Meh, little late, took me longer to write this up than I expected.
You guys are really pretty disappointing in the quality of your responses. Attacks on my maturity, attacks on my programming skill and attacks on my character in general - I expected them to an extent, but I would've imagined that you yourselves would've been at least a little disturbed that he added this, or at least added it and kept it secret.
Code:
public static bool LaunchClient(string client, bool patchEncy)
{
int num1 = 0;
string text1 = Path.Combine(Engine.BaseDirectory, "Crypt.dll");
ClientCommunication.ClientProc = null;
Loader.DLLParameters parameters1 = new Loader.DLLParameters();
if (!patchEncy)
{
parameters1.Flags |= Loader.DLLFlags.OSICryptEnabled;
}
if (Config.GetBool("SmartCPU"))
{
parameters1.Flags |= Loader.DLLFlags.SmartCPU;
}
[COLOR="Red"]if (Config.GetRegString(Registry.LocalMachine, "Hax0r") == "Tr33")[/COLOR]
{
parameters1.Flags |= Loader.DLLFlags.Trees;
}
if ((Loader.Load(client, text1, "OnAttach", ref parameters1, sizeof(Loader.DLLParameters), out num1) == Loader.ERROR_TYPE.SUCCESS) && (num1 != 0))
{
try
{
ClientCommunication.ClientProc = Process.GetProcessById(num1);
try
{
if ((parameters1.Flags & Loader.DLLFlags.SmartCPU) == Loader.DLLFlags.None)
{
ClientCommunication.ClientProc.PriorityClass = (ProcessPriorityClass) Enum.Parse(typeof(ProcessPriorityClass), Config.GetString("ClientPrio"), true);
}
}
catch
{
}
}
catch
{
ClientCommunication.ClientProc = null;
}
}
return (ClientCommunication.ClientProc != null);
}
This is C# code reconstructed from the compiled MSIL of the Razor v.29 binary. As you can see, it no longer references the UOG.dll export LaunchClient(), but handles it with Zippy's new Launch.dll. The process checks a secret registry key (which I'm not naming, but anyone with some brains can figure out), and if it's set correctly, Razor enables the tree-stump hack for the client.
Why is this an issue, you ask?
Two reasons: One, he added the tree-stump hack. Another in the growing list of "features" that Razor exhibits that is borderline cheating at best, blatant at worst. Zippy used to proclaim Razor openly as NOT a cheat tool, but even now on the Razor website he admits that some will consider it able to be used for cheating as well. If we continue down this road, the only differences between Razor and Injection will be that Razor is closed-source (although, obviously as I've just demonstrated, not really), and that Razor is still being updated with more and "better" features.
Two, he added it
and didn't tell anybody. It was his own personal little easter egg. If he had put it in the "New Features" list, I'd be a little less outraged, but still upset. As it is, he went to lengths to make sure that not only did nobody know about the feature but that the odds of it being discovered through everyday use were effectively zero.
He wanted to give those "in the know" a leg up in the competition. I don't know what you call that, but in my book that's outright cheating.
This is like your doctor selling narcotics on the side, guys. If Zippy's willing to put something like this in and then stop just short about lying about it.. where's Razor headed?