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

Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

areweanticheatyet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 197 posts

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#51

Post by msnkarthik »

Animats wrote: post #5
mjevans wrote: post #2

I don't know enough about 'real time' netcode for games. However I have read several HN articles over the years so I've got at least a basic understanding. Why can't the servers distrust the clients? What should a 'client side anti cheat' actually prevent? The way I think I'd tackle such things is to have multiple copies of each character model moving in different locations and different ways. Such that trying to spy…

> Why can't the servers distrust the clients? What should a 'client side anti cheat' actually prevent? There are two issues. One is the user seeing things that the server is hiding, such as enemies hidden behind obstacles, by going into "wireframe mode". The other is superhuman performance via computer assistance, or "aimbot hacks". The first is a performance issue. The server can do some occlusion culling to avoid t…

@Animats, you’re spot on about the two main issues—visibility hacks and aimbots. The concept of hiding enemy positions server-side through occlusion culling does present a performance challenge, but it’s essential to balance between ensuring fair play and maintaining server efficiency. And you're right; the rise of external programs that can interpret video output makes preventing aimbots significantly harder.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#52

Post by msnkarthik »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #29
Animats wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't the servers distrust the clients? What should a 'client side anti cheat' actually prevent? There are two issues. One is the user seeing things that the server is hiding, such as enemies hidden behind obstacles, by going into "wireframe mode". The other is superhuman performance via computer assistance, or "aimbot hacks". The first is a performance issue. The server can do some occlusion culling to avoid t…

I’m big into competitive Call of Duty. On that game (and any other shooter that uses a controller), the biggest undetectable cheat is auto recoil adjust. People call it a “chronus” for the same reason people call it Kleenex. You download profiles for the gun you're using and it basically does the recoil pattern in reverse, turning every gun into a laser beam. It’s undetectable because it modifies inputs from a legit…

your point about "chronus" or auto recoil adjust cheats is a perfect example of how cheats evolve to bypass detection. By modifying controller inputs at the hardware level, it’s nearly impossible for traditional anti-cheat software to identify such exploits. It shows that as long as there is an incentive, people will find creative ways to gain an advantage, often blurring the line between legitimate skill and unfair advantage. I think moving forward, a hybrid approach is essential—one that leverages both server-side logic to prevent information leaks and robust client-side monitoring that can detect anomalous behavior patterns. Perhaps more sophisticated machine learning models that analyze player behavior in real-time could help in distinguishing between legitimate skill and enhanced performance due to cheats. It's a constantly evolving battle, and staying one step ahead is always going to be a challenge.

Would love to hear more thoughts on how to effectively balance these aspects without compromising the player experience!

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#53

Post by ale42 »

hexomancer wrote: post #50

One thing I don't understand and I would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me. Why do we need separate anti-cheat programs? Can't the operating systems simply have an option when creating a process that prevents all operations looking at the memory of the process (and maybe if such a process is about to be launched the user has to explicitly accept that by clicking a button)? Wouldn't that stop almos…

Malware will be the first software using that option.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#54

Post by forrestthewoods »

cabbageicefruit wrote: post #18
forrestthewoods wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh dang you should be a multiplayer engineer. Sounds like with barely even thinking about the problem space you've solved what thousands of extremely talented and knowledgeable engineers never could! Servers very much distrust the client. Obviously. That's literally rule #1. Don't trust the client! Comments like yours are extremely irritating. Please don't behave this way with your co-workers. Anyhow, there's all kin…

Touch grass buddy. In their first sentence they openly admit this isn’t their area of expertise. Hence them asking a question to people who know more than them. “Don’t behave this way to your co-workers” is much better advice for your comment than for GP’s.

Went outside with my dogs and successfully touched grass. It’s growing back in nicely after a week of rain.

“Why can’t you just” guys are extremely irritating. I implore OP to not be a “why can’t you just” guy at work. What is a WCYJGuy? Someone who has no knowledge of a domain but proposes solutions under the implication that there is a simple solution that they are oh so clever to have instantly discovered. It takes a lot of time and effort to explain “no you can not just” to someone who doesn’t have the pre-requisite knowledge.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#55

Post by 0points »

ginko wrote: post #45

I don’t understand. Why would you actually want anti-cheat rootkits and spyware on linux?

In order to play some online games that requires anti cheat.

I avoid these titles myself. In fact, I don't run wine, steam or game console emulators on my Linux workstation. I run Windows VM:s for isolation and security.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#56

Post by hexomancer »

ale42 wrote: post #53
hexomancer wrote: post #50

One thing I don't understand and I would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me. Why do we need separate anti-cheat programs? Can't the operating systems simply have an option when creating a process that prevents all operations looking at the memory of the process (and maybe if such a process is about to be launched the user has to explicitly accept that by clicking a button)? Wouldn't that stop almos…

Malware will be the first software using that option.

That's why I said the user has to explicitly accept that.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#58

Post by mariusor »

hexomancer wrote: post #50

One thing I don't understand and I would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me. Why do we need separate anti-cheat programs? Can't the operating systems simply have an option when creating a process that prevents all operations looking at the memory of the process (and maybe if such a process is about to be launched the user has to explicitly accept that by clicking a button)? Wouldn't that stop almos…

Usually cheat programs are employed by the user. So they would of course click accept .

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#59

Post by forrestthewoods »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #49
cdogl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competitive games are unlikely to reach the market share necessary for a competitive gaming tournament if their casual scene is inundated with cheaters. Only a tiny handful of games even have a viable competitive scene.

But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games that don't give out real money for tournaments ? I have never seen cheaters being an issue (even the few times people set up tournaments with prizes), which makes me think that this might be limited to very few games (in very specific genres) ?

> But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games

Yes. Every game has cheats. The cheat packages are pretty easy to adapt to new games and people pay money for them.

Why do people cheat? Because it’s fun! If you’ve never cheated it’s honestly worth trying. It’s hilarious. It also utterly ruins the game for everyone else in the lobby.

If games had reliable anti-cheat you’d be shocked at the percentage of lobbies that have a cheater. It’s wildly rampant.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#60

Post by Hikikomori »

hexomancer wrote: post #50

One thing I don't understand and I would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me. Why do we need separate anti-cheat programs? Can't the operating systems simply have an option when creating a process that prevents all operations looking at the memory of the process (and maybe if such a process is about to be launched the user has to explicitly accept that by clicking a button)? Wouldn't that stop almos…

It could if the hardware allowed such separation, but the x86 platform doesn't do anything close to that and allows reading memory of other processes in so many different ways in both userspace and kernel. Not to forget hardware being able to read memory via DMA that many use now.
Post reply on HN