3 ms·

Like another said in this thread, yes you would but it's because some cheats are rootkits. It's a little invasive but doesn't seem as problematic as other ACS l

Like another said in this thread, yes you would but it's because some cheats are rootkits. It's a little invasive but doesn't seem as problematic as other ACS like Riot's Vanguard, which is always on and China-owned.

yesbut 5y ago
> China-owned State owned is problematic, I'm not in disagreement with you. But so is corporate owned. I'd like to see an industry standard anti-cheat root-kit developed as a publicly reviewable open source project at the very least.
- temporarrry0923 5y ago
  >I'd like to see an industry standard anti-cheat root-kit developed as a publicly reviewable open source project at the very least An anti-cheat is one of the few areas that truly would ruin its security by going OSS. A cheater can quickly enumerate every method the AC uses to detect cheats, then they know EXACTLY which goalpost to kick into, per-se. 85% of Vanguard's effectiveness is their CONFUSING ban protocols, whether that's delaying a ban to confuse someone testing what's bannable, not divulging details about what avenues are tested, constant updates that aren't specified anywhere, etc. Case in point, even in CSGO: Just changing the offsets of some game values will break some cheats for several days.
  - yesbut 5y ago
    Then handle it server side. Anything you ask the user to install into their kernel should not be closed source.
- schmorptron 5y ago
  Anti-Cheat is the only industry where security by obscurity is valid.
  - tester756 5y ago
    Obscurity is always valid because it increases security, doesn't it?
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      They're referring to this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity Obscurity can be a layer, but it can't be the only layer, and in general systems (such as web servers) need to be designed to withstand full-knowledge attacks. That isn't likely to be possible when it comes to anti-cheat, so obscurity plays a larger role.

yesbut 5y ago

> China-owned State owned is problematic, I'm not in disagreement with you. But so is corporate owned. I'd like to see an industry standard anti-cheat root-kit developed as a publicly reviewable open source project at the very least.

temporarrry0923 5y ago
>I'd like to see an industry standard anti-cheat root-kit developed as a publicly reviewable open source project at the very least An anti-cheat is one of the few areas that truly would ruin its security by going OSS. A cheater can quickly enumerate every method the AC uses to detect cheats, then they know EXACTLY which goalpost to kick into, per-se. 85% of Vanguard's effectiveness is their CONFUSING ban protocols, whether that's delaying a ban to confuse someone testing what's bannable, not divulging details about what avenues are tested, constant updates that aren't specified anywhere, etc. Case in point, even in CSGO: Just changing the offsets of some game values will break some cheats for several days.
- yesbut 5y ago
  Then handle it server side. Anything you ask the user to install into their kernel should not be closed source.
schmorptron 5y ago
Anti-Cheat is the only industry where security by obscurity is valid.
- tester756 5y ago
  Obscurity is always valid because it increases security, doesn't it?
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    They're referring to this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity Obscurity can be a layer, but it can't be the only layer, and in general systems (such as web servers) need to be designed to withstand full-knowledge attacks. That isn't likely to be possible when it comes to anti-cheat, so obscurity plays a larger role.