PDA

View Full Version : My revival act..


BanMe
September 17th, 2009, 16:07
as things age,and people move on..things and scenes tend to die out..be it VX RCE Hacking or w/e..I am hoping to issue in a revival act, a place for presenters and learners alike to come and discuss there thoughts and make connections with like minded individuals..I have talked to evilnine and he has opened the door for me to use his IRC network as a hosting spot for this..as I am no leader or 'poet' as others might think..I want to put this up here in hopes of attracting 'new' and 'seasoned' individuals to openly discuss their interests and there findings and there problems in a open way, without the stigma of being 'ridiculed' or 'banned' for having thoughts and discussing them..I was thinking about making this a weekly event..but the more people I talk to,the more I think that this will be a 'everyday' thing.. the topics to be discussed range to the end of human thought..without directly offensive words hopefully and 'some' of devils advocates that are able to keep there counter points on topic.

If you are interested in something like this please post below..I am not 'so' familiar with IRC that I know what I am doing..The ONLY stipulation to all of this is that we do not interfer with the other channels on the IRC network..

I hope 'some' find this as funny and ironic as I do...The IRC that I have chosen for this little venture is:irc.subseven.org #Banned

further channels and there descriptions will be in the Main channel..#Banned

regards BanMe

p.s. there is nothing "ce'me'nt'ed" in stone yet..But I would like to thank evilnine for allowing me to do this.

Woodmann
September 17th, 2009, 19:57
I'm in.

And dont sell yourself short, you are leading by example and thats the best way to lead .

Woodmann

GEEK
September 18th, 2009, 12:41
i am in too
the channel name is funny though ...
GEEK got banned from banned....lol

BanMe
September 20th, 2009, 23:20
Its good to see 'some' interest in this..still waiting on a few others..

I am still up for suggestions and proposals for structure and communal layout..I hope to see you all and hear from you ..as I am slowly figuring out IRC and its commands and still talking to some contacts and working out what ill need..to back all this up, in a effecient and productive way.

regards BanMe

j00ru
September 22nd, 2009, 07:53
Hehe was about to post a reply here for some days..
The idea itself is very nice, though it is always hard to start such a venture.
Good luck anyway, though now well-known, I will surely do my best to contribute ;>

gritz

BanMe
September 22nd, 2009, 09:36
www.re-banned.com

regards BanMe

SiGiNT
October 4th, 2009, 02:19
I'm fully behind you - seeing as how you seem driven to develop this - (a little play on your "ID", but a word of caution, similar has been tried in the past, expect a good deal of resistance, hope I'm wrong - who knows maybe times have changed enough.

SiGiNT

BanMe
October 6th, 2009, 14:56
I dont expect the 'resistance' I welcome it. ;}

I am currently looking for anyone willing to produce beginner level 'courses'..and ideas for courses..

also thanks for the interest ;}

BanMe

Irwin
October 7th, 2009, 15:33
To be completely honest, you're anything but an example for initiative. I've seen you try & make decent programmers regress with your asinine thoughts & suggestions. Furthermore, you spout completely retarded shit which makes me question your sanity, along with your credibility. A man who speaks of contemplating becoming a serial killer, on forum of all places, is not one fit to lead any "intellectual/evolutionary revolution".

Take a look at the kind of advice you give: (I'm paraphrasing)
Question: "How would I display a message box using WinAPI?"
Right Answer: "Use MessageBox(Ex)."
Your Answer: "WAKE UP SHEEP! Using MessageBox would be giving in to Microsoft's constraints, use MessageBoxTimeout instead!"

Question: "How would I check if a process is running is utilizing Wow64 emulation?
Right Answer: "Use IsWow64Process.
Your Answer: "Fool! Use NtQueryInformationProcess instead & check the ProcessWow64Information class."

Seriously, the number of times I've seen you convoluted threads with your mindless babble & pollute the minds of other posters is simply mind-boggling. Dolts like yourself should be kept off the internet, or at least sites meant for intelligent discussion.

BanMe
October 7th, 2009, 17:52
lol..Hi irwin.. welcome to the boards, I see you have contributed much..with your 2 posts..I dont recall giving any of those answers you say I have given.. but I guess if the mighty XOR thinks it happened, it must've..and to be clear, I didnt contemplate being a serial killer..I contemplated the events that could've lead me to being one..thats somewhat different.. But I guess my views are different then yours, and your willing to hunt me down and try to bring me to the level of civilized 'individuals' such as yourself... I find this amusing to say the least.. I HAVE a stalker..WOOHOO!! regardless of this small fact, I welcome you, and hold you in the same regards as I do everyone..Hate me with your very soul if that suites you..me I am content with myself.. are you?

In fact I would suggest no action be taken against you, but I doubt my suggestion will be heeded..

BanMe

p.s. Please explain to me how is it wrong to present alternitive ways of doing things? I mean do you take the petfairy stance and say "something that has already been done, is not worth doing again?", or do you do things differently and try to come up with more then 1 solution to a problem? I ask because I am interested in understanding why you think such off the wall answers are not valid.

Woodmann
October 7th, 2009, 19:39
OH MAN..............!!!!!

You have a hater .

I wish I had a dozen of them to engage me in witty banter.

"you smell that son?".
"What sir?".
"Trolls son".
"one time this board was crawling with them trolls".
"They come with their clever words and oh so intelligent insights".
"You know one time, a long time ago, they used to come all the time".
"And the hunters killed them all".
"I love the smell of trolls in the morning"

JMI will know what I Loosely based that on.

Woodmann

Irwin
October 8th, 2009, 03:33
Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]lol..Hi irwin.. welcome to the boards, I see you have contributed much..with your 2 posts..

Look at our join dates, It'd be far more appropriate if I were to welcome you. Also, you've contributed even less to this community than I have, you've only derailed people who were unfortunate enough to read your posts and take what you said to heart.


Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]I dont recall giving any of those answers you say I have given..

I was making examples out of the kind of support you give, I would suggestion considering listening to you read the linked post (http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=3831388#3831388).

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]but I guess if the mighty XOR thinks it happened, it must've..

Well as you know, I'm rarely wrong. & I just provided a link proving you're fond on supporting & reinforcing retarded ideas.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]and to be clear, I didnt contemplate being a serial killer..I contemplated the events that could've lead me to being one.. thats somewhat different..

LOL.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]But I guess my views are different then yours,

That's true, I'm intelligent & sane. You on the other hand, are foolish & mentally disturbed.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]and your willing to hunt me down and try to bring me to the level of civilized 'individuals' such as yourself... I find this amusing to say the least.. I HAVE a stalker..WOOHOO!!

Are you really that full of yourself? I've been lurking woodmann forums for years, probably before you even knew of its existence. I'm just tired of seeing your retarded posts pollute the forums.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]regardless of this small fact, I welcome you, and hold you in the same regards as I do everyone..

To be honest, I think you should just fuck off. You're not helping anyone & you're clearly not learning anything meaningful either.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]Hate me with your very soul if that suites you..me I am content with myself.. are you?

Hate you? I'm far too detached from the internet to harbor anger towards someone half way around the world. On the other hand, I truly do detest how you attempt to mislead people with your pathetic charades which you attempt to label as "help". I must say though, your failed attempt at psychoanalysis is somewhat funny.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]In fact I would suggest no action be taken against you, but I doubt my suggestion will be heeded..

If [administrative] members of this community are stupid enough to actually listen to you, then I clearly do not belong in the first place.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by BanMe;83249]p.s. Please explain to me how is it wrong to present alternitive ways of doing things? I mean do you take the petfairy stance and say "something that has already been done, is not worth doing again?", or do you do things differently and try to come up with more then 1 solution to a problem? I ask because I am interested in understanding why you think such off the wall answers are not valid.

Nothing is wrong with opting to use an alternate method unless it's less safe/portable/viable/etc than the other options. The thread I linked to is a perfect example of this (http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=3831388#3831388), why would/should someone access the PEB to get a module's entry point address instead of the safer alternatives? It's simple, they shouldn't.

The PEB is an unsupported internal structure which is volatile, bound to change among OS/architecture & reading from it is all of the aforementioned as well as being unsupported. No real programmer would make such a pedantic suggestion over the supported & safe alternative (using GetModuleInformation).

Again, I advise anyone thinking of listening to BanMe to read this post: ("http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=3831388#3831388")
http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=3831388#3831388

_genuine
October 8th, 2009, 05:17
Wow...why turn an invitation to a new RE community to flame and negativity..xor if youre not interested you couldve easily just bypassed the thread, but it seems your passion is strong and you just had to reply..At any rate im in and willing to lend the hand.


regards
genuine

Daniel Pistelli
October 8th, 2009, 05:23
Irwin is right, of course, about not using internal structures when there's a public API. I just have to remark that the PEB can be accessed without inline assembly, but that's just a minor off-topic observation to Irwin's comment in the linked thread. I can only comment on Irwin's posts because I frankly can't understand what BanMe is saying in the thread: I mean I can't understand it both technically nor from the language point of view.

I could grasp:

Quote:
[Originally Posted by "BanMe"]yea to get it from Runtime you could get it from the PEB..

very simply without api.. ;p

sad.. to do it that way when you could do it on all os's with the proper code


This doesn't make sense at all. The PEB should be accessed only for hacks / unsupported & undocumented stuff / to by-pass API hooks which return incorrect information. And as Irwin pointed out, it is a volatile structure and accessing it limits portability.

_genuine
October 8th, 2009, 05:27
Wow...why turn an invitation to a new RE community to flame and negativity..xor if youre not interested you couldve easily just bypassed the thread, but it seems your passion is strong and you just had to reply..At any rate im in and willing to lend the hand.


regards
genuine

Irwin
October 8th, 2009, 05:30
Quote:
[Originally Posted by Daniel Pistelli;83266]Irwin is right, of course, about not using internal structures when there's a public API. I just have to remark that the PEB can be accessed without inline assembly, but that's just a minor off-topic observation to Irwin's comment in the linked thread. I can only comment on Irwin's posts because I frankly can't understand what BanMe is saying in the thread: I mean I can't understand it both technically nor from the language point of view.

I could grasp:



This doesn't make sense at all. The PEB should be accessed only for hacks / unsupported & undocumented stuff / to by-pass API hooks which return incorrect information. And as Irwin pointed out, it is a volatile structure and accessing it limits portability.

Finally a voice of reason, thank you. Actually, to be honest, I was going to mention posters like as one of the reasons It still frequent Woodmann but I couldn't remember how to spell your last name & didn't feel comfortable mentioning "Daniel from NTCore".

Also, yes, there are ways to access the PEB without using undocumented APIs and/or intrinsic/inline assembly (e.g. GetThreadSelectoryEntry) but divulging such information would have thrown him off on a tangent whilst ignoring the fundamental issue; accessing the PEB should be avoided unless it's needed & there is no support alternative.

_genuine
October 8th, 2009, 05:42
Irwin, we all understand that your point is in fact VALID, but your tone seems to have some other motive then just to address your own point.. The fact that BanMe did offer his insights on the more inferior alternative doesnt make him wrong. The code is valid and works and the idea is of course useable. Obviously there is some tension between the two of you but both of you can infact bring something into the community other than creating these kind of Topics with aimless flaming..Anyways with that said i do agree with your point but if it were some person who was looking for the 'hack' of accessing the PEB i would say they would probably have thanked BanMe for his insight,,bah im tired of typing now..

Daniel Pistelli
October 8th, 2009, 05:44
You're right, my off-topic observation was not intended to contribute to the argument API vs volatile internals, but just as a technical remark.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by "_genuine"]Anyways with that said i do agree with your point but if it were some person who was looking for the 'hack' of accessing the PEB i would say they would probably have thanked BanMe for his insight,,bah im tired of typing now..


Actually the person who asked in the thread seemed a noob to me (he was just asking how to retrieve the EP of a PE) and talking about PEB is just throwing such person off balance. It is useless information and it is misleading.

P.S. Irwin: Daniel from NTCore is ok =)

Irwin
October 8th, 2009, 05:54
Quote:
[Originally Posted by _genuine;83269]Irwin, we all understand that your point is in fact VALID, but your tone seems to have some other motive then just to address your own point..

My point is that this man is a fool & should not be listened to, especially by people looking to learn. I already made my point in regard to his stupid ideas but now I'm trying to make his inability to teach or lead clear.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by _genuine;83269]The fact that BanMe did offer his insights on the more inferior alternative doesnt make him wrong.

I'm not debating that it works (although most of the things he posts do not work at all), I'm debating the validity of the answers he gives.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by _genuine;83269]The code is valid and works and the idea is of course useable.

I dispute this, the code might work on someone's computer and it might not work on someone else's computer. This is the issue with the majority of the answers/suggestions which BanMe puts forwards, for some reason he loves to use undocumented APIs/structures & avoids using the safe/documented alternatives whenever possible.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by _genuine;83269]Obviously there is some tension between the two of you but both of you can infact bring something into the community other than creating these kind of Topics with aimless flaming..

He has already been run out of the aforementioned community, my current concern is that he'll have a detrimental effect on this community with his foolish & outlandish ideas.

Quote:
[Originally Posted by _genuine;83269]Anyways with that said i do agree with your point but if it were some person who was looking for the 'hack' of accessing the PEB i would say they would probably have thanked BanMe for his insight,,bah im tired of typing now..

Why would anyone thank someone else for over-complicating the issue at hand & offering them a sub-par solution?

BanMe
October 8th, 2009, 10:41
lol is there a defense? Is there information that is 'useless'? In some respects yes,In the endless search for alternitive methods and understandings, No.I believe it is all just information that is seeking its way into a solution.. the 'OP' may not have 'needed' it or understood the relevence of the information provided, but it opened up alternitive paths and researchable areas in case the 'correct' path was blocked..The fact I left that in the hands of all who read 'that' is what I do. I think though there may be safe alternitives and documented 'methods' of doing things, there are always unsafe and undocumented ways as well that can help if something doesnt work or is prevented from working...the fact that I offer what I know, and leave the research and explanation of when they can be used up to the user is the same the way I learned, and the way we all learn..yet it seems no one remembers this..or fights about it, toothe and nail, when someone mentions it.

also as to being 'run out of Cheat Engine Community' I find that laughable..I left because I grew up and saw the endless nature of the "game" hacking scene..not because of you Irwin, as you would so think in your righteous frame of being..so twisted that you see not the value or worth that everyone has. This is where we differ I guess, I see the value of the maze and recognize that all people regardless of their intelligence or cognitive understanding have something to contribute be it right or wrong, it is but a path in 'the maze'. I think you would just burn down the maze and go with the most convienent answer, not searching the endless dead ends in search of alternate ways out.

Also would you stand up and lead? Would you give of all you know and do it without expecting return for the shear joy of helping in any way you can..I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT...Maybe your are right, but will I let you and yours stop me..NO, so give up, cause you will not win.. Is that enough salt for you or do you want more?

Cheers BanMe

P.S. you have inspired me to come back to the 'game hacking', I hope to have further conversations with you as you bring out the lighter side of my being

Woodmann
October 8th, 2009, 18:02
Cmon irwin.........

You have lurked here for two years and made 5 posts.
And you are passing judgment on someone with about 255 more posts then you?

irwin, in case you dont know, I dont care who you are or what you have done. It makes no difference in my life at all.
All I see are screen names. I treat you the same as anyone who comes here.

So irwin, act like a grown-up and we will get along just fine.
Act like a prick and the donkey will bite you, capeche?

Woodmann

JMI
October 8th, 2009, 22:26
Apparently Irwin derives some perverse pleasure out of attacking the individual, rather than addressing what he may see as error or weakness in someone's reversing and/or coding exercises or expression. Generally such attacks are referred to as "ad hominem attacks".

By their very nature such efforts reflect badly upon the individual who feels compelled to make such attack on another individual on a mostly personal level, rather than through rationally addressing the idea, concept, expression, whatever, which they believe to be incorrectly stated or analyzed, whatever it may be.

Such persons generally find belittling others gives themselves a sense of "self-stature" and/or self-importance, which they seem to be unable to find in more thoughtful and considered discourse. It is as much a negative reflection upon themselves and their general lack of civility and respect for others, as it is on those whom they attack in such manner.

While they think they are demonstrating their "superiority", in truth, they are just reflecting the "insecurity" of their inner-selves. People who are secure in their own self-image, have no need to belittle others on such a low, and non-relevant level.

So Irwin do you actually have anything useful and constructive to contribute? If not, feel free to take a shot at me, I don't mind and don't even bother get offended, because I always consider the "source" and, besides, I love to argue, although I prefer getting paid to do so.



Regards,

habituallurker
October 9th, 2009, 02:55
JMI and Woodmann are wrong (whereas Irwin is 100% right), as is anyone who supports BanMe: BanMe simply does not know what he is talking about, and needs to go. I question the technical competence of JMI and Woodmann, and of anyone who defends BanMe. It does not matter if somebody has 250 posts if they are all filled with incoherent, wrong information about that person's predilection towards becoming a serial killer. That person is simply wrong, and has no business in a technical community. We're supposed to be a technical meritocracy here, and it's sad to see the moderators defending this bullshit. Not to belabor the point, but it is really sad to imagine that you do not even need to know what the fuck you are talking about, but rather all you have to do is make friends with the admins, and you can run your mouth all day long. BanMe, go away with haste.

BTW JMI that's "ad hominem". And go ahead and make comments about how my limited number of posts precludes me from saying anything -- you don't know me; maybe I'm deroko in real life.

dELTA
October 9th, 2009, 07:29
Trying not to take sides, I'll just try to clear up some factors of the problem here...

The "value" of a person on a message board like this is mainly dependent on three things:

A) Technical knowledge and understanding of the topics discussed.

B) Willingness to share whatever knowledge you have.

C) You attitude towards other people and other people's viewpoints.

The final "value" of a member is some kind of (biased) "multiplication" of these three factors. Without saying much more, this means that if you have the value zero (or close to it) for any of these factors, you should probably be very careful to attack or criticize another member to a degree more than very carefully. Hence the value of "post count", and also the reasoning behind not only discussing "aspect A" of a certain member...

That being said, it is completely ok to have an opinion about the "correctness" or "value" of someone else's standpoint, as long as you can present this opinion respectfully (if you are then met with disrespect, "the right behavior" might become a bit more non-trivial to define though).

Also, the "stronger" an opinion someone is expressing about something, the more fiercely they should expect to have to defend it in order to have it respected. And yes, that applies to "both sides" of this (and all other) discussions.

Play nice now kids...

NervGaz
October 9th, 2009, 08:39
Not to join in the flamefest that seems to be going on, but I'd just like to point out the
stupidity in the comments regarding BanMe's "Giving in to the thirst..." post.

As a (albeit dropped out) Psych. major I would define that post as a form of catharsis
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis) which is considered a healthy thing in most forms
of psychotherapy, although the forum he chose to do so in may not have been the correct
one I'd say it is certainly a healthy expression of emotions.

And before I get jumped when it comes to relevancy in my postings and postcount, I'm well
aware of the fact that I'm below the average knowledge of most active members of this board
and that is the reason I'm here... To learn.

That said I'm going back to lurking.

dELTA
October 9th, 2009, 09:23
Since the topic of your post was the psychology aspect, you are actually probably more competent than the majority of debaters in this thread, so no sweat.

And again, as long as opinions are expressed with an appropriate measure of humility, there is absolutely nothing saying that you cannot argue with something said by someone "more competent" either, even if it concerns a subject where that is actually the case.

JMI
October 9th, 2009, 10:02
habituallurker:

Thanks for correcting my spelling. The faster I type and the faster I try to think, the more spelling errors I throw into my posts. Since I have a spell check add in to my browser, which I had used to correct several other errors, I'm surprised that it didn't catch it.

It is irrelevant to me whether or not you might be "deroko in real life" or how many posts you may have. I did not address that issue at all in my comments. Perhaps you failed to notice that or the simple fact that no one suggested that having a low post counts "precludes [someone] saying anything". My comments were focused on directing criticism at the "person", rather than about the ideas and/or concepts discussed.

Woodmann doesn't need my defense either. He pays the bills and,therefore, makes the rules, and he has "earned" the right to state his opinion about behavior and attitude of posters on these Forums.

And in the end, you, as have others, seem to "miss the point" that posts in the "Off Topic" Forum are not necessarily supposed to show "technical competence" and if a post in this Forum or one of the other forums fails to show such competence, one can address "that" issue, rather than the poster's possession or lack of possession of personal traits which someone might find "appropriate" and another find "inappropriate".



Regards,

Woodmann
October 9th, 2009, 16:43
Holy O fuck.............

Come here and act like a prick and I'm gonna say something.

Is that to fucking difficult to understand?

It was the tone of his posts that pissed me off.


And once again, I dont care about anyone, You are a screen name.
I'll tear a mod a new asshole just as quick. Ask them.

You will respect my authoritah.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/150368/?searchterm=