New fork

[JoeBloe]

Anyone have an assessment of how much labor would be involved for a fork of ShowEQ that relies on a more advanced sniffer based off macroquest?

I would envision the new sniffer as still a passive memory reader unlike macroquest but it would send all the data like (N)PC locations to the ShowEQ box.

The amount of data ShowEQ needs sent would be insignificant for any 10Mbps+ home network.

[sam]

Isn't this an extremely bad idea? I mean if SOE knows there is a new type of SEQ out there that runs on the same box as EQ and it runs all the time, and it sends a LOT of data to another local IP... all these things are easy ways of being caught. It would be great but who would have the balls to run the damn thing?
The advantage the key sniffers have is that they pop up, run for a fraction of a second, and then they are gone. So EQ can't "scan" for key sniffers really. They can set memory traps possibly, but thats a little tougher to do for them, and someone would probably be able to notice that it was happening.
Still, the best is the totally passive packet sniffing that SEQ used to be, and still is if you want only the GPS... no way they find you if you are doing just that.

[JoeBloe]

The same people that have the balls to run Macroquest.

We don't all hear black helicopters.

[Alfred]

But thats just it!!

You DON'T hear the black helicopters! ;)

[LordCrush]

don't see the need ... all what seq nees is the §@%& key ... rest it can get from the wire

[old_fart]

Seems there might be some advantages to a client based memory tool to send information to SEQ. I am considering a simular idea that would be a macroquest spin off that would not use detours. There seems to be a lot of panic in the MQ arena over the recent client side checking being done on the test server.