6 ms·
I’d be interested to know if that’s possible, purely on a technical level.
by cowthulhu 4y ago
I’d be interested to know if that’s possible, purely on a technical level.
- meltyness 4y agoDetecting superphysiological maneuvers is probably a trivial way to do this, for certain gameplay scenarios. There's established limits on reaction time, for example, it's just a matter of differentiating between reaction and preemption which converge at the highest echelons.
- ramranch 4y agoSince it's trivial, I look forward to your proof-of-concept in the near future
- viraptor 4y agoThere are limits on the reaction time, but you can own all humans by consistently hitting close to that limit and achieving useful things when you do. Adding a bit of delay to all bots would not make them useless.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoCheating is a lot more sophisticated than the simple aimbots you're thinking of. A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. In the context of big money online tournaments this motivates some pretty extreme behavior, like folks running a PCI card set up to access memory directly and find the game state for player positions, then indicate that to the player somehow. This defeats even kernel level anti-cheat.
- lwansbrough 4y agoWell supposedly Riot’s server side interest management was supposed to solve this, perhaps by ray casting to the subjects’ bounding box. But I’m aware that wall hacks do get made for Valorant so it would appear that’s not the case. Which is understandable given the difficulty of juggling peeker’s advantage.
- autoexec 4y ago> A lot of cheats focus on giving the player extra information. Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? The server should track players and only push the information each player should have to that player's client. No need to hand every player the locations of other players when they're across the map and behind several walls. Even with no extra data at all, at a certain point they're going to run into the analog hole. Cheaters will be able to point a camera at their screen and have it connected to their mouse/keyboard (real or not) so they can send inputs with speeds beyond what a human is capable of. Maybe it's not feasible to stop every cheater on Earth and the whole concept is incurably broken. There's always the option of letting people host their own servers to play with friends and other people they trust to play the game fairly. It's a hell of a lot more fun to play with people you know anyway. Tournaments can be done in person on dedicated trusted hardware under direct observation.
- deafpolygon 4y ago> Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Performance reasons, usually. Easier to draw an enemy on the screen (and figure out occlusion, etc) than have the enemy pop in from nowhere due to lag. Also prevents lag (or netspeed in the UT days) hacking (used to be a thing, not anymore).
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago> Why are clients being sent that extra data in the first place? Because FPS games don't run in lockstep. They run in server ticks, which the client interpolates or even extrapolates with prediction for smoothness. This means the server has to send player positions a bit earlier than they would be visible via strict occlusion culling. If you tried to run FPS in lockstep it's atrocious. This is literally why John Carmack originally implemented client side prediction for QuakeWorld. Do you think he was just too stupid to do the obvious simple correct thing? Or maybe the problem is actually a bit more complicated? Again, hnews is anchoring on aimbots when that's by far the least interesting way to cheat.
- adql 4y agoRight and how exactly that detects maphacks, wallhacks and a bunch of other non-input related ones ?
- meltyness 4y agoThat wouldn't need to be detected based on the architecture in use. - Server-side actor occlusion. - Server-side physics with client-side prediction that's been in use since 1996.
- charcircuit 4y agoYou can get rid of causal cheaters by having a secure boot all the way to the game. This would make it so people would have to use hardware cheats if they wanted to cheat.
- worthless-trash 4y agoThis is factually incorrect. You dont need hardware cheats to defeat that requirement.
- charcircuit 4y agoThen also add the requirement that the operating system is bug free and allows you to protect your process from being read from or written to.
- petterparker 4y agoWhy jump through all those hoops? Just add a requirement for the game that prevents any form of cheating in the game.
- charcircuit 4y agoBecause that's not a realistic requirement.
- worthless-trash 4y agoand neither is a bug free OS!
- DefineOutside 4y agoFrom the perspective of a server-sided anticheat as client side exists as a barrier to entry so it must be intrusive to work. I know of non-cheat devs who have bypassed Vanguard accidentally while implementing low level windows stuff. No, this isn't possible. There will always be purely client sided cheats that don't touch anything sent to the server. For example, seeing enemies through walls gives a huge advantage but isn't detectable. This can be mitigated only sending entities the client can see, but latency makes it so you can't fully stop this. You can also attack latency which doesn't directly affect protocol. Rewind enemies slightly forwards or backwards in shooters so you land the shot when you aim slightly off. These cheats exist in CSGO. However, an anticheat's job is to prevent other players from noticing you cheating rather than to prevent cheating. This key distinction does let you simply ignore a lot of purely client side cheats as insignificant. You also can't do much about aimassists that slightly correct aiming. Machine learning can help here but falls apart quite fast when humans are covering up the machine's aiming patterns. Algorithmic inputs and random human inputs still result in random-ish human inputs.
- mattwilsonn888 4y agoYeah, it's called plug your mouse and keyboard into a game console - on a more serious note, a realistic idea for serious gamers who care about the sovereignty of their P.C. buy a completely corporate anti-cheat CPU that runs a separate system and uses GPU pass-through so you don't need to build an entire new rig. The main issue, and this pervades computing, is that people don't care enough about owning their computers and controlling the software that runs on them.
- flohofwoe 4y agoI remember that back in my console days, COD MW2 on Xbox 360 was full of glitchers and cheaters. I don't think the situation on PC vs console is all that much different.
- mrguyorama 4y agoConsole security has significantly improved since the Xbox 360 days. All the "trustable computing" stuff is heavily utilized there, and this is like the third time these companies have taken a swing at "Unhackable" consoles. There still isn't a way to exert control over a Switch that doesn't have the old backdoor.
- adql 4y agoOnly if that functionality came directly from OS, i.e. ability to run app in a container user can't mess with. Then it is just OS being intrusive...
- stefncb 4y agoThe OS is already "intrusive" by that definition. What you described has a different issue though; my own computer letting some software run in some container that I can't touch is insane. That's Black Mirror kind of spooky and I hope it never becomes a reality.
- smolder 4y agoThat's clearly been the plan for quite some time with all the "trusted computing" rubbish. Online shopping or banking or playing games (or streaming DRM'd content) won't be allowed on hardware you actually control by like 2035 at the very latest, IMHO.
- lwansbrough 4y agoThere’s probably a few metrics you could come up with. I’d be thinking about ways to quantify awareness, then comparing average awareness vs. some distribution near the players’ skill level. Awareness would be like: average travel distance between combat engagements, % of time fully occluded players receive gaze from a player, etc.
- josephg 4y agoIf Microsoft succeeds with their full plan for "trusted computing" (project Palladium), they'll be able to do anti-cheat at the operating system level. The basic idea is the BIOS verifies the kernel (secure boot), and the kernel verifies all running software. The hardware TPM chip signs a message from the kernel attesting that this has all happened using the on-device crypto signature embedded by the hardware vendor (eg ATI). So the signature is tamper-proof, even by the computer user. And all that can validated over the internet via remote attestation. The message would presumably include the hash of the game's binary files, and the signature & hash of all loaded kernel modules. So yeah, hardware level, "unhackable" anti-cheat on commodity hardware. I can't tell whether to be terrified or impressed with the audacity of the plan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computi...
- bzzzt 4y agoWhile the whole signature verification thing sounds water-tight in theory there are lots of holes still being patched so I don't buy it this will 'change everything'. Making everything tamper-proof could even prevent some holes from being closed.
- josephg 4y agoThe only tamper proof part is the hardware TPM. Everything else uses a chain-of-trust model based on signatures. Most of the complex work will be in windows; and that code can be updated just fine so long as updated versions of the kernel are digitally signed. I’m sure there will be security holes early on. But the people pushing this stuff seem to be playing a long, patient game. I think they’re going to get what they want.
- smolder 4y ago> I can't tell whether to be terrified or impressed I recommend the former, since this is another nail (maybe the final one?) in the coffin of "personal computers", hastening their replacement by hypertelescreens or whatever. (A computer you don't own, but merely access.)