Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How bnetd Developers Reverse Engineered Battle.net

Posted by timothy on from the looked-at-the-label dept.

battlebot writes: "O'Reilly's ONlamp.com is running an interview with the bnetd developers that goes into great detail about how exactly they reverse-engineered Battle.net. This is by the same guy who wrote the recent Salon article, though is far more technical. They talk a little bit about their legal troubles too, and even sheepishly admit that perhaps talking to a lawyer earlier in the process would have been a good idea. Has this project been successfully squashed?"

6 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. blizzard's suing the wrong group by Frizzled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    warforge has been the team working on a warcraft 3 server (which caused all the problems with blizzard). they started with bnetd's code, but now the projects are basically separate.

    shame blizzard didn't do some research before turning the lawyers lose. even if they get an injunction against bnetd, they'll be shutting down the wrong group.

    _f

  2. Re:Consulting an attorney earlier... by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If we assume for the moment that they had thought of consulting an attorney when they first embarked on this project, would it have made a difference? I mean, seeing as the DMCA didn't actually exist in '98, how could they have made some plan to defend themselves against prosecution under it.

    This is addressed in the last part of the article:
    (emphasis added)

    Crittenden: We probably should have talked to a lawyer years ago to get an opinion on whether what we were doing was legal or not. I'm not sure how much it would have helped in this case. But it might have gotten us into a conversation with Blizzard much earlier, and perhaps in a less confrontational way.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  3. They'll never get another dollar from me. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have legimate copies of every game/expansion pack they've ever produced, on up to Diablo II. Full retail price, too, not bargain bin or second hand. They _were_ the one company that you could be sure I would buy a game from, maybe not the day it was released, but I'd get it eventually.

    As I remember it, this news hit the very day that I couldn't hold out any longer for D2. Strangely, I'd never heard of bnetd until then. Being able to play on a server I could control though, would only have encouraged me even more, to buy their games. I had only played Diablo I on Battlenet once or twice, and not been at all happy... nice idea, but too many assholes. To think that I could fix that problem without extending several dozen ipxtunnels, etc... that is kickass.

    They should have hired these guys, not sued them. That would have been a cheaper way to stall bnetd, they would have gotten more for their money, and they wouldn't have pissed people like me off.

    Fuck you, Blizzard.

    To everyone on the bnetd team, keep kicking ass, and the best of luck to you.

  4. why imitate? by lowwave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bnetd's developers certainly do wonders with those reverse engineering hack. The only drawback I can see is their limited ambition.
    Why not implement an open protocol to offer a platform so that all the rest of the game developers can write networked games? It's certainly true that Blizzard has the advantage of popular games. But I doubt that those developers have enough resource to keep up with all the strange packets designed by Blizzard intentionally or unintentionally. I also doubt that other game companies will sit idly to let Blizzard grab all the share. Blizzard's lawsuit won't bear the results they expect. It is unthinkable that a gamer will sign up for a service just be able to play one or several games designed by Blizzard.

    Wish Bnetd's developers good luck.

  5. Re:underground programming. by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 5, Interesting
    All the benefits of the open source would still remain if the lead developers remained anonymous (except maybe for ego purposes)

    It is EXTREMELY stressful to be an anonymous developer for legal-risky work. Let me tell you, I know.

    As Jon Johansen said, in an old interview about DeCSS:
    (emphasis added)

    http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html

    Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened ... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

    LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?

    Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.

    ...

    LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?

    Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  6. Re:Abuse of Open Source by Jabroni54 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yeah, but let's think about that for a second. BNETD is open source, they add in a CD check. I want to play my pirated game, hmmmm, edit *snip* recompile and hot damn, I'm ready to go, all the features, none of the pain. I am gathering that is what you mean by the no win situation.

    If I was Blizzard, why would I ever want to give up the CD-checking code? How would they invalidate CD Keys for the pirated/warez versions if now the server does local checking for validation of the CD keys? The logistics of even contemplating such an update would be a nightmare.

    The only thing I could even begin to see is a simple packet forwarding mechanism to send the CD Key to Blizzard's servers and then get a response. It will never happen since you still have the problem of BNETD being open source. *snip* No CD-Key check and voila, suck it down evil Blizzard corporate bastards for not letting me play my pirated game!