Do me this favor and tell me what way you have decompiled the source code? You haven't. For example... Take JAD and decompile a simple source file you've made and it'll be TOTALLY INCORRECT. I've made a chat client that connects to the web for example, added Java Cryptography Technology to it decompiled it ripped that code and it failed to compile. Hell not to mention it didn't even have the correct import statements. Please you dumb fuck, get your head out of your ass.
HAHA, You come in here and tell me about AJAX, LmFaO. You're pathetic, do you even know what the fuck it is used for? Well the most common would be KEEPING the URL the same WHILE changing the pages, IT IS ALSO used in masking HTML/JS/CSS/ETC code. You're a dumb fuck hahahaha
Now by the far, Java Cryptography is for what... ENCRYPTING your files probably? Have you bothered to pick up the book by O'Reilly called "Java Cryptography" you're so stupid you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
By the way jelsolm (I forget your name), etc. Jagex does not use MSJ... I'll tell you why... 1) MS was sued by sun for using Suns Java ONLY on MS OS's. Now... My question is... RS works on...? Mac? Linux? Windows? right?
Oh I just would like to add to your running mouth etc. Have you successfully decompiled the RS source code? No you have not, NO ONE has. It is near impossible to decompile bytecode to the EXACT way it was before it was compiled. Then to top it off if you add the Java Cryptography decompiling it makes it even harder than w/o it. And considering there hasn't been a single good program that does this, NOR good programmer I suggest you shut the fuck up and get back to your Java for Dummies book...
And yes you dumb fuck, Jagex DOES in fact use Java 3D. Have you ever bothered to look at the API specification? Probably not, but if bothered to you'd see that Jagex either RIPPED code (which is illegal and I'm sure someone at Jagex Offices would have leaked this) or they're building off of it (which is NOT illegal).
OH what the fuck... OH MY GAWD... Use FireBug and you'll see that Jagex uses AJAX dumb ass... Get the fuck out of here you dumb ass wikipedia user. Wiki is good for opinions but NOT facts you dumb ass
Another go back to procedural programming in C you dumb fuck
foreverNocturnal, Normally, you're posts would make sense in other communities where people like to lap up bullshit because they don't know any better (this would be one of them.) But I'm sorry to say that there are a few people here that actually know what they're doing, and even if they don't, they know how to get there.
You don't even have a clue what you're fucking saying. It's like everything you say can be put in some guys signature for people to laugh their ass off at (In fact, I think I'll go ahead and start gathering said quotes.) To top it all off, you don't even have the capability to understand, much less retaliate, to points when they are addressed. But because some people are slow (you are at the complete bottom of the cesspool, even people who have posted random shit like "runescape is fun" are far brighter than you'll ever be.)
You're like an idiot trying to bring back ancient Greece. Ever heard of logos, pathos, and ethos? You're using a combination of all 3, and it's pathetic.
You have absolutely no clue what empirical data is and you probably never will. You're making random guesses because you think it would make sense i.e. logos. You think that mentioning the few buzz words you know will strengthen you're "because I said so" way of arguing i.e ethos. And mentioning things like "And yes you dumb fuck, Jagex DOES in fact use Java 3D. Have you ever bothered to look at the API specification" only makes you look like a dumb ass because you're making statements based on whether or not you think it would be nice i.e pathos. Fact of the matter is, you haven't even been able to get the client to decompile successfully. Taking that into consideration alone, all of your arguments are rendered useless to those who have.
Even your logic is flawed about virtually everything. Jagex uses Java Cryptography to encrypt there files? How about you use your brain for once and reason it out correctly. Even someone who doesn't know the Java language can do it:
If Jagex encrypted their source files with Java's encryption API, then we know right from the start that it wouldn't compile. How about I make up my own encryption scheme and send it to a Java compiler? Yeah foreverNocturnal, go ahead and compile: aj-da9-**D8f9008s08d223j0nwa98af908yfah9udfsfy80h89znpdumbfuckidi
otmotherfuckinghoea09fdu9823
Tell me if you ever get it to work. How about we encrypt the class files instead? That's actually an option we can use. But we know that once we try to load it into the JVM, the virtual machine won't be able to understand it. So we'd have to create a custom ClassLoader to decrypt it on the fly. Why wouldn't this work logically? Technically it would, but there's a little method called
defineClass that would fuck up all our efforts because we have to call it in order to make a custom ClassLoader generate a Class object. You see, when we call defineClass, we have to send it an
unencrypted byte array of our original file, and it's an easy matter to intercept that byte array using a Bytecode Instrumentation API like BCEL, or ASM.
So logically, we can't use Java's encryption API to encrypt our files unless we don't really care about security, or are interested in fooling the typical passerby wannabe "hacker". So what's the last option we have?
Obfuscation. Obfuscation is, in lay mans terms, the process of obscuring the true intent of an application by making it extremely hard to understand the flow. Speljohan put it fairly well in a previous post: mathematical shifts, useless statements, dummy arguments etc. This process makes it extremely difficult for any programmer to actually follow the code itself. It just so happens that Jagex uses a modified version of ZKM to obfuscate their files. And it follows that we could use ZKM itself to unobfuscate it _a little_ (again, Jagex uses a _custom_ form of it.)
Why doesn't the client's files decompile fully from the beginning if they are just obfuscated?
I mentioned this little word sequence in a post above, but you didn't understand what the implications of it were to begin with.
Bytecode Verification The virtual machine's (since it's abstract, I'll be referring to the one most people use which is Sun's.) bytecode verifier can be abused because it isn't very strict currently. Decompilers like JAD follow the Java Virtual Machine Specification's Class File Format, etc flawlessly, but this doesn't make up for the fact that the verifier can be abused. Hence the reason why you can decompile some class files and not others. So it follows that you would have to eliminate these anomalies by hand or through automation with a Deobfuscator coded specifically for the task of decompiling Runescape (thanks popcorn.)
Go play in the field with your little XMLHttpRequest that you love so dearly. You guys would make a great couple, but you have to instantiate him first (which you don't have the capability to do, so you're essentially out of luck.) Hell, why not get married to it? I'm afraid you'll have to check up on country and/or state laws where you live though considering the fact that many places do not condone gay marriage.
As for Java 3D, I'm going to make a statement based off the ancient Greek technique of Ethos at this point because you wouldn't benefit from anything I have to say on the subject as it's obviously too complicated for you to understand.
Jagex does _not_ use Java 3D....because I told you so.
So the next time you ask someone if they've "decompiled the RS source code" maybe you should ask yourself why they would want to decompile anything if they have the source. The next time you say "private servers don't use Sockets while Runescape does" how about you learn Java networking. The next time you say "Jagex uses Swing because they had an article about Music" get some help from a counselor or _anyone_ as soon as possible because you are a fucking lunatic at that point. The list goes on and on, but I'll some it up with one final statement:
The next time you say something...just refrain from doing so if it involves computers, answering based on logic, or life in general.
On second thought, maybe I should have been like Cheese_Police (one of the few people above who have looked at the actual client's code.) and told you that you're a fucking idiot and left it at that. Why do I even bother?
