Incognito Mode Question - Can Bots Communicate(Pass Arguments) Each Other?

[iamddr 12]

Just test /hide argument on compiled EXE. I believe Incognito Mode should be more than that, Can bots communicate(pass arguments) each other right now? Are there more arguments to be pass into an EXE?

[jason 101]

Are you suggesting that bots should have more options when run as compiled? ie, if you use an argument besides /hide to load a bot, such as (ummmm) /maximize then the bot loads fully maximized? 

Or do you mean that bots should be able to communicate with one another?

[iamddr 12]

Are you suggesting that bots should have more options when run as compiled? ie, if you use an argument besides /hide to load a bot, such as (ummmm) /maximize then the bot loads fully maximized? 

Or do you mean that bots should be able to communicate with one another?

Thanks for your replay, actually, I'm pretty a newbie here, just purchased ubot for less than a week, I'm looking for a solution to passing arguments to slave bots, after I saw incognito mode I think maybe it is possible to use this feature to acheive this. Just ask is it possible, maybe get inspirations about master bot control lots of slave bots, sorry for the poor grammar. 

[Brutal 164]

I'm just now checking out incognito functionality too so I'm not speaking from experience as much as from assumption.

 

In your slave bots, any data that you need loaded into it for it to run would be put into the OnLoad call, and then under that you would put your main run-program define.

 

This will cause the program to load the needed files/data and begin running as soon as the bot is opened.

 

So, in your master bot, when you reach the point to run your slave, you will probably use an advanced shell to cause the slave to open (hidden) and begin doing it's work.

 

You with me?

 

So, the user opens the master and starts it running, then at a set point the master starts the slave which begins doing what it needs to do.

 

Then, with the slave, and data that it creates/scrapes that you need in your master, that data would be saved into a text file for example, and then the master would load/read that data.

 

So you can communicate both ways.

You can get slick with this too. For example you could create a define that checks to make sure the master bot is running before it will allow itself (the slave) to run, this way if the user is poking around in his program files and starts double clicking the slave exe's, none of it will work without the master already running.

 

Additionally, from a security perspective, if you have that define in your slaves, if you disable the master for nonpayment or whatever, then all of the slaves become useless as well.

 

Sorry this reply dragged on - I was sort of thinking out loud as I wrote it.

[iamddr 12]

I'm just now checking out incognito functionality too so I'm not speaking from experience as much as from assumption.

 

In your slave bots, any data that you need loaded into it for it to run would be put into the OnLoad call, and then under that you would put your main run-program define.

 

This will cause the program to load the needed files/data and begin running as soon as the bot is opened.

 

So, in your master bot, when you reach the point to run your slave, you will probably use an advanced shell to cause the slave to open (hidden) and begin doing it's work.

 

You with me?

 

So, the user opens the master and starts it running, then at a set point the master starts the slave which begins doing what it needs to do.

 

Then, with the slave, and data that it creates/scrapes that you need in your master, that data would be saved into a text file for example, and then the master would load/read that data.

 

So you can communicate both ways.

 

You can get slick with this too. For example you could create a define that checks to make sure the master bot is running before it will allow itself (the slave) to run, this way if the user is poking around in his program files and starts double clicking the slave exe's, none of it will work without the master already running.

 

Additionally, from a security perspective, if you have that define in your slaves, if you disable the master for nonpayment or whatever, then all of the slaves become useless as well.

 

Sorry this reply dragged on - I was sort of thinking out loud as I wrote it.

This's exactly what I'm looking for! Thank you Brutal, everything looks feasible, I'll try it right now, then a feedback.