That kernel level anti-cheat is really working out well, eh?
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
289 points (98.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8651 readers
669 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Kernel level isn’t about stopping cheaters, it’s about gaining system access
Naw, it's about pretending to stop cheaters. It's security theatre, same as the TSA
To what end?
Any mention of data collection in the ToS?
Source?
Their source comes from it giving system access and that is what they want.
Why would they want that? Are there any cases of it being abused?
Yeah why would any mega conglomerate corporate entity want the most valuable and easy to harvest resource on earth
Computer usage statistics? Score!
Of course, no unfathomably demonic corporate entity would ever choose to track users and target them like that, to for instance sell products with zero repressions due to a lobbying hate group bribing lawyers to make it legal
Would be completely illegal in countries with gdpr. I'm a programmer and can tell you every company takes that super seriously.
You have to agree to be tracked. Most people just do it without thinking.
It has system access yet doesn't prevent cheating.
Nothing is perfect bruh.
Honestly, not even mad. Sucks for the victims, but we need hackers poking holes in kernel anticheats. Show the game companies that kernel anticheat is a waste of effort and maybe this horrific plague of gaming will die off.
Another option is for gamers to quit buying this softslop
It's inevitable. You can't make progress without several steps back.
The issue is that without it cheating is so much easier in many games. So then people just get pissed at all the hackers.
Yes, if they offload all of the compute for anti-cheat to the customer's hardware, then you are right for current operating systems.
Client side anti-cheat is not the only way but it is the cheapest way for the game industry.
So, simply receiving "aim bot" as a whisper (private) message was enough to get permabanned. FUCKING JEE-NIUS ANTICHEAT, GREAT JOB, GUYS!!!
This is kinda punk 🤔
Shitting your pants is punk, too.
All the punkest punks shit their pants.
If hacking call of duty is cool, consider me miles davis
I thought that was the gas station hotdog.
I thought it was the gas station meth
GG Allin!
Is stopping cheaters in most video games even possible?
When I was at my peak effectiveness in Urban Terror, I could hold my own against them...
Heh. GTA V used to be fun even when a cheater would show up and because you could just use a rocket launcher on them to keep them ragdolled forever so they couldn't use their cheat menu (or any menu). They'd have to alt-F4 to quit since being ragdolled closes any open menus.
Yes, but not through standard methods. Even AI aimbot can be filtered, but the amount of RND required is likely to much for a single studio to bear alone. I believe we are more likely to see neural network trained bots largly replacing real players using an off the shielf model. Just a guess, not an expert.
There is already a solution using relatively simple analytics and building a profile of the player. It becomes very easy to find cheaters because it is easy to analyze how fast and directionally they aim. It is obvious when someone is using macros for instance or a aimbot.
The problem is this does not require intrusive programs that are essentially spyware for your OS. This is what attracts the big studios to these solutions not their effectiveness.
There is a workable solution but let's be honest. Cheaters are often whales and spend a lot of time and money on the game. It is bad engagement to send them away.
Big studios already recognize this. So to be blunt they allow a certain amount of cheating because they don't want to really solve the problem.
I was speaking to the long term, 5-10 year in.the future. Analytics is a current solution and as far as I know works well. I was just talking vaguely about long term problems and solutions.
I think the best thing I’ve heard for long term solutions is to fix a lot of the cheating using server side solutions. In a game like CoD, that means the server doesn’t send you player positions unless you absolutely need to know them.
The other thing honestly is just increasing the investment required to cheat. That could mean that in order to play competitive game modes, you need to have signed in at least once for 4 weeks straight and played the game. Or you need to be a certain level. Issue hardware bans and IP bans to people. Require phone number verification.
What those things do as barriers is actually increase the potency of current detection methods. This should also carry over to accounts. I’m not sure why steams VAC ban system isn’t more popular. As in accounts need to be flagged as a whole when cheating in just one game is found.
There are many solutions but it’s just not a big deal for companies as the prior person said. Plenty could be done to at least make cheating harder and cost more time/money. But that won’t happen
I’m not sure why steams VAC ban system isn’t more popular. As in accounts need to be flagged as a whole when cheating in just one game is found.
Presumably because this opens players to significantly damaging abuse from server operators. Players aren't the only ones who fuck around.
I don’t mean individual servers. What I more meant was let’s say a game uses a standardized anti-cheat. Like EasyAntiCheat or Battleye or similar. And whoever runs your game service (Steam, PSN, Xbox) can vet these anti cheat programs and allow them to create a record on your account of cheating.
And obviously these things get false flags so you can account for that, give people strikes and allow appeals. And games would have the option of banning you for: having too many strikes total, violating only a specific anti-cheat X times, or ignoring this system except to place extra suspicion and resources on those already having strikes.
Also having an account tied to hardware is a no brainer and I’m surprised that this doesn’t get employed often. I know IDs can be spoofed but that’s another barrier potentially.
Cod is peer to peer. Clients host the game server.
They use a hybrid system now and only use peer to peer when dedicated servers aren’t enough, so they could just swap to purely dedicated servers.
However ignoring that, even a peer to peer system can do similar tricks if you don’t isolate the host peer to just one machine. That can even be done by spot checking with a company owned server. You use the server as a verification peer and have it as a backup host to the assigned peer. If your verification peer gets different ram values or what not, you shut the server down at the very least and place that peer on a suspicion list.
But even if they went the cheap route, just distribute the peer network. Let’s say that you have a game of 12 people. You could make it so that each peer is only assigned a certain part of the simulation and players (with overlap on assignments) and cannot track the entire simulation. It’s more complicated than a single server hiding info from you, but they could at least make it to where you’d need multiple infected peers to take over a lobby.
I think you were spot on about training a neural network with player data. It is already happening without a doubt.
It requires the server to verify all inputs. It's doable, path of exile does that and most arpgs. But it leaves them very open to lag and desync issues, most games will prioritize a smooth experience.
Cod is peer to peer I think, clients host the server, very cheap for the company. But obviously you need to give the client a lot more information.
I doubt COD is peer to peer anymore. Maybe like 10 years ago. No way they are giving up that much control over the game
What about things that only need to be done client side, like wallhacks?
In order to wallhack your client must get information about enemy positions in fog of war.
But you know, according to EA Linux is worse than guys like this deliberately causing disruptions in service to legit players.