Release **** Public hack v1.01 [working and updated]

[koolkid0000]

THANKS KIKO FOR THE TUT!

Here it is! Free for all to use. Press delete to activate the menu.


Current features:

* Bypass
* Wallhack
* Chams
* Whitewalls
* Fullbright
* Crosshair
* No Fog


Requirements:

* Must have at least one post.
* Must be a registered user.


Instructions:

* Extract the hack.
* Edit the ini with your **** user info (user/pass fields).
* Start the hack.
* Press ok when you see the popup dialog.
* Start Combat Arms.
* Win.

Known Issues:
The hack may not start up on the first try. You may have to start it up again to get it to work if you don't see text on the bottom right hand corner.
ITS PACKED WITH THEMIDA. Hence FALSE virus positives.
You must have the .net FRAMEWORK [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
If you have vista, disable UAC and run the hack and Combat Arms in XP compatibility with administrator.

Note: If you post your login info on any other website, or share it with anyone with more then 2 ip ranges, your account will get banned preventing you from using it.

Virus scan- [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

You must register at [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] to use hack its like tgs..

I take no credit in making hack Credits go to Dave from ****

Thanks and comment (:

Use at your own risk - [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[calebj90]

false viruses ive never herd of that.

[koolkid0000]

Well, everyone has to learn what a false positive is sometime...

Here is something to enrich your curriculum.

I see viruses. When an antivirus scanner reports a file as being infected, when in fact it is not, that reporting is considered a false positive. False positives aren't confined to antivirus software either, as Scott Berinato discusses in the article, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Indeed, false postives in any security software can be more than just annoying. One popular argument is that users beset with false positives may become so anesthesized to the alerting that they disregard a valid warning. In other cases, false positives - or the way in which they are handled - can lead to an even worse problem: a false sense of security.
In December 1999, Norton Antivirus began false-alarming on the Macromedia® Flash Player and files created by Flash™. At the time, Symantec® (makers of Norton Antivirus™) and Macromedia® participated in a joint effort to confirm that these were indeed false positives. Subsequently, a support statement was released declaring, in essence, that both Symantec® and Macromedia® had confirmed there were no viruses in Flash, or in the files created by Flash. This press release still survives, and can be found on [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Lest you think it's buried deep, the release can be found by doing a quick search for the word "virus" on the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Why would someone search on the Macromedia® website for the term "virus"? To see what their response was regarding the newly discovered (March 6, 2001) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] virus. While not actually a Flash file, for all intents and purposes nakedwife.exe looks like a Flash file - right down to its icon and splash screen. Thus, to many average users, nakedwife.exe would be considered a Flash file.
We can assume that Norton Antivirus has long since stopped false-alarming on Flash files, but what about someone who hears about a new "Flash" virus, visits Macromdia's site, and does a search on the word "virus". They'll be presented with a disclaimer that Symantec® has confirmed Norton Antivirus™ is generating a false positive, that "the" warning is erroneous and that all Flash files are safe for use. For a user who has previously experienced the problems of false positives, such a disclaimer might be enough to cause them to believe nakedwife.exe is safe to launch.
How, in the face of such conflicting information, can you determine whether a warning is justified or is a false positive? If the alert says the file is suspicious, or that it cannot be disinfected and should be deleted, you might want to do some research before relying on program developer support statements. First, check sources like Antivirus.About.com or your antivirus vendor sites to see if the virus name provided is listed there. ...always double check information found via web searches to determine whether the information is still applicable
If you can't find the virus listed there, take a look at the virus name the alert is providing. Does it end in .gen, or refer to Bloodhound, or identify it simply as being suspicious? Depending on the scanner used, any of these indicates either an unknown virus or a false positive. Update your scan engine and signature definition files, then scan again. Does the alert still occur? If so, submit the file to your antivirus vendor for analysis.
Most importantly, always double check information found via web searches to determine whether the information is still applicable. For example, the Macromedia® support document mentioned above clearly has dates specifying the false-positives occurred in December 1999. If some time has passed since the document was released, follow the steps outlined above before declaring a file is safe, or not safe, to use.

[kiko1]

dammit koolkid i was just about to post it:P

[sithmaster3]

likewise but u all beat me to it -.-

[koolkid0000]

lol, I hate how people are like VIRUS!!! only to find out that they are making a fool out of him/herself because he or she isn't educated about "FALSE POSITIVES." lol.

BTW: Beat you all to the punch. Saw that Kiko was not online and posted this. hehehe.

[Viet1919]

hey help it wont work it say
cant inject

[cbtrill]

This is the M P G H pub hack, which is inferior to TGS & DXT pubs, so who would want to use this? (has no no-recoil and no nametags....)

[Igankedulol]

Nice hack

[shyboi83]

thank you :-)