Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

invlpg.dev

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#111

I know there's nothing that can or will happen about it (for various reasons) but the whole model around multiplayer games is flawed. You're giving someone code to run on their PC and hoping your anti-cheat code can catch their code doing bad things. I believe there are AI anti-cheats being developed and used in China so maybe we'll end up with a Recall-esque anti-cheat everywhere in the future :)

Not only in China, Valve for example develops VACnet. For now it's not really that useful, which kinda gets amplified by banning in waves, to make it harder for cheat developers to adapt early, but keeps cheaters playing for longer.

Gonna keep an eye on it, but I'm not to sure if it'll be the solution to this issue...

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#112

I’m not much of a gamer, but my kids are growing up and will soon want to play the real stuff. Is there any easy way to see whether a game requires anti-cheat to run? I’d hate to spend top dollar on a game only to find it’ll take over their entire computer and I’ll want to make a hard rule “no games with kernel level anti cheat in this house” or something like that.

Multiplayer games all have some kind of anti-cheat, or they have cheater dominated servers. Unfortunately I don't know any easy data source to find out the kind of anti-cheat games use. Sometimes the Steam page has details on it.

I suggest compartmentalization for games, for example a dedicated gaming machine. That way, anti-cheat doesn't have much to take over. You can connect it to guest wifi, so that it doesn't see the LAN either.

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valorant took a massive amount of market share from CS:GO, in large part because of a very intrusive but highly effective anti-cheat system. Cheating in online games is a hard problem to solve and can make games completely unplayable. Gamers are generally much more bothered about cheating than about the privacy risks of anti-cheat, whether you agree with them or not. For the paranoid, dual-booting to a games-only OS…

In my experience game engines just suck. How can cheats exist in a server authoritative game engine architecture? But alas, most programmers have apparently no idea what they're doing when it comes to "netcode".

> In my experience game engines just suck. How can cheats exist in a server authoritative game engine architecture? But alas, most programmers have apparently no idea what they're doing when it comes to "netcode".

This comment screams: I lack understanding and am overconfident because of it.

Ignoring games where all state is known to all parties (e.g. chess, racing, etc...), the fact of the matter is that servers are basically always authoritative... where they can be.

MOBAs, MMOs, RTSs, FPSs, Casino, etc... will all hide information not required to run the game on each client on the server to prevent cheaters from getting an advantage.

Turn based games or games with low tick rates (MMOs, MOBAs, RTSs) will run all player commands on the server with things that require immediate feedback (UI actions, current player position, animation triggers) smeared out to sync with the server's state and tweened to match the server state.

Fast paced games like racing sims will do client side determination with server side validation (to ensure that a player's speed never exceeds a certain value, turn speed/friction is inside a certain range, etc...).

FPS games are the trickiest:

- They can't do server side kill determination because the game requires a certain level of responsiveness that is faster than internet signals over fiber can allow for. So they use client-side kill determination that runs in real time with server side validation that runs when a server receives events from clients before passing those events to other players. For example: checking that a player didn't shoot another player through a wall, checking that another player wasn't moving too fast / through a wall / flying through the sky / etc...

- Components that require randomness are split into what requires syncing between client/server and what doesn't. Things like particle systems, ragdolls, etc... are handled entirely on the client. Things like random rolls in stores are handled entirely on the server. Things like physics systems, and recoil are handled by seeded PRNGs that are run on the client for instant feedback and validated on the server side using that seed.

- Depending on the type of FPS game, a client may need to see the positions of all (or a substantial amount) of the other player's characters. This is because a player may suddenly whip around the corner of a door and the client now seeing a new large area needs to be able to display the other characters in that area accurately without the characters only rendering by the time the server can inform the client of their position. This is mitigated by level design that can split a level into multiple chunks and the server only relaying the required info for the visible chunks. With extremely large levels where the groups of players are too far away to interact, the server can be sharded across multiple threads or offloaded to other servers. For types of FPS games that are built in a way that requires the server to not hold as much information hidden (e.g. an open arena level where everyone can see each-other anyway), the clients include replay systems where the players can report suspicious behavior.

- Really tricky things like vehicle physics are usually done with a mix of client side determination, server side validation + redetermination, and careful client side state tweening.

The fact of the matter is that cheaters are only a problem in:

1. A handful of games where the developers didn't do the right thing

2. Games where the only way they could ever be completely cheat-free would be on a physically impossible 0 latency network and instead they have to rely on mitigation instead of prevention where certain information can't be prevented from being available to clients.

----------------------------------------

Addendum: There is the possibility of hosting and processing hidden information client-side while keeping it hidden where needed by using homomorphic encryption but that requires a lot of processing power that's usually better spent on running the rest of the actual game, but it is something that more of the industry will be able to move towards as machines become more powerful.

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#114
In this day and age, I think that compartmentalization is the way to go. Gaming, and especially online gaming is basically public by default, so I decided that I don't fight the zeitgeist, rather I search for a place for it. I personally solved this for myself by having a dedicated gaming OS, and by not connecting that OS to my private network. So, there they have it - some control over my machine, but not much of my personal life.

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#115
post #63

Anti cheat software because one needs to play with people one does not trust and so attempts to get good behavior from strangers by force. Should Magnus Carlsen have required Niemman to get a cavity search? When tons of kids have neuralink implants, should they be polygraphed before taking a spelling test? Cheating is not a technical problem, it's a people problem.

I think this underestimates the problem. Yes it's a people problem, but a game doesn't have the people-means to solve it, it only has technology.

>Anti cheat software because one needs to play with people one does not trust and so attempts to get good behavior from strangers by force.

Same could be said about laws. Goes to show that we don't have it solved it, at all. Every single system that we have has active bad actors in it, with no chance for us to catch them, by any means that we have, technological or not.

To add to this even more, it's not even a people problem, it's an animal problem - some of them also give out fake signals, in order to gain something.

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#116

A perk of gamimg on Linux is that none of these invasive anti-cheats work. I consider that a plus since I never care enough about a video game to surrender my privacy or my kernel over to it.

Your kernel might be private, but all your files can be accessed by the game, if it's run by the same user, which I imagine is the setup for most gamers. And since games are proprietary and auto-updated, the potential to do damage or compromise privacy is very high. Adding the kernel to the mix basically changes nothing.

It's a cliche, but XKCD shows this really succinctly: https://xkcd.com/1200/

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#117
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, how would you design an anti-cheat protection? Would you fight for the privacy of cheaters?

Would you sacrifice the privacy of all just to catch cheaters in a game?

Yes.

Re: Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

#118
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheaters are bad, but it's not worth unreasonably harming everyone else to stop them. I wouldn't advocate for surveillance cameras in everyone's homes to reduce crime.

Valorant took a massive amount of market share from CS:GO, in large part because of a very intrusive but highly effective anti-cheat system. Cheating in online games is a hard problem to solve and can make games completely unplayable. Gamers are generally much more bothered about cheating than about the privacy risks of anti-cheat, whether you agree with them or not. For the paranoid, dual-booting to a games-only OS…

> Valorant took a massive amount of market share from CS:GO

It doesn't appear to have. https://steamcharts.com/app/730#All

Post reply on HN