Off-Topics
Everything is non related to this forum
Subforums
9,861 topics in this forum
-
- 20 replies
- 3.1k views
-
-
-
- 2 replies
- 415 views
-
- 7 replies
- 967 views
-
- 29 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 317 views
-
- 1 reply
- 298 views
-
- 2 replies
- 368 views
-
- 0 replies
- 383 views
-
- 0 replies
- 380 views
-
- 0 replies
- 299 views
-
- 3 replies
- 360 views
-
- 8 replies
- 549 views
-
- 0 replies
- 314 views
-
- 9 replies
- 719 views
-
- 14 replies
- 777 views
-
- 37 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 14 replies
- 821 views
-
- 15 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 9 replies
- 570 views
-
- 4 replies
- 400 views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 338 views
-
- 8 replies
- 799 views
-
- 15 replies
- 1k views
-
- 13 replies
- 787 views
-
- 5 replies
- 436 views
-
- 1 reply
- 386 views
-
- 3 replies
- 371 views
-
- 9 replies
- 432 views
-
- 0 replies
- 357 views
-
- 3 replies
- 412 views
-
- 14 replies
- 786 views
-
- 1 reply
- 336 views
-
- 11 replies
- 853 views
-
- 0 replies
- 320 views
-
- 5 replies
- 737 views
-
- 3 replies
- 365 views
-
- 3 replies
- 426 views
-
- 0 replies
- 394 views
-
- 8 replies
- 512 views
-
Posts
-
-
By NeoPacket0041 · Posted
LIVE VERIFICATION? SUMSUB? “IMPOSSIBLE”? ▪ Spoiler: it is possible — if you know who to work with. A client came in with a task to pass **live verification** on **WantToPay**, a Telegram virtual card service. On the platform side — **Sumsub**: liveness check, SMS, manual review. “Fast” and “by eye” simply don’t work here. › What was done: → analyzed the verification scenario and Sumsub requirements → built the correct flow: phone number, email, timing → **completed live verification remotely, without account handover** → handled SMS and confirmation codes → brought the process to final approval ▪ Result: → verification passed → access granted → no flags or repeat requests ▪ Live verification is not luck. It’s scenario-based preparation — not hope. › TG: @mustang_service ( https:// t.me/ mustang_service ) › Channel: Mustang Service ( https:// t.me/ +6RAKokIn5ItmYjEx ) *All data is published with the client’s consent.* #verification #sumsub #livecheck #kyc #case -
IMPORTANT INFO: In a few days, I will switch to completely new code, written from scratch with a new download system, patch building and management system. The Updater will become true 2026 code with "foolproof systems". I'm going to create a Discord server for customers to request new ideas and features. FIRST CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY USING THE NEW UPDATER ON LIVE SERVERS! Watch this topic for upcoming info because the new updater is around the corner! Yes, you can still use self-update on the previous updater! No, the new updater won't be compatible with the old patch system! A new build is required, but players who already have game files won't have to download the entire patch again! New templates and updates to existing templates are coming soon! Sneak peek: -
This is a bump: https://databay.com/ -
i used guytis IL project and source. i found in his project there are 3 Client version source... 1,CliExt_H5 --->this one cant be compiled in VS2005,i did know why..is it for H5 client? 2,CliExtNew --->this one is IL version ,but when i compiled it and use it.player cant login game,MD5Checksum wrong.i check the source code,but not found any hints. 3,L2Server --->this one for HB client?im not sure... so my question is what are the differences between these three versions of cliext.dll?how can i fix the issue of the MD5Checksum not matching problem? 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [CCliExt::HandleCheckSum] Invalid Checksum[1130415144] vs [-721420287] packet[dd] len[29] sum[2698] key[30] HWID[] Account[]! 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, SocketLimiter::UserSocketBadunknownprotocol 11111111111 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [usersocket]unknown protocol from ip[113.137.149.115]!
-
-
Topics
-
