121–130 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't call this spyware; it doesn't seem to reach outside of its own process (though I guess it does report back what you could call analytics).
It sends a memory dump, which could contain the player's credentials (or fragments thereof) in plaintext.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't call this spyware; it doesn't seem to reach outside of its own process (though I guess it does report back what you could call analytics).
I'm sure some of it does extend beyond the relevant processes. Back in 2005/2006 Sony where installing rootkits on PCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... - this is why to this day I try make sure very little with "Sony" printed upon it touches my network. IIRC the best we got by way of an apology was "we are sorry Sony BMG embarrassed the group by getting caught" and "we promise not to d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't sound so good Client v1 sends packet A for command Attack So does China Client v1 Developer updates client to v2 and now packet A is non-existent, so no legit user is going to send it so after patch everyone who sends packet A can be banned
This is currently already the case for cheats. When the game updates then the cheat needs to be updated as well. And you can definitely catch cheaters with the method you mentioned, so many cheats check the game version before doing anything. This means immediately after an update many cheats stop working until they’re updated (or their creator flags the new game version as compatiable)
Serious question for you gamers out there: Why would a person go to such great lengths to cheat at a video game? Is there a monetary incentive? Otherwise, it seems like a lot of effort just to increase one's standing on a leader board.
Heavy duty sandboxing of game software can't come quickly enough. Game software reading arbitrary memory outside of its own on a machine is half step from outright malware and must stop.
Sandboxing prevents code from getting out of a sandbox. It doesn't prevent outside code (i.e. your cheat software) getting in. As long as you control the computer running the sandbox, you can have it do whatever you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are different kinds of cheaters. Some like the rush of doing something "naughty". Some want quick results. Some want prestige. Some want to explore and exploit the system itself rather than the game. Some want to gold farm. Some want to be like gods. Some want to automate the tedious parts. Some want to take down big mobs that can't be taken down any other way. I once wrote about 400k of Blech code for Macroque…
I used Macroquest as well for leveling up tradeskills. I did a few skills manually. Blacksmithing was the worst, and there was no way I would do it manually. I also used ShowEQ for checking whether certain mobs were up in a zone. Looking back there was a lot of tedium in Everquest. Tradeskills. Attunement. AA points. Traveling was a pain in the first few expansions. I don't deny that I was cheating, but certain types…
The original game designer Brad McQuaid (RIP) defended that tedium, particularly around things like travel, as necessary to give you a feeling of achievement. He was also worried about inflation in the economy. Although I have some warm memories of playing EQ I vehemently disagree with his views on game mechanics. In retrospect I realize I enjoyed his art style more than anything. I plan to give the follow on Pantheon a miss because it too plays to the poopsockers of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any competitive game with big money on the line has the top players gather in the same room (on a stage most likely), and play using computers controlled by the event organizers. The players winning these big tournaments do not cheat.
You aren't thinking outside the box enough. If you could commission cheating software for $10,000+ then there is plenty you could do to circumvent the PCs being provided. It should also be noted that they allow self provided peripherals in most cases.
Second, what kinds of cheats would you expect using peripherals? Any visual cheats would likely be detected, since player's screens are often viewed by referees and/or televised. I suppose an audio based cheat is conceivable. The screen and the audio are the only output from most computer games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original game code, as well as automatically installed updates can be vetted and compared to other installations. Any malware injected into either of them risks being exposed over time. This allows the server to execute arbitrary, ephemeral code fragments on any client at any time, with no trace. If the server is ever compromised, so are all clients, instantly. This is absolutely insane from a security POV. Just…
Some games -- recently Overwatch -- send hotfixes as live hotpatches. Those couldn't be scrutinized by anyone except the developer until they're included in the next formal patch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't thinking outside the box enough. If you could commission cheating software for $10,000+ then there is plenty you could do to circumvent the PCs being provided. It should also be noted that they allow self provided peripherals in most cases.
An interesting idea. Now I'm curious. First, has there ever been an example of someone caught cheating this way? Second, what kinds of cheats would you expect using peripherals? Any visual cheats would likely be detected, since player's screens are often viewed by referees and/or televised. I suppose an audio based cheat is conceivable. The screen and the audio are the only output from most computer games.
Aimbots these days look almost indistinguishable from good playing. The point isn't to be perfect. It's to give some kind of competitive edge. If you can take even 15% of the effort away then you can focus on other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some games -- recently Overwatch -- send hotfixes as live hotpatches. Those couldn't be scrutinized by anyone except the developer until they're included in the next formal patch.
You say that like people aren't capable of converting the current memory space back into an executable.
That is happening with or without this anti-cheat stuff, so what is the difference?