7 ms·

> Basically, don't believe any of this "We have to own your computer for your own good" nonsense. That's a scam. Every time. Not really. It's all they can do t

> Basically, don't believe any of this "We have to own your computer for your own good" nonsense. That's a scam. Every time. Not really. It's all they can do to stop PC gamers cheating without having control of the hardware.

advael 2y ago
I just gave an in-depth breakdown of why that's not true. Your reply amounts to saying "nuh uh!" with no justification. There is nothing to engage with in this reply. It doesn't even attempt to have any substance
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  Your in depth breakdown doesn't address the substance of the argument at all, it's mostly a distraction. Servers can not bear the entire weight of guarding against cheat, it's impossible. If you don't understand that then you are not in a position to be writing any sort of breakdown. Several games and game protocols require security on the client side to be able to stop cheats. You can't have security on the client side if the client has full access to the hardware and OS. It's not more complicated than that, and your 'breakdown' doesn't adequately address that. You can dismiss this point if you like as you did when I made it in my previous reply, but it doesn't make it any less a fact.
  - advael 2y ago
    That's ridiculous. A server only needs to be capable of running a single authoritative copy of the game and handling dead simple network requests to prevent every kind of cheating that matters except input automations, which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway. If you have a case where this isn't true, feel free to expand on it instead of just blindly believing it must exist. You don't need client-side control to make very powerful guarantees of systemic security in much more serious contexts than a game. You're not only doing special pleading, but you're doing it for a scenario that, as far as I can tell, has no theoretical reasoning and no examples, because you haven't provided any. I have to conclude it's imaginary. I gave you a good breakdown of what threat models I think exist and some sketches of technical solutions, like client separation and authoritative servers. I speak from both sound theory and experience implementing netcode here. Maybe you are too, but I can't tell from what you're saying, because again all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!" I see no why, how, or when in that argument. Is the problem you can only fix by having total control over the whole platform of every client in the room with us right now?
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      > every kind of cheating that matters except input automations So basically, except the most common types of cheating. > which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway Yes, this is basically what I was saying when I said you can't stop cheating so long as the consumer has control of the hardware. > instead of just blindly believing it must exist Well, with respect, I think it is you who is blindly believing all cheating can be stopped server-side. I find that claim to be patently ridiculous. > no examples, because you haven't provided any. > all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!" You're right, I haven't provided examples because this is common knowledge in the industry or to anyone that knows anything about trying to prevent cheating. I wasn't prepared to have to give a lecture to defend my point. But really, if what you are saying was correct, then all these companies must just be incredibly incompetent for not preventing cheating server-side, right? Because it's just so easy? More than that, it's a very basic principle in security that if someone controls that hardware, most security can be defeated. The exception is stuff with DRM and things like a TPM where the consumer doesn't have full control, and that is the only way to truly prevent cheating. That's just a fact.
      - advael 2y ago
        So you're saying that the sole concern in anticheat software is macroing? Alright, do you need to control every peripheral connected to the computer as well? How can you guarantee there isn't a SoC on someone's keyboard that sends a bunch of signals that they didn't have to type? Maybe we gotta put a little spy chip in every copper wire sold in every country, just to be sure it's not connecting anything to anything else. You know, in case someone is trying to cheat Anyway, the fact that industry giants want to be in the very lucrative business of controlling the computers people use and have made up all manner of silly justifications for it is not news to me, but I have no reason to believe them, and saying "well lots of people who I consider to have enough authority that you should take their word for it also believe this, take my word for it" isn't particularly compelling. If you don't expect to need to justify your position why even bother making the claim? I don't assign automatic unquestioned epistemic authority to you just because you claim to be espousing the consensus view of an industry, and it's an industry full of crooks built on an industry full of crooks in the first place
  - yownie 2y ago
    what a nonce.
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      If you can't keep up with or follow the discussion, that's fine, but please don't insult those of us engaging in good faith discussion.
      - scheeseman486 2y ago
        There is nothing about your posts that are good faith.
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        It's a real shame you think so. Every comment I make is in good faith.
        scheeseman486 2y ago
        Almost every comment you make takes the dumbest possible interpretation of the comment you're responding to and runs with it, probably because setting up and flicking over strawmen like you're doing gives the illusion that you're smarter than you actually are to those who aren't paying attention (though based on how unpopular your posts are I guess it isn't working that well). Not sure if it's deliberate or not. It makes you a miserable person to talk to in any case.

advael 2y ago

I just gave an in-depth breakdown of why that's not true. Your reply amounts to saying "nuh uh!" with no justification. There is nothing to engage with in this reply. It doesn't even attempt to have any substance

DEADMINCE 2y ago
Your in depth breakdown doesn't address the substance of the argument at all, it's mostly a distraction. Servers can not bear the entire weight of guarding against cheat, it's impossible. If you don't understand that then you are not in a position to be writing any sort of breakdown. Several games and game protocols require security on the client side to be able to stop cheats. You can't have security on the client side if the client has full access to the hardware and OS. It's not more complicated than that, and your 'breakdown' doesn't adequately address that. You can dismiss this point if you like as you did when I made it in my previous reply, but it doesn't make it any less a fact.
- advael 2y ago
  That's ridiculous. A server only needs to be capable of running a single authoritative copy of the game and handling dead simple network requests to prevent every kind of cheating that matters except input automations, which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway. If you have a case where this isn't true, feel free to expand on it instead of just blindly believing it must exist. You don't need client-side control to make very powerful guarantees of systemic security in much more serious contexts than a game. You're not only doing special pleading, but you're doing it for a scenario that, as far as I can tell, has no theoretical reasoning and no examples, because you haven't provided any. I have to conclude it's imaginary. I gave you a good breakdown of what threat models I think exist and some sketches of technical solutions, like client separation and authoritative servers. I speak from both sound theory and experience implementing netcode here. Maybe you are too, but I can't tell from what you're saying, because again all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!" I see no why, how, or when in that argument. Is the problem you can only fix by having total control over the whole platform of every client in the room with us right now?
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > every kind of cheating that matters except input automations So basically, except the most common types of cheating. > which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway Yes, this is basically what I was saying when I said you can't stop cheating so long as the consumer has control of the hardware. > instead of just blindly believing it must exist Well, with respect, I think it is you who is blindly believing all cheating can be stopped server-side. I find that claim to be patently ridiculous. > no examples, because you haven't provided any. > all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!" You're right, I haven't provided examples because this is common knowledge in the industry or to anyone that knows anything about trying to prevent cheating. I wasn't prepared to have to give a lecture to defend my point. But really, if what you are saying was correct, then all these companies must just be incredibly incompetent for not preventing cheating server-side, right? Because it's just so easy? More than that, it's a very basic principle in security that if someone controls that hardware, most security can be defeated. The exception is stuff with DRM and things like a TPM where the consumer doesn't have full control, and that is the only way to truly prevent cheating. That's just a fact.
    - advael 2y ago
      So you're saying that the sole concern in anticheat software is macroing? Alright, do you need to control every peripheral connected to the computer as well? How can you guarantee there isn't a SoC on someone's keyboard that sends a bunch of signals that they didn't have to type? Maybe we gotta put a little spy chip in every copper wire sold in every country, just to be sure it's not connecting anything to anything else. You know, in case someone is trying to cheat Anyway, the fact that industry giants want to be in the very lucrative business of controlling the computers people use and have made up all manner of silly justifications for it is not news to me, but I have no reason to believe them, and saying "well lots of people who I consider to have enough authority that you should take their word for it also believe this, take my word for it" isn't particularly compelling. If you don't expect to need to justify your position why even bother making the claim? I don't assign automatic unquestioned epistemic authority to you just because you claim to be espousing the consensus view of an industry, and it's an industry full of crooks built on an industry full of crooks in the first place
- yownie 2y ago
  what a nonce.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    If you can't keep up with or follow the discussion, that's fine, but please don't insult those of us engaging in good faith discussion.
    - scheeseman486 2y ago
      There is nothing about your posts that are good faith.
      - DEADMINCE 2y ago
        It's a real shame you think so. Every comment I make is in good faith.
        scheeseman486 2y ago
        Almost every comment you make takes the dumbest possible interpretation of the comment you're responding to and runs with it, probably because setting up and flicking over strawmen like you're doing gives the illusion that you're smarter than you actually are to those who aren't paying attention (though based on how unpopular your posts are I guess it isn't working that well). Not sure if it's deliberate or not. It makes you a miserable person to talk to in any case.