Proof of concept, multiple cursors one pc

[skarlot]

well its not proof, it could be doctored easily, and it's not quite what it may look like, it's not 4 windows cursors, but 4 WoW's without 'hardware cursors', but the code works in hardware mode also you just don't see the additional cursors. It will click simultaneously on 4 :). What I havn't said is it might not get released, because it potentially moves into warden sensitive territory, which I do not want to comment on any further, unless you have precise knowledge of what Warden does/doesn't do, it is way too difficult for me to debug, I don't know where to start. But I can look at what certain other apps do (legal ones), and judge whether I think it will cause a problem based on that, and I can guinea pig my toons. I think its pretty certain the concept itself won't be bannable. :). Fun little challenge!

yeh and i should prolly mention, that it will be totally off by default, definitely.

http://www.skarlot.net/octopus/multimouse.jpg

[Freddie]

Very nice. Do you feel like talking about the details or is this a trade secret? :)

[Ðeceased]

hehe shweet :) I gotta agree with freddie, would be good to see how you did it ^^ for me it's just out of curiosity ^^

[Anozireth]

How does it handle the focus of the windows? Do they all get every click without having to activate them somehow?

[skarlot]

I can't give any information, at this point. Other than you do need to DLL inject, which is pretty obvious. But that, for those who don't have any idea, is something even a program called The Governor, for monitoring Warden does, so in itself, is not a problem.

What you need to do exactly is pretty much like open sourcing it, on this occasion I am undecided if thats a good idea at all, since someone can just take my DLL and use it for a bot or something.

The no click's in the background thing is the result of default window behaviour on WoW's part. To circumvent it you gotta subclass it, but no telling exactly what :) thats half the fun! The other part, I am not detailing just yet. :D

had to edit this cos part of it was wrong :P lol.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Yeah, I tend to agree with your statement about others using it for malicious behavior. :P

[skarlot]

seems silly to risk it.

anyways i got it goin properly with mouse looking so its all good. course its not implemented but i've played with it to the point i know it's doable.

[Xzin]

Heh, hardware boxing lets you do this already.

[Freddie]

I can't give any information, at this point. Other than you do need to DLL inject, which is pretty obvious.
Thanks for providing some info about this. Like you said the other day, this is a fun puzzle, and you and I might be the only two people in the history of the universe who have tried to do this with WoW in software. So naturally I want to talk about it! :)

The way I did this was simply by moving the cursor with ordinary system calls (SetCursorPos in the Win32 API) and then sending a WM button-down/up messages to WoW. Nothing the least bit hackerish. Just straightforward stuff. This works regardless of whether WoW has the focus or not. However if WoW doesn't have the focus, there has be be a delay (something on the order of 6 to 30 ms depending on the PC's speed etc.) between moving the cursor and sending the message. So the question for me is, what can I do to update WoW's source of location info faster. If I knew where it's looking for that info, maybe I could figure out a way.

I'm guessing that you know where and how WoW is getting its cursor location info from hooking the DLL, and I would sure love to know that. I don't want to hook any DLLs myself -- that's not the kind of thing I would do with HotkeyNet. But knowing exactly what you do while you're in their address space (what you change or intercept or read) would be useful to know.


The no click's in the background thing is the result of default window behaviour on WoW's part. To circumvent it you gotta subclass it
I'm not sure what you mean but like I said, you can simply send WoW a button-down message while it's in the background and it processes it just fine.



Heh, hardware boxing lets you do this already.
When the windows are different sizes? When they are covered by other windows? When the windows are in the background? Software can do all those things. This calls for a flex emote but I don't see one! :)

[skarlot]

well you figured out it how better than I, since I used SendInput and didn't bother with any WM_'s etc. So I found at least 20ms per window, before and after the click. Wow is using GetCursorPos but handling mouse looking is more difficult since WoW will try and use SetCursorPos on each background window and expect it to go to the centre of the desktop, so you have to be intelligent about that :). Supose I can fine tune now based on this, and with SendMessage you'd be certain of WoW processing the up click straight away so you could eliminate any post-click-delay.

Well part 2 I'm just saying its possible to get it to accept a click straight from the background, direct from the mouse, which isn't neccessary since there is TweakUI and same deal in Vista but those are annoying to have running for general use. I hadn't figured out the WM messages would cause a click anyway so it was the first thing I was looking to solve.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Heh, hardware boxing lets you do this already.Not quite. ;) With software, you never have to worry about "zeroing" your mouse every so often, it's always in sync with your main PC.

[Freddie]

So I found at least 20ms per window, before and after the click.
You mean even with the way you're doing it, you have to delay too? I was hoping you found a way without a delay.

The way I'm doing it, the amount you need to delay seems to vary from one pc to the other and maybe also depending on what other programs are running. On my fastest PC it works sometimes with 6 ms before and 0 ms after, but 15 15 is pretty typical and I guess 20 20 wouldn't be surprising. I used 15 15 for the defaults.


Wow is using GetCursorPos
Let me make sure I understand. You do a mouse down with SendInput. Then wait for WoW to call GetCursorPos. You hook that call and return your desired cursor position?

Do you know what triggers WoW's call to GetCursorPos?

I'd like to find a completely legal way to do this.


handling mouse looking is more difficult since WoW will try and use SetCursorPos on each background window and expect it to go to the centre of the desktop, so you have to be intelligent about that .
I hadn't thought about mouse look. I guess doing that without DLL type stuff might be impossible.


with SendMessage you'd be certain of WoW processing the up click straight away so you could eliminate any post-click-delay.
I think I tried with both SendMessage and PostMessage and the result was the same, but maybe I didn't. :)


Well part 2 I'm just saying its possible to get it to accept a click straight from the background, direct from the mouse, which isn't neccessary since there is TweakUI and same deal in Vista but those are annoying to have running for general use.
What exactly did you do with TweakUI? Whatever it was, we can probably build the same thing into our app's.

[skarlot]

guess I shouldnt post after drinking, I was talking before and after, in various spots... prior to to my DLL, and about tweaking my non DLL system to fit what I now know! I would used SendInput alone, with no WM messages, which required delays pre-click post click.. but I can see how no post-click delay is neccessary with SendMessage here since WoW will probably complete it's GetCursorPos before the calling threads next SetCursorPos, so long its not multi-threaded there.

now theres no delays with a DLL, WoW will read GetCursorPos for WM_MOUSEMOVE and probably the button messages as well, i guess.

And yes, you could toggle the windows focus-follow-mouse as in TweakUI but subclassing is not a biggy, since a DLL is basically essential already.

[Xzin]

When the windows are different sizes? When they are covered by other windows? When the windows are in the background?

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.

Same resolution.
1 monitor per PC.

[leukos]

I think the problem here is we have big-endians and little-endians. I'm just wondering who the pope is supposed to be. I guess, if we stretch, we could consider the Xzin write-up on hardware mutliboxing scripture, but that is just getting silly.

[Ðeceased]

Bah! for a second there i thought I had found a solution ('http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510334(TechNet.10).aspx') to having to use broadcasting delays. turns out it's the same as that multimouse thing I posted on the other thread :S

[Executus]

[Gurblash]

Mentioning ways to get around Warden and abuse the TOS and EULA are against community policies. The above post should be deleted and removed. We don't speak of such attrocities in this community.

[Wilbur]

What you do is, enable Guest account on your computer, then on the administrator account run wow under guest account, that way Warden cant read what signels are being sent to wow.exe, yes this dos work for those who dont think it will, thats how Zolofighter "wowbot" cannot be detected.

P.S Blizzard is a large company so compared to Microsoft there nothing, its a safe and easy way to do it.

Yeah, guess what, this doesn't work. Warden is a PART of the WoW process. Stop posting shit that you *dont* have a *fucking* clue about. Additionally, even if it *WERE* as you had stated, which it isn't. Dont you think Blizzard would *NOTICE* your account not sending any Warden transmissions? Dont you think they'd be like "lawl hes not doing nothing suspicious."

GTFO and Never post this shit here again.

[DualTholo]

Nobody know how Warden really works, of course Blizzard....

[Qlimax]

i imagine when the time comes for World of Warcraft 2 comes out, Warden will be the new skynet, plausible isnt it

[Executus]

Yeah, guess what, this doesn't work. Warden is a PART of the WoW process. Stop posting shit that you *dont* have a *fucking* clue about. Additionally, even if it *WERE* as you had stated, which it isn't. Dont you think Blizzard would *NOTICE* your account not sending any Warden transmissions? Dont you think they'd be like "lawl hes not doing nothing suspicious."

GTFO and Never post this shit here again.This dos work for your information, Warden dos not have permission to check signels beyond its user, there is such feature called User Account Control inside the Users Accounts shortcut inside Control Panel(this is an example of what type of account control there is inplace), if you wish to argue about something thats meaningless then go ahead, if you think "Microsoft" would be stupid enough to allow an anti hacking system to scan beyond its user then we would have a hacker invasion called "Warden". Another thing, scan.dll has its limits, it dosnt have every single value meaning it dos not know everything!, before you post a reply, stop and think, reframe yourself from acting like a 5 year old hyper active fat kid after a mars bar and respond accordingly.

With Kind Regards Exe.

[Shiena]

[This dos work for your information, Warden dos not have permission to check signels beyond its user
... which in many cases does have zero effect. Do you know how many people run Windows Vista and have disabled UAC or run everything from an administrator account because they do not know what a non-privileged account is?

[leukos]

Since this has turned into the Warden thread, I thought I'd pass along another advantage to hardware multiboxing, but it applies when the hardware is only used for Warcraft. It doesn't matter what Blizzard can do with Warden, the only information they can collect off the computers is data files from - Warcraft.

I'm convinced Warden wasn't added to combat Cheaters, Hackers, and Farmers, but to give corporate security divisions an honest reason for saying "No, you may not install Warcraft on your company owned computer. It might send up corporate secrets to Blizzard"

[Shiena]

I'm convinced Warden wasn't added to combat Cheaters, Hackers, and Farmers, but to give corporate security divisions an honest reason for saying "No, you may not install Warcraft on your company owned computer. It might send up corporate secrets to Blizzard"
Which is just not true. How would a company like Blizzard risk being accused of something like this? Legal madness ahead.

[leukos]

Which is just not true. How would a company like Blizzard risk being accused of something like this? Legal madness ahead.

You hit the head of the nail square on and killed all the angels prancing around on it.

Of course, I'd also contend most of us are all so hopelessly addicted to Warcraft that even in the hypothetical situation of there being verified evidence of Warden doing something particularly nasty, we would still play.