Live data from Hacker News

We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

mobeigi.com

241–250 of 372 posts

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#242
post #34

> Wonderful, we have found a way to silently persist a cookie for each player as they join the server. This violates GDPR, no? Edit: It sounds like this took place before GDPR was being enforced.

IANAL, but there is a "Legitimate Interest" exception, which gets abused a lot when a consent popup has about 50 of those pre-checked on a hidden tab, but this looks like a valid case to me.

The UK DPA (basically a fork of GDPR) has this to say [1]: "the following purposes do constitute a legitimate interest [...] fraud prevention; ensuring network and information security; indicating possible criminal acts".

Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 [2], there's a possible reading under which "hacking" to cheat (even if someone else does the hacking and you jsut install the program) could actually be a crime.

[1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#243
post #25

For UT2004, you can ban by player GUID (a hash of the CD key) or IP. With the game abandoned by Epic, a number of key generators have cropped up, which makes GUID bans useless. IP bans only go so far with VPNs costing $2 these days. The main solutions we have today are IP ban + VPN blocking using a database of known VPN subnets and adding them all to the firewall, and a similar fingerprinting technique which scans th…

Who is gaming in a competitive game behind a VPN.. I suppose if its your only option, but I don't think this would be a great playing experience.

When I was in the dormitory (~6-8 years ago), I used VPN (OpenVPN on my private VPS) over UDP port 53 to omit the firewall which was configured to block big parts of ports.

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#244
What about some sort of shadowbanning ? Or "shadowsegregating" : I mean if you detect and group cheaters so that they play with other cheaters ? Leaving normal players alone ? (I am not a player, I don't know how these multiplayer games work, I'm just wondering)

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#245

Excellent write up and solution. Cheating in video games makes for a wretched experience for those who don't cheat. It's crazy how rampant cheating in multiplayer games, especially competitive ones has gotten. Ten years ago, I thought it was at an extreme, but it's only gone up since then. Part of the problem is that for some software developers, writing cheats brings in a massive amount of money. So instead of some…

Some competitive multiplayer games. Which seem to be exclusively FPS games with ~10+M players ? I don't even remember the last time when I've heard of a game outside that very narrow (albeit decently popular) category to have complaints about cheaters. Meanwhile for these games, I hear about it like every month, and all this despite this genre being amongst the ones that I play the least !

Maphack that gives vision of other players and resources is a common cheat in many games, including very popular moba games.

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#246

Banning new Steam IDs on banned IPs seems too strict to me. Some ISP use CG-NAT or rotate IPs, meaning a single bad actor could harm many innocent players.

NAT is a problem, but in this case I think it's a valid consideration regardless. Banning innocent players behind shitty ISPs sucks, but cheaters suck more.

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My idea: 1. Determine minimum human reaction times and limit movement to within those parameters on the client side. (For example a human can't swing their view around [in a fps] in a microsecond so make that impossible on the client) this will require a lot of user testing to get right, get pro players and push their limits. 2. Build a 'unified field theory' for your game world that is aware of the client side const…

Cheaters who spin don't care if they get caught. Its the closet cheaters you can't catch like this who's aim bot only locks on the head of someone when the cross hair its a certain amount of pixels from the head, or they set it to never lock on the head.

Or to autotrigger. That's how they do for backstabs in team fortress 2. Just go around and have it trigger immediately when it'd be an instant kill.

Demomen on the other hand use an aimbot so they can hit you with those parabolic projectiles in the face, even if you're behind a wall and they can't see you at all.

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#248
post #244

What about some sort of shadowbanning ? Or "shadowsegregating" : I mean if you detect and group cheaters so that they play with other cheaters ? Leaving normal players alone ? (I am not a player, I don't know how these multiplayer games work, I'm just wondering)

No idea about CSGO but Dota 2 already does this (another Valve game).

Re: We outsmarted CSGO cheaters with IdentityLogger

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR isn't a blanket ban on cookies. You don't require a cookie notice for strictly necessary cookies, which you have a "grounds of legitimate interest" for: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r... Fraud prevention is listed as an example of a "legitimate interest." So no, by my layman's interpretation, they would not have been bound by GDPR to notify the user of cookies or other fingerprintin…

GDPR is toothless eurotrash. I saw a consent form that had 72 optional, 21 “legitimate interest” cookies. GFB

If GDPR were entirely toothless then they wouldn't have shown you the consent form but they would've just served the cookies regardless. The GDPR is not about reducing the cookies served, it's about letting people opt out.

Unfortunately it is lacking some teeth because normally opting out of all cookies should be as easy and straightforward as opting in to all cookies, but I've seen quite a few forms that hide 'reject all' behind a 'more info' button type of thing. Maybe I could file a complaint about that, I should look into it.

Post reply on HN