Live data from Hacker News

Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

areweanticheatyet.com

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#91
post #73

What an interesting day when you see a site you've worked on for the past 2 (3?) years get posted to HN! Except I tried submitting this site years ago when I had just finished it, but it did not seem like HN was that interested at the time, and I don't blame them. It was very niche and video game related, and the site also looked a lot worse. It's come a long way to the point where there where I collaborated with som…

To play the devil's advocate here, do you think enabling EC on Linux systems makes it easier for players to cheat ?

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#92

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…

> Can't the operating systems simply have an option when creating a process that prevents all operations looking at the memory of the process

Already the case for userspace programs, due to virtual memory

> those programs have to use OS facilities to mess with the game anyway.

Cheats today essentially are like drivers, they do not run as userspace programs. Hence, they can do literally anything on your computer. In terms of privileges, driver code runs at a level as privileged as the operating system. Hence the need for programs that run at the level of the OS kernel to catch the cheats.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#93

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…

If I wanted to write malware the first step to doing so would be turn on the “make me immune to any anti virus or endpoint detection software”

If you want to know why the OS doesn’t enforce this - https://slashdot.org/story/432238 you roll into HN’s other favourite topic of “why can’t I run the X of my choice on my OS?”

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#94
post #85
post #78

Anti-Cheat will not help, if the games not Update it for more than 8 month. And one thing the devs could do without Anti-Cheat, is to automate analysis of e. g. head shot rate, movement speed, etc. but most games not do that. If average player make 25 Kills per hour in a game and some 150 over longer periods i did not need an anti cheat to do something.

This is a common misconception. Some players are extremely good at video games, and they look like statistic anomalies / outlier when mapped across the full distribution of players. Consider, for example, professional gamers. They spend countless hours practicing, and they can easily outcompete casual gamers who don't have the time to refine their skills daily. Statistical anti cheat is extremely weak in any game whe…

Its like using APM to identify cheaters in Starcraft 1. Jaedong and Flash will get banned together with the actual cheaters.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#95
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…

The reason multiplayer servers implicitly trust clients is because it's a cheaper and proven (less risk) solution. The traditional anti-cheat can be just slapped after the game is developed in most games. If the game is very successful then you can just update the game with extra paid protections provided by the anti-cheat tool. The alternative is local game engine that works with a partial game state which is a chal…

As someone working in AAA game development, I come across comments like these often, and they never fail to get under my skin. It’s like watching that infamous "Two idiots, one keyboard" scene from CSI—full of confidence, but completely detached from reality.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but it’s tough to tackle this kind of misconception because it’s stated with such certainty that others, who also might not know any better, just take it as fact.

Here’s the thing: Multiplayer servers trust clients mainly for performance reasons. In AAA game development, anti-cheat isn’t something we focus on right from the start. It typically becomes a priority post-alpha (and by alpha, I’m talking about an internal milestone that usually spans about a year—not the "alpha" most people think of which is usually closer to an internal "beta", and "public beta" is more like release candidate 1). During that time, the tech team is constantly working on ways to secure the game. (make it work, make it correct*, make it fast).

If we were to bake in anti-cheat measures from the very beginning of a project, it would force us to scale back our ambitions. Some might argue that’s a good thing, but the truth is, we’d also risk missing critical milestones like First-Playable or Vertical Slice. You simply can’t tackle everything at once—focus is a measure primarily of what you are not doing, after all.

Back when I was working on The Division, we had some deep discussions about using player analytics and even early forms of machine learning to detect "too good" players in real-time. This was in 2014, well before the AI boom. The industry's interest in new anti-cheat methods has only grown since then, I promise you this.

At the end of the day, games are all about delivering an experience. That’s the priority, and a solid anti-cheat system is key to ensuring it. Endpoint security is currently the best solution we have because it doesn’t bog down the client with delays or force awkward mechanics like rollbacks or lock-step processing. Plus, it lines up with the (very heavy) optimisations we already do for consoles.

Nobody in this industry wants to install a rootkit on your PC if we can avoid it. It’s just the best trade-off (for all parties, especially gamers) given the circumstances. And let's be clear—these solutions are far from cheap. We pay a lot to implement them, even if some marketing material might suggest otherwise.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't particularly hard At scale it’s incredibly hard. Impossibly hard even. So hard no one has successfully solved it! Ever! But what you’re describing is Valve’s Overwatch system for Counter-Strike. It’s a key component of the anti-cheat ecosystem. But cheating is still rampant in CS and one of the biggest complaints.

"at scale" assumes a popular game - and you end up by giving as an example one of the most popular FPSes ever ! Please give an example of a game with, say, less than a million of copies sold / given away ? (And ideally, not an FPS, we all know these have specific extra challenges involved.) And "at scale" pretty much means that matches are not competitive, because the sums required for entering a tournament game and…

But popular games are the ones people want to play, and are the ones you’re claiming are immune to this. Look at this comments section - it’s people talking about the top 3-5 games on Pc right now, not the 30th entry in the trending FPS section.

Part of the appeal for cheating is doing it where it has impact - in popular games.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#97

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…

you don't need to read memory to cheat

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#98
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…

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…

> Comments like yours are extremely irritating. Please don't behave this way with your co-workers.

Said this without even flinching or having a second thought.

Bravo.

Re: Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?

#99

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…

What you're describing sounds like sandboxing, which Wikipedia vaguely suggests is an existing anti-cheat technique:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games#Sandb...

Post reply on HN