Quote Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136187#pos t136187
So let's see....

We have the author of the base platform many bots run on, who also maintains and provides the extension to that platform meant to hide it from warden. (and no, you didn't quit providing that in 2007. looks like it was posted that with the bans that came with 2.4.3 you told users to stop using it until the "problems" could be fixed.)

We have eqjoe, longtime botter and the author of botting scripts. A simple search shows him giving advice to others on writing their scripts as well as providing his own. This line from this thread is really funny: "Blizzard banned several of us a few years ago for vanilla InnerSpace, just to reverse the bans and give us free time. Some of us have never trusted Blizzard since." as it implies that he doesn't bot.

Those searches also turned up Wilbur, who's also speaking up in defense of innerspace.

Botters and the guy providing their base sofware and the anti-detection extension. Go ahead and take their word for it on this stuff if you want. I seem to see a complete lack of honesty or openess from any of them on who they are and what they do. From lax you see a ton of double talk, which is quite pretty to read, and very little actual answering. Eqjoe seems to be running interference. Then we have the forum moderator who drops into these threads every now and again to insult anyone who speaks up against lax. That's a pretty little setup.
When did I say I stopped providing something in 2007? I said I was deposed in 2007. ISXWarden has not been in distribution since August, and that is unrelated to "the problems" you are describing.

I have no idea what double talk you are referring to. I have been open and honest and answered as many questions as I can, so I don't know what "little actual answering" you're referring to either. Sorry, please be more clear as far as what I'm not answering. For the most part what I see is people like you who simply don't read or understand my posts and then spout off nonsense, such as claiming that I somewhere said that ISXWarden has not been provided since 2007.

Souca:
I'm going to keep on this point, since I have yet to see a straightforward answer to the question. You have continually answered this question in a manner intended to avoid the actual intent of the question by stating that anything could read from memory. I hope this is unintentional on your part, so I will try and phrase this question again.

As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

As for all the bashing going on both sides, all I can say is that very few people can claim their hands are clean in here, mine included. There have been some very good points in this thread and those were ones that were backed up with cited facts. These posts have come from both sides and I hope that we can continue those kinda of posts *without* the personal attacks or the "shame on yous".

- Souca -

Edit: Changed with to without.
Inner Space cannot PREVENT access to WoW memory space, because it is IN WoW memory space, and reading from memory is a basic function of your computer. I thought I answered it as clearly as I could the first time around. Let me explain that there are a variety of mods that can be loaded via Inner Space. "Extensions" can be written in C++. Extensions can do literally anything, as they are essentially compiled Windows programs. Inner Space provides API to extensions for general memory writes, however this has nothing to do with World of Warcraft, and without specifically using an anti-Warden solution, provides no benefit over writing memory directly. Reading memory requires NO special API, because that is what all programs do -- they manipulate the memory in the process's "memory space" as you say. "Scripts" can be written in LavishScript, and LavishScript, like many programming languages, has type-casting. It is possible to read bits of memory through clever typecasting, very much like what could be done in C++, but again, there is nothing WoW-specific here. ".NET Applications" can be written in any .NET language, commonly C#. The same API provided to extensions or scripts is available to .NET applications, but much like extensions, these are Windows-native programs that will run in the WoW process, and can read or write to the memory space by design. In order to have the WoW-specific functionality that I believe you're trying to ask about, you would need to use a custom extension (e.g. ISXWoW). If this does not thoroughly answer your question I'm not sure what else to tell you on the subject.

So, in essence you're saying that
a) You own and are involved with a software company thus named Lavish Software.
b) You (but not Lavish Software) made a deal with MDY (which produces SOLELY Glider) to provide him with protection from Warden.
Note: "Protection" from warden, or otherwise tampering with warden, is against the ToU/Eula.
c) Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

Question:
Are you the sole owner of Lavish Software?

If so, doesn't that mean that "You" and "Lavish Software" are therefore equivalent in terms of everything but responsibility?

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing?
I am indeed the sole owner of Lavish Software at present time. I don't believe your synopsis is correct, and I do believe MDY has other products (though I am not an expert on MDY). Lavish Software (and indeed Inner Space) was created long before Warden existed, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is "the only REAL differentiation", but it is indeed convenient to keep it separate and not market any Warden-related tools on the Lavish Software company site. There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software? I have also held other jobs while owning Lavish, do my other jobs count as being Lavish? If I release a free, open source program to make toast for you, and I don't market it or provide it on my company site, but I do somewhere else, does that mean the toaster program is a Lavish product?

In the end the distinction is largely legalese, and I don't think it's fit for discussion on these forums. Just take it as read that Lavish Software as a company has never produced nor marketed Warden protection, and you will not find any evidence to the contrary on the web site. You are certainly free to feel however you like about my distribution of ISXWarden but on my end it's handled, and you may or may not come to find that out in the near future.

If the argument is that I've made software people use for botting, so you don't want to trust my software, then don't, I'm not going to change your mind, because indeed I have written software people use for botting. Even before Inner Space, I made MacroQuest 2 in EQ1, rewritten from MacroQuest 1 which was originally made by Plazmic, who I'm told landed a job at Microsoft after impressing someone with it (he died last year of an aneurysm). People used that for botting and warping and whatever else you can think of. Our MQ2 community rules explicitly state that afk bots are not allowed, hacks like warping are not allowed, and so on, but in the minds of the many, MQ2 is synonymous with botting and warping. From my experience with MQ2 I went on to create EQPlayNice, which was and is a HUGE benefit to multi-boxers in EQ1, and WinEQ, neither of which were "cheating" applications by any measure, and EQIM clients such as TEQIM (for Trillian). And as anyone who was around back then will tell you, I had these same kinds of conversations with people at that time, even though I ALSO made EQWatcher, long before I got into MacroQuest, and it had a decent following in its time, including from multi-boxers such as Scott Adams of Adventure fame (not Dilbert). Note that SOE never banned any of my accounts, some of which are active to this day. I believe I present even them with an interesting dilemma.

Edit: Added "Even before Inner Space" in the previous paragraph, because there would have been a reply asking me if I was implying that Inner Space was never used for botting, and I'm obviously not arguing against that, because people have.