Anticheat Update Tracking

Post by Workaccount2 » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 3:27 PM UTC

unaindz wrote: post #24

fleebee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a number of good reasons not to make everyone run a kernel level anti-cheat. Linux (and therefore SteamOS) compatibility is a big one. I think the status quo where anyone on any platform can access the vanilla game -- where cheaters may not even be a huge problem depending on one's skill rating -- and the most competitively-minded players have the choice to play on FACEIT, works pretty fine. I do wonder what…

Valve's approach was to avoid the cat and mouse game knowing it doesn't lead anywhere. You can always cheat using DMA or reading the monitor with another computer that simulates a hardware mouse to get aimbot abilities. They wanted a machine learning to detect, flag and ban suspicious behaviour. This didn't work out and I'm not sure they are still trying but there's a few conferences talking about it.

Post by zamalek » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

Boltgolt wrote: post #16

varun_ch wrote: post #13

Forgive my ignorance, but why don’t game developers put more effort into limiting the amount of data accessible to the client (restricting it only to what’s reasonably necessary)? For example, couldn’t more movement physics be validated or handled server side? Cheats might still be able to read some data from the game process, but ideally, they’d be limited to issuing inputs like any other player, based only on the s…

That's exactly what's being done, but you do not want everything server side over a network delay that is almost always more than the time between frames. Only server side physics would mean a lot of visual jank. It's now usually a model where the client and server make the calculation and the server "rolls back" the client of they do not match. Data is being limited though, like not sending opponent location data un…

Post by Goronmon » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 4:10 PM UTC

maeln wrote: post #10

7bit wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most online Games require kernel Level anti Cheat.

No, very few of them actually use kernel level anti cheat. Really the only game that use them is Riot's games and Counter Strike private league FACEIT (as far as I remember).

Post by seangrogg » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 4:30 PM UTC

ronsor wrote: post #5

nulld3v wrote: post #4

Very nice walk-through on the reverse engineering process. Also, they linked this post that made my jaw drop: https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/667333-... Apparantly BattleEye anti-cheat had an exploit where hackers could permanently ban any player they wanted. BattleEye allowed anybody to log in as a "game server" so hackers simply booted up a fake server, told BattleEye that "player X has logged…

Because game companies force you to in order to play.

Post by meansob » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 4:41 PM UTC

dogleash wrote: post #48

nulld3v wrote: post #4

Very nice walk-through on the reverse engineering process. Also, they linked this post that made my jaw drop: https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/667333-... Apparantly BattleEye anti-cheat had an exploit where hackers could permanently ban any player they wanted. BattleEye allowed anybody to log in as a "game server" so hackers simply booted up a fake server, told BattleEye that "player X has logged…

> I'm sorry, why do we trust these guys again? Anyone who's attachment to gaming is low enough to let things like this effect their purchase decisions are already out. To the devs/pubs, those customers don't even exist in the category of potential customers. So they just worry about not pissing off the existing customerbase by changing the status quo too much or too fast.