Registration Code (Part 1): w%kQ6
Registration Code (Part 2): b<#$1[*(cw~
In order to register on this forum, you must use the codes above. Combine them into one code (copy paste).

Steamless update?

SteamStub DRM remover that unpacks SteamStub DRM protected games.
User avatar
atom0s
Site Admin
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:23 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Steamless update?

Post by atom0s » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:47 pm

What is the second exe in these zips? The one with hash as the name and not just the 'CoDWaWmp.exe'?

As far as I can tell, Steamless is unpacking this file without issue and correctly.
Derp~
Need a great web host? Check out: AnHonestHost.com


Donations can be made via Paypal:
https://www.paypal.me/atom0s
mirh
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Steamless update?

Post by mirh » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:28 am

The one with the hash name was extracted from retail patch and I'm supposing it to be what steam executable should look like after unpacking with your tool.

Your call if I'm wrong then.

EDIT: I have problems with Mass Effect
Attachments
MassEffect.7z
(4.11 MiB) Downloaded 55 times
User avatar
atom0s
Site Admin
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:23 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Steamless update?

Post by atom0s » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:25 pm

The Call of Duty file appears to unpack fine and runs (errors as I don't have the needed DLLs and such) so I have no reason to suspect that Steamless is failing somewhere. The only thing I would say is if it has issues loading, it's due to using SteamAPI's partial DRM and needing to be told what the SteamAppID is when being loaded. You can deal with that via setting the SteamAppID appropriately for the given game when its being started.

As for the Mass Effect file, I just pushed Steamless v3.0.0.3 which should fix unpacking that file.
https://github.com/atom0s/Steamless/releases/latest
Derp~
Need a great web host? Check out: AnHonestHost.com


Donations can be made via Paypal:
https://www.paypal.me/atom0s
mirh
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Steamless update?

Post by mirh » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:11 am

Yeah, I know it runs fine.
I was just pedantically pointing out some bytes are different between the two exes (including VLV mention that I'm relatively sure shouldn't be there).
User avatar
atom0s
Site Admin
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:23 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Steamless update?

Post by atom0s » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:09 pm

mirh wrote:Yeah, I know it runs fine.
I was just pedantically pointing out some bytes are different between the two exes (including VLV mention that I'm relatively sure shouldn't be there).
The VLV part of the file is known as the DOS stub of a file. If you don't know what that is here is a small article that covers its purpose pretty well:
https://www.simple-talk.com/blogs/anato ... -dos-stub/

Valve could be using this for something else as it is not required to be in a 32bit file anymore and can contain anything you want. You can enforce its purpose entirely yourself as a programmer as well to do whatever it is you would want. Given that I have no evidence that it affects the files created by Steamless, I opt to restore it as it was in the original protected file. There is no reason to remove it otherwise as far as I know.

I can add an option to Steamless to allow unpackers to remove it if the user wants though.
Derp~
Need a great web host? Check out: AnHonestHost.com


Donations can be made via Paypal:
https://www.paypal.me/atom0s
mirh
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Steamless update?

Post by mirh » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Well, if you are sure VLV was there to begin with.. Fine.
Do those little differences inside data dir, beginning of .text and offset 0x3E5FF0 also looks good to you?
Golem_x86
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:54 pm

Re: Steamless update?

Post by Golem_x86 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:28 am

The VLV\0 bit in the DOS stub is a signature for self-validation when the DRM routine runs. It is unnecessary, and may make ProtectionID think it's a new variant when it's not. The differences you see in the sections table is caused by unnecessary block alignment of virtual section size. The digital signature was removed, so you'd see the security directory entry blanked out. For the difference at the end of the .text section, that's caused by not stripping the padding from the decrypted data.
User avatar
atom0s
Site Admin
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:23 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Steamless update?

Post by atom0s » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm

Golem_x86 wrote:The VLV\0 bit in the DOS stub is a signature for self-validation when the DRM routine runs. It is unnecessary, and may make ProtectionID think it's a new variant when it's not. The differences you see in the sections table is caused by unnecessary block alignment of virtual section size. The digital signature was removed, so you'd see the security directory entry blanked out. For the difference at the end of the .text section, that's caused by not stripping the padding from the decrypted data.
If there is something wrong being done or something that can be adjusted to be more correct feel free to let me know.
Derp~
Need a great web host? Check out: AnHonestHost.com


Donations can be made via Paypal:
https://www.paypal.me/atom0s
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest