• andyburke@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Actually, I am.

    Using rootkit anti-cheat is a shortcut that reduces cost for both dev time and hosting time at the expense of your customers’ security and CPU. You also have to lay your cards on the table for those who are attacking you. It is not the right solution for this problem.

    Authoritative servers. Never trust the client, especially with information the player shouldn’t have right now. Look at behaviors and group players based on if you think they cheat or not - let the cheaters play together, no need to spoil their fun and let them realize you know they cheat.

    People do some or all of this on the server now, but root kitting all machines to try to solve this problem to play video games is one of the dumbest approaches ever and we will realize it one day when a state level actor pops their zero day against a big install base.

    • folkrav@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 months ago

      This. Having worked on some in-house anti-cheat solutions myself, it absolutely is just offsetting the processing and security cost to the players. The attack vector of having such a rootkit running on so many devices is just not even close to be worth the trade off of catching marginally (if really measurably at all?) more cheaters.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      But… have you considered having control of 0-ring software that runs on hundreds of millions of computers, that can perform targetted updates to change behaviour on just a select few computers, even interact with the network adapters unbeknownst to the OS.

      I’m not talking about zero days popping up for this. But rather, this being part of the design?

      A less nefarious application: The root kit anti cheats already continuously monitor processes. Say it finds a crypto mining one. It can request the instructions needed to search for a wallet and snatch that off.

      A more nefarious one: RK is known to be in the device owned by the kid of a military contractor. Etc.


      Trusting the client is a fools errand. So we are in complete agreement. I never understood why the effort isn’t placed on server side. People are very good at knowing when others have cheated. They know this from information that exists on the server side, so with the correct classifier, the server should also be able to know this.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Never trust the client, especially with information the player shouldn’t have right now.

      This is a big part of the problem, but it’s not the only problem. If you do all of that stuff right, you can’t build a responsive first person shooter. There’s some level of trust you need to put in the client.

      Disclaimer: This is based on my experience playing shooters and as a programmer. I have not worked on anticheat systems hands on.

      We see less and less of the “god mode” hacks where players can send the packet for a carpet bomb and the server just blindly trusts it. Or the ludicrous spinbots that spin at an extreme speed and headshot anyone that comes into line of sight.

      What we’re seeing is increasingly sophisticated cheats that provide “buffs” to a player’s ability. An AI enhanced aimbot that when you click gently nudges your hand to “auto correct” the shot and then clicks is borderline impossible to detect server side. It looks just like a player moved the mouse and fired.

      The “best” method to prevent these folks from cheating seems to be to detect the system or the game has been tampered with.

      Maybe the way to deal with that is to just let it happen and deal with smurfs down ranking… So these “soft” cheaters just exist in the “pro tier” where the pros can possibly stand a chance.

      One strategy I have seen that I wish more developers would do is sending “honeypot” information to the game client (like a player on the other side of the wall that isn’t really there but an aimbot or a wall hack might incorrectly expose).

      Maybe the increasing presence of hardware cheats will result in new strategies that make these things unnecessary. I keep wondering if a TPM could be used to solve this problem someday… But I’m not sure exactly how/we may need faster TPMs.