long s_adwEterPackKey[] =
{
#ifdef __OBFUSCATE_KEYS__
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(0),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(1),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(2),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(3)
#else
	45129401,
	92367215,
	681285731,
	1710201
#endif
};

static unsigned long s_adwEterPackSecurityKey[] =
{
#ifdef __OBFUSCATE_KEYS__
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(0),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(1),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(2),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(3)
#else
	78952482,
	527348324,
	1632942,
	486274726
#endif
};
#else
static unsigned long s_adwEterPackKey[] =
{
#ifdef __OBFUSCATE_KEYS__
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(0),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(1),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(2),
	s_EncryptEterPackKey(3)
#else
	45129401,
	92367215,
	681285731,
	1710201
#endif
};

static unsigned long s_adwEterPackSecurityKey[] =
{
#ifdef __OBFUSCATE_KEYS__
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(0),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(1),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(2),
	s_EncryptEterPackSecurityKey(3)
#else
	78952482,
	527348324,
	1632942,
	486274726
#endif
};
#endif

 

It's not much, but it will surely catch the attention of a few people too.