63 ms·
If you implement the sandboxing very thoroughly and only permit signed code to run, you can make it even more difficult to cheat. e.g. on iOS, it would be very
by joosters 6y ago
If you implement the sandboxing very thoroughly and only permit signed code to run, you can make it even more difficult to cheat. e.g. on iOS, it would be very hard to change the client code of a multiplayer game without being detected.
- ubercow13 6y agoHow would that work on a general purpose computer?
- outworlder 6y agoThe same way "anti-cheat" software already works today? With the addition of a sandbox running signed code, which is yet another barrier.
- joosters 6y agoThe technology is just about here today. If your PC has secure boot, you can theoretically lock it down to only allow booting a suitably restrictive OS, which then is responsible for restricting the apps and games that can run & the permissions they have. Lots of layers of signed code checking, really. The main weakness (other than code vulnerabilities) is the network: it's very difficult to guarantee that a remote computer is running the allowed OS & game code, and not a hacked version. However, technologies like Intel's SGX x86 extensions can make this possible: because of the added encryption in the core CPU, one machine can send a cryptographic challenge to another one, and it can only respond correctly if the remote CPU has validated the code it is executing. So, the tech is there. But in reality, people really don't want to lock down their PCs so securely and effectively give full control to their OS vendor.