Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Avve if you so stupid, let me explain that this forum is "cheating forum", and tutorial like this able to placed here.

If you check forum more carefully, the source code of .dll which can decrypt smart crypt shared here on MxC. So stop to do bullshit like you always do, better make good encryption tool, which you can't right now.

Posted

1. This ISN'T MY ENCRYPTION, You smarass. You maybe can encrypt Lameguard, I don't care.
2. SERVER OWNERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE PROTECTION FOR THEIRS FILES. They PAY for it, IT'S THEIRS WORK.

Read the rules of marketplace section or client mod section You retard - You are not allowed to share / steal others ppl work.
When You are sharing such shit tool, You are allowing everyone to STEAL from server owners.

Fix Your brain You retard. Read this forum rules and use Your brain.

Posted

My opinion that any crack should be attended by the owner, selling useless products and wasting ppls money is also forbidden by the rules of our plain logic. 

 

I encourage such shares/tutorials to make products better.

Posted (edited)

I already told You this 10 times - or even more:
- with such video, You will hit ONLY server owners who will get leeched from theirs server files - so You are stealing, not teaching anybody anything.
If You want to hit the protection developer, prooves his mistakes, point scamms, hit his work. Your way of thinking: hit his previous clients. LOL

It's like fucking for virginity or making bombs for peace.
GG.

Edited by aVVe
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • 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:  
    • 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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This community uses essential cookies to function properly. Non-essential cookies and third-party services are used only with your consent. Read our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..