Stop wasting your time

[TheSmartOne]

Look Spiro, what is the point of your software?

the disassembler/debugger:
nowhere close to what OllyDbg can already do (features/interface). You will never come close to the type of interface that Olly offers. you can even write simple plug-in dlls that can be called on breakpoint conditions (sound familiar)?

memory searcher.
your interface sucks for yours. (well, for your whole program) There is a dozen out there that are just as fast as yours, but far more intuitive. Some even have features that yours does not have, and just "work better".

C like scripting:
Why? If people want to USE C/C++, they will use it (Not your script variant, the REAL thing). If they want to LEARN C/C++, why learn a variant of it? people like fully CUSTOM stand-alone trainers. They like putting cool graphics/buttons on them too. Why are you attempting to write your own C interpreter anyway? there are already a dozen out there. Some of which yours will never come close to matching. There are even some open source ones. Full source licensing for some of the better ones are nowhere near 80k either LOL so sorry to smash your hopes of making a bunch of money selling it. It isn't that valuable anyway, and your isn't/will never be that good.
With script-able Python, and Ruby out there anyway ???????
What company would pay money for what they can get for free? Why didn't you use ruby/python/javascript instead of your c-script.

Being bound to your software is ridiculous anyway. if it ever gets more than the 25 users that use it now, Anti-Cheat software will start to scan for your software/Standalone-trainers. they will all have a common signature and will easily be detected. You may play cat and mouse with the AC's for a while, but they will eventually win.

Your templates scanner is useless. I am probably one of only 5 people on earth that has taken the time to use it correctly (what a waste).
It didn't really work like it was supposed to, I finally got it mostly working. In the end, I used Hiew to extract some data files I was after in memory.

I am sad that even though you try, your software never truly gets better. Your usability design is bad, functions you add are near worthless/misguided, No proper documentation, buggy, poorly implemented everything.

Sigh
Enough is Enough.

[LouCypher]

Why do they still make Swiss Army Knives? I mean really, there are better pocket knives out there. I've got a corkscrew in my kitchen drawer. There is a pair of nail clippers and file in a manicure set in the bathroom. I've got toothpicks in the kitchen cabinet.

What's the point of coming on his site, his forums, and shitting on his program? Just so you can make this magical assumption that you and probably 4 other people use them? You're a C++ expert right, you're so good at using Olly, Python, Ruby, etc. Why not make your own fucking plugin/trainer that won't ever be detected by anti-cheats? Maybe you can't?

When was the last time Olly was updated? Are you running Olly 2.0 yet? No? Maybe you should find him and shit on his program because SoftIce is superior, or IDA does better disassembly. I'm sure that would light a fire under his ass to rush 2.0 out, or just make him give up because it's never going to be as good as other programs.

You're an asshat who hides behind the cover of anonymity. Nobody gives a shit what your opinion is, and lots of people (who *gasp* aren't even registered here) know about and use MHS. Even some of those anti-cheat developers that use it to debug the cheats they're trying to block.

L-Spiro has and continues to provide unprecedented support for his program. His documentation is ever evolving, he listens to and implements suggestions, and constantly improves his program to make it easier to use, harder to detect, and capable of targetting an increasingly larger number of "protected" games/utilities.

So why don't you just shut the fuck up?

[L. Spiro]

Look Spiro, what is the point of your software?

To give me something to do when I am bored.

the disassembler/debugger:
nowhere close to what OllyDbg can already do (features/interface).

Not actually as far off as you think, but I need to document those hidden details, which won’t come until after I redo them, and by then I will be paying much closer attention to anything missing that OllyDbg has.

you can even write simple plug-in dlls that can be called on breakpoint conditions (sound familiar)?

Sounds familiar, but I had the idea on my own, long before I used OllyDbg.

memory searcher.
your interface sucks for yours.

Some people have agreed before, but they never say why or propose a better design.
Not to worry, however, since this is already on the list to be redesigned after the debugger/disassembler.

There is a dozen out there that are just as fast as yours

Actually this is just plainly false.
As you claim there are 12 out there that are faster, I now issue a modest challenge to name 6.

but far more intuitive. Some even have features that yours does not have, and just "work better".

If we all had the same features there wouldn’t be a point in having various software available, would there be?
As for “working better”, that’s entirely subjective, and you would have to define exactly what works better.
Stability? Storage efficiency?

C like scripting:
Why?

• Why scripting?
  
  • Why does 010 Editor support scripting?
  • Why does mIRC support scripting?
  • Why not support scripting?
• Why similar to C?
  
  • So that people don’t need to learn a new syntax to get going.
  • Because C++ is my favorite language, but I didn’t want to go so far as full object-oriented.

If people want to USE C/C++, they will use it

They have that option too, as my language will support loading of custom DLL files that the user has written in real C/C++.
So, why my language?
Because it offers a much faster way to test things as you go along.
Why bust out Visual C++ and create a whole new DLL plug-in project to test out how to decode some address or another, compiling, copying to the proper directory, loading as a plug-in into your software of choice, etc., each time you make a simple change?
Why so much hassle? Why not just hit Alt-T/R, make a few changes, and hit F5? Done and ready to go.

By the way, the language itself is actually a full stand-alone language, not a script.
I just refer to it as a script for the sake of simplicity.

they want to LEARN C/C++, why learn a variant of it?

The language is not intended for people who don’t already know C/C++.
Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of modeling my language after C so that people don’t need to learn a new syntax?

people like fully CUSTOM stand-alone trainers

For pretending to know so much about the software, you really don’t know anything about the software.
Once I have the exporter ready, what is going to stop people from making fully customized stand-alone trainers?
And since they have access to the source code of the trainer, it seems to me they have even more customization potential than they would have with any other software designed to make trainers.

They like putting cool graphics/buttons on them too.

Again, what is going to be stopping them?

Why are you attempting to write your own C interpreter anyway? there are already a dozen out there

Because none of them have the “extern” feature which allows declaring variables:

• In the target process on your own machine.
• In files on your own machine.
• In processes on computers across networks.
• In files across networks.
• Over the Internet.

But I guess you didn’t know it could do that, did you?
How about a language that allows you to declare/call functions inside the target process? Seems to me, no language has ever existed with these possibilities. Variables/functions that don’t exist inside the language space itself? Crazy!


Then there are other reasons, of course.
For example, “because I can.”
“Because I wanted to write a language.”
“So that you could ask that question.”

Some of which yours will never come close to matching

Are you somehow under the impression that I am competing with them/anyone?

Full source licensing for some of the better ones are nowhere near 80k either LOL so sorry to smash your hopes of making a bunch of money selling it. It isn't that valuable anyway, and your isn't/will never be that good.

That’s not what 3 actual companies say.
In fact they agree it’s quite about right.
I went over the estimates with them, and not going into too many details, the basic idea is you get 3 professionals making the average $80,000 (in America) over a time span of 3-4 months, not just accounting for wages but accounting for the actual cost per employee (electricity, utilities, etc.)
It adds up quite quickly, without even accounting for the time saved by purchasing an existing language, and the risk of these 3 pros going overtime (which is quite common indeed).

What company would pay money for what they can get for free? Why didn't you use ruby/python/javascript instead of your c-script.

A company who isn’t willing to make their whole project open-source just because they are using a GNU-protected alternative?
A company with needs that Java can’t meet?

if it ever gets more than the 25 users that use it now, Anti-Cheat software will start to scan for your software/Standalone-trainers

I noticed you went out of your way to mention all the non-existent downsides to my stand-alone trainers, but failed to ask, “What about people who want their trainers to be automatically hidden by kernel-mode features otherwise hard to achieve with the existing tools available for making trainers?”
They can scan all they want; I’d consider it flattering they finally took notice.
But unfortunately I’m already going kernel-mode, and these kernel-mode protections go with every trainer made by my software, making all of them quite a pain to detect.

they will all have a common signature and will easily be detected

This is nothing more than a matter of changing a few segments of code around during each export, which is already planned, and in fact required by my method of export.
Each .EXE file will be unique, on top of its kernel-mode protections.

You may play cat and mouse with the AC's for a while, but they will eventually win.

If you knew anything, you would know that it is impossible for anti-cheats to win this war. x86 guarantees that.
As for me, I’m on both sides of the line, so I’ve already won.
Hell, I know the guy who made Steam personally. Crazy guy he is.

Your templates scanner is useless

Hence why I am remaking my templates from scratch.

It didn't really work like it was supposed to, I finally got it mostly working

Make up your mind. Was it working or not? Because, “finally getting it to work” essentially means, “I was doing it incorrectly the first time.”

I am sad that even though you try, your software never truly gets better. Your usability design is bad, functions you add are near worthless/misguided, No proper documentation, buggy, poorly implemented everything.

Sound spiteful much?



I think you may not have used my software during the last year, since most of your complaints are heavily outdated or just plain inaccurate.
Nothing is buggy but the Disassembler/Debugger, and that is soon to be fixed (on top of being rarely buggy anyway).
And mentioning improper documentation is just proof that you haven’t even used it this year.



As always, any suggestions, comments, and even criticism is welcome.
But please, when you comment, at least know about what you are talking.


L. Spiro

[IcameIsawIcheated]

I was ready to make a long post after reading the first post, but everything has been pretty much covered by LS to a further extent than I could of done.

I for one never knew about GHS until 1 week ago, and what alot I have been missing out on!

[TheInsaneAssassin]

Why would you come here just to bitch like that? Grow up. If you hate his program so badly, go use another one. We don't want to hear about it.

[Turtle]

TheSmartOne,

Perhaps you have overlooked some of the best features of MHS? For example the advanced code injector, the conditional breakpoint creator, the highlighting of jumps, the converter ...etc