Forum Discussion

pitchsomfan's avatar
pitchsomfan
5 years ago

Re: Easy fix for Cheaters, this will solve everything.

To some of you saying it's possible to have a "perfect replay"... 

Yes and no,    you can have 1:1 replays within reason by upping the tickrate of the servers.... or having a client side replay being recorded for the suspected player,  which is never EVER going to be secure.

Someone else on here mentioned low tickrate (or specifically low amount of data points) and he is perfectly right about this..

Running 20 tick servers means you are essentially recording 20tick demos/replays as a result, even if you do client side replays on your end you are seeing opponents being sent at 20tick (and you have interpolation/antilag delay on top of this).. interpolation is used (and would be used for demos as well) to smooth this out or everyone would be stuttering across the screen.

Others have mentioned cs on here as well, which pretty much means they are talking about HLTV (or local demos as mentioned above)..  both are subject to the server tickrate as the clients are sending roughly 20tick anyway.

And even if you were using something like HLTV  (which is basically a proxy server, simulating a client)  you are going to end up with the exact same problems, on top of being massive resource hogs (unless you are limiting the proxy tickrate to counter this as you are ignoring PVS i.e the players you can see and sending all positions at all times which is intensive as hell...  and in the end ultimately defeats the point).

The only way you are going to effectively (or as effectively as you can) combat cheats is to go the way of valorant with a very invasive kernel level anticheat... which opens up a whole other discussion about trust and security.

2 Replies

  • Midnight9746's avatar
    Midnight9746
    Hero+
    5 years ago

    @pitchsomfanFun fact, I've seen a bunch of people report cheaters in Valorant. I only played the game once for about an hour. Most players seemed legit, a few.. eh not so much.

    Just because the anti-cheat is on a kernel level, doesn't mean a cheat can't act like an innocent app and get through it.

    I have to use a special browser for school, that's suppose to "lockdown" the system and forces applications closed. It only bothers to make me close Discord, Xbox Toolbar (where Windows has access to Xbox stuff), and sometimes my calendar and email app. It's suppose to force my browser to close as well, but I've been using Opera. Which, it doesn't ask me to close.

    The whole point of this browser is to prevent cheating in tests. If something like this can't detect a special kind of browser, what makes you think a kernel level anti-cheat won't make the same mistake?

  • pitchsomfan's avatar
    pitchsomfan
    5 years ago
    @Midnight9746 I never said it was fool proof, as in it will detect every cheat immediately.. but you will have a lot less cheating overall while using it.

    As for academic cheating.... not the same thing.
    In terms of games we are talking about application level injections and memory tampering (read/write).. which is far easier to detect on a kernel level basis.

    The problem is that cheats can get through this by being deployed on a kernel level basis as well.. which is why you see people get through.

    These cheats do however get detected in the long run when more samples come in (and when they get added in whatever database they are using, gotta attack cheating on several fronts after all).

    I think the problem is that people expect 100% instant results and that no cheating will ever be possible ever... this isn't the case and never will be.
    But a ring0/kernel level anticheat will make things a lot easier, and will filter out known cheats far easier than a regular mem/process pattern/statistic based one.

    If you want a "complete" death of cheating (for a while) we would need a completely closed source and separate OS from windows with no injection points (with encrypted memory tec) with separate proprietary compilers (and most likely a new closed programming language).

    The issue is in the end windows (and linux), as it's not a very secure operating system... especially not when cheaters are fully willing to give kernel level access just for the sake of cheating.

    I can say this much about vanguard, just a few weeks ago the number one ranked player in valorant got detected using hardware cheats.
    i.e a Direct Memory Access card (DMA)... this would be completely impossible to do without kernel access as cards can be spoofed etc.. their driver signature however cant be.

    As for your academic "anticheating" browser.. this is not kernel level and from what i can tell whoever coded that piece of software wasn't all too careful.
    Not trying to be mean, but if you are going to code that kind of software you should have a whitelist and not permit anything else to start.. this is security 101...
    This is what valorants anticheat does to an extent (outside of drivers etc).
    And why a lot of people have issues playing the game as it REFUSES to start when something that isn't whitelisted is running.


    Point is this, comparing the browser you speak of against a kernel level anticheat is fairly narrow as they are two completely different softwares.. it's like comparing a gpu driver to photoshop.. both are graphically oriented but are not the same thing... and should honestly not be compared.

Featured Places

Node avatar for Apex Legends Feedback

Apex Legends Feedback

Give feedback about the Legends, maps, weapons, loot and more in the Apex Legends community forums.Latest Activity: 13 days ago
34,453 Posts

Recent Discussions