Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

nooneshappy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#111

Post by lenkite »

km144 wrote: post #73

> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private. The article makes an argument that anti-cheat is not worth the trade-off, yet the author admits they are a non-gamer. Then they go on to present one example of anti-cheat that tells us all we need to know about actual gamers' preferences—FACEIT. For those who don't know,…

The only acceptable and correct trade-off for anti-cheat is fully remote gaming + locked-down console, where the Game companies own the software and servers and hardware and just rent you a "play slice" via their locked-down console. I suspect even then, they will want to install tools to monitor you to satisfy their "analytics"

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#112

Post by Parae »

giov4 wrote: post #47

Uninstalled riot years ago, not playing games that dont run on linux with proton, problem solved and you should do the same. Avoiding to play games that take over my system on a low-level is a no go, I can live without LoL or BF6 and I live even better :) ignoring this problems means you don't care about your identity, data, privacy and you prefer to keep ignoring this and play the games that hype abd you like, but i…

I play fighting games. Didn't even bother to try 2XKO on Windows because I knew I won't be able to play on Linux due to Vanguard.

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#113

Post by ____mr____ »

avadodin wrote: post #103
km144 wrote: post #73

> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private. The article makes an argument that anti-cheat is not worth the trade-off, yet the author admits they are a non-gamer. Then they go on to present one example of anti-cheat that tells us all we need to know about actual gamers' preferences—FACEIT. For those who don't know,…

Faceit has cheaters too by all accounts and some of the cheats have advanced to the point that not even kernel access under secure boot helps as they don't even run on the same device. Behavioral patterns are a much better target. If your cheats make you play like a legit player, who cares? It's the same as in the gym. People are bothered by people who look like Ahnold, and still can't lift one plate. Not the fattie…

> If your cheats make you play like a legit player, who cares?

Many people

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#115

Post by ffaccount2 »

myrmidon wrote: post #79
throwing_away wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I write cheats for CS2 for my own amusement and it's 100% detectable by replay analysis. If I'm reacting to information that I shouldn't have at a rate much much greater than the general population, then I'm not psychic, I'm just cheating. This is also true for aiming, spray control, etc. All current cs2 cheaters are producing a very large and detectable audit trail of very suspicious plays in game, even if the…

Heuristic detection is iffy IMO, because while this might look trivial now (=> before cheaters optimize for it) false positives could easily ruin the user experience after a few rounds of cat & mouse: Even if you manage to keep sensitivity high (detecting >90% of cheaters), if you have like single digit percentages of cheaters and false positives, a lot of your bans are innocent. If you keep the heuristics "tolerant"…

Even better way to think of false positives: If you judge 0.1% of players wrong, you just banned A LOT of innocent players.

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#116

Post by laughing_man »

AuthAuth wrote: post #101
laughing_man wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to know. If I were cheating on a competitive server, I'd be using cheats that gave me an edge without making me dominant. That sort of thing is very difficult to detect.

But because you were cheating you'd be above your level. So there would be a mismatch somewhere. You'd need to vastly improve your aim to compensate for bad game sense or use wall hacks to compensate for bad map awareness. Either way its not to hard for people to notice if they watch a replay. Not many cheaters are doing tiny adjustments because that would suggest they're already at that skill level.

Oh, I agree that it only makes sense if you're already a world-class player playing other world-class players.

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#117

Post by jnwatson »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #4
_aavaa_ wrote: post #2

> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private. Yeah except that’s not the options here. Even with ring-0 there are lots of cheaters. Without it the game would be completely infested with them.

I would still rather have that than let some game run in ring 0 TBH.

You're not forced to buy the games that require it.

Re: Kernel anti-cheat is an overreach

#119

Post by ultimafan »

avadodin wrote: post #103
km144 wrote: post #73

> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private. The article makes an argument that anti-cheat is not worth the trade-off, yet the author admits they are a non-gamer. Then they go on to present one example of anti-cheat that tells us all we need to know about actual gamers' preferences—FACEIT. For those who don't know,…

Faceit has cheaters too by all accounts and some of the cheats have advanced to the point that not even kernel access under secure boot helps as they don't even run on the same device. Behavioral patterns are a much better target. If your cheats make you play like a legit player, who cares? It's the same as in the gym. People are bothered by people who look like Ahnold, and still can't lift one plate. Not the fattie…

Except cheating in games isn't the equivalent of steroids in the gym, since they let cheaters do things that literally no one can without them. And steroids at least have the argument behind them that you still have to put the work in (it's not "free" gains like cheats are, that guy that looks like Arnold is still putting hours into the gym every week to look like that, you can't just take steroids and look the same if you aren't willing to put in the effort)

A much better analogy would be showing up to a weightlifting competition with a construction crane and thinking competing with it against human lifters is fair.

Post reply on HN