Kernel anti-cheat does absolutely nothing to prevent aimbots/triggerbots, as most are run using 2 separate machines, anyway. The first machine runs the game in a totally clean and legitimate environment, but sends its video output (either using standard streaming tools like OBS or by using special hardware) to the 2nd machine. The 2nd machine runs the cheat and processes the video to detect where to aim and/or when to shoot, and sends mouse input back to the 1st machine.
northendtrooper@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Having Anti-Cheat of any kind outside of the game is laziness or lack of resources.
I believe just have physical limitations of the character or objects and verify the movement every once in a while to make sure that their movement is not super human (ie, aim bots).
You don’t need a kernal level anti-cheat.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 days ago
C4551E@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
I would have thought this would introduce enough latency to make an aimbot ineffective, but I know nothing about the cheating scene
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Colorbots are extremely efficient and can be run on just a raspberry pi.
Human reaction time is ~200-250ms, while running the cheat will be introducing easily less than 10ms of latency.
I’ve never used cheats in a video game because I don’t see the point and it would spoil the fun of playing, but as a software developer, it is interesting to learn about how they work and are implemented
C4551E@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
that’s super impressive to me, and I guess explains why any client side anticheat is ineffective vs a determined cheater, rootkit or not.
thanks for the explanation! I miss when anti-cheating measures involved actual human beings administrating servers
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
And they should just make good games too, right?
The issue with “just analyze the players” is that it is VERY expensive computationally. And it causes issues with non-official servers as it drastically increases the cost of a dedicated server and makes a listen server nigh unusable.
To be clear: I do not think the kernel level anti-cheats are a consumer friendly solution. But it takes a special kind of arrogance to insist you know better than decades worth of research and work in trying to stop hacking.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Yeah I mean its not like Valve has been using a combination of server side and client side game file only validation to do AC for Counter Strike for 20 years or anything.
Yep yep yep, the whole industry uses Kernel AC, other than the devs of the longest running comoetetive FPS genre ever, yep yep yep!
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Valve is also barely a blip in the market when it comes to this, funny enough.
Valve’s data can be more or less officially pulled and steamdb lists them as having 1 million concurrents in whatever the default window is (looks like this month). Call of Duty claims to be closer to 70 million but most conservative estimates agree they are at least in the low 10s of millions of “active players” rather than anyone who just popped in to check their dailies to see if they wanted to do them.
Personally? I think the vast majority of games (including Battlefield…) would be perfectly fine with VAC and I like VAC. But there are reasons that the studios that make more money than some small nations on their games (as opposed to their storefront, which is what VAC actually is based on) literally pay for more invasive solutions.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
To the first chunk:
I mean yeah, thats why I said longest lived, not ‘most popular’.
But I am glad you agree that… VAC is reasonable, and works pretty darn well.
But this leads into Part 2…
Why does VAC work pretty darn well?
Beyond the technicals of the methods of AC…
Because if you fuckup bad enough, your entire Steam Library can be deleted.
Steam is a platform.
Every single other major company that is trying to force Kernel AC on the PC market is acting as if they do, or should just also be the de facto platform, as they are on consoles.
Yep, cheat on Xbox or PS and your account can get banned there too… but a PC is more than a gaming console, has a lot more private stuff on it than one, typically.
Valve are PC natives so they never pushed for Kernel AC.
They just allow, and now warn you about Kernel AC from other mega publishers on their platform, and these other game publishers.
Their whole thing is that they want you to use their platform instead of Steam. They’ve pretty much all done it at this point, at least tried… Ubisoft, Rockstar, MSFT/GFWL, etc etc etc
And they want to force Kernel AC down your throat on your PC as well as consoles… because it gives them more data, which they can use themselves, and sell to data brokers.
… Anyway, the funniest part?
EAC and BattleEye have offered full support to game devs to get their AC working on linux via Proton… for 3 to 4 years now.
It comes with their licensing agreements.
But management almost never cares to tell development to actually use this support thst they are already paying for!
… Because they get lots of money from MSFT, and MSFT hates Linux.
Also, if you go on areweanticheatyet … you can see that almost every single AC system of any kind, in the last 10 years… has at least one game that showcases it working on Linux.
This means that it is provably, entirely possible to get nearly all AC systems working on Linux, as some game dev team has done this.
Its just that most game dev teams, under most management… are not directed to.
There is no real technical reason why AC cannot be made to work in a satisfactory way on Linux.
At best, it is dev/management laziness/nonprioritization, at worst, it is publishers not wanting to upset MSFT.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yep yep yep, the devs of the FPS game with endemic cheating so horrible the competitive scene had to introduce their own matchmaking system with kernel AC.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
So, again, Kernel level AC can, and routinely is defeated, all the time.
This is easy to verify with a simple websearch and maybe 30 minutes of time, I don’t want to directly link to where you can purchase working cheats/hacks/methods that can defeat Kernel AC, because I do not want such things to proliferate.
But you appear to be claiming the competetive scene for CS has introduced a Kernel level AC.
I cannot find this, this does not appear to be true, but I could be wrong, could you please source this claim?
I cannot find a competetive CS community or league or tournament that has… somehow rolled their own custom version of CS, overlayed with some other AC, on top of VAC.
Frankly, I don’t see how this would be possible without somehow forking CS, as … two AC systems working at the same time are nearly 100% guaranteed to fight each other, and class the actions of the other AC… as cheats and hacks.
…
All I can find is CS communities discussing the problem broadly, mixed with a lot of speculation that a recent VAC overhaul now does include Kernel AC… despite there being no actual evidence for this, beyond the collective bias and fallacious logic that if an AC becomes more effective, the only possible explanation is that it must be because of Kernel access.
What Valve actually did, was hook up AI to greatly enhance its serverside cheat detection capabilities and accuracy… one of the rare actually good use cases of AI as it relates to cybersec.
It seems to have improved their, again, server side heuristic detection abilities… without needing Kernel level access.
…
So yeah, please source your claim.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It takes more work and resources to do what they’re doing. They already do server side anti cheat. And realistically, this is more effective than not doing it, though it definitely still gets defeated anyway. I would say the things that it asks of the customer are not worth the trade even if they were 100% effective, but they are more effective.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I offer:
0.2% more effective detection of cheaters (theoretical)
You offer:
Full and total access to every single file on your computer, all of its hardware, and all connected devices, via kernel level access.
Do you accept?
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I mean… the people who play these games very regularly do accept that.
warm@kbin.earth 2 days ago
Blind consumerism is rampant.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Yep.
I would argue those people are extremely silly, but apparently some people just literally do not value privacy, data security, at all.
count_dongulus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Wall hacks could be defeated by the server only reporting the positional information about enemy players to game clients when it detects that the client player’s camera should be able to see some part of the other player’s silhouette. This is possible, albeit computationally expensive, but the main functional issue is latency. Nobody wants enemies magically popping into view when their view changes quickly because their ping was more than 6ms lol
frongt@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
That doesn’t cover wallhacks.
warm@kbin.earth 2 days ago
Back when Battlefield was Battlefield, it would self-regulate because most people played on self-hosted servers, so cheaters and bad actors were taken care of swiftly. But now they want their own control to put shitty bots and SBMM in the game, so here we are.
Miaou@jlai.lu 1 day ago
I don’t think the devs have much to do with these decisions
warm@kbin.earth 1 day ago
Overall scope was set by EA, they wanted a more mainstream shooter to compete with the likes of Call of Duty, so they could jump into the seasonal content/battle pass grind. But the devs made all these little individual decisions that add up.