Unfortunately, doesn't look like the followup post (about analyzing the VAC DLLs) has been written.
This isn't true, or at least it wasn't back in the day. The logic Valve seemed to follow was that VAC was "engine" bans. If you got banned in a GoldSrc game, you'd be banned in all games using that engine, but you'd be allowed to continue playing source games. The same was also true in the opposite case.
More importantly, this meant that getting banned in Modern Warfare 2, wouldn't get you banned in any other game, since no other games were released on that engine.
So while engine specific, people still judged you, especially in pubs (public servers)
Been a _long_ time since I've played. Fucking cheaters.
I've lost a few steam accounts to accurate but unintended (i.e., not actually cheating) detection of debugging tools attached to totally unrelated processes on the same machine. Having anything open like cheat engine or Tsearch while you join a lobby is a guaranteed ban no matter what. Ethical hacking and malicious hacking are indistinguishable from the perspective of this kind of machine-wide blind signature detection.
Statistical techniques can dramatically reduce false positives in cases like this. If someone at Valve had taken 10 seconds to review my stats during the detected interval, they should have been able to conclude I was not a threat to fair play.
Valve can ban you for any or no reason with no means of recourse or refund.
Totally the same thing, yeah.
It seems super reasonable when it's a one-off thing for your own account. When you think about making it into policy and scaling it up to 1000s of interactions, it quickly becomes unreasonable.
>Statistical techniques can dramatically reduce false positives
For a period of time, anyways. Until the statistics get gamed by the cheaters (e.g. adjust accuracy of your auto-shoot from 100% to 85% or whatever).
The real issue is the cost of false positive detection of cheating is negligible since the vast majority of positives are probably true positives—it’s the cost of doing anti-cheat business (minimal)
But yes cheats would be modified to just below thresholds of detection
I think this might be in reply to my first comment about scaling? If so, I just want to clarify that I was thinking more along the lines of scaling the customer service/ban appeal side rather than infrastructure.
If, for example, every ban had a component of someone at Valve taking 10 seconds to review in-game stats at the time of the ban, and then making a determination of whether or not those stats seem reasonably non-cheater-ish (pretty hard policy question in itself), the process would slow to a crawl.
Sure - looking at K/D, accuracy, etc., is an important factor in a statistical model.
Statistics can also include: Map name, player transform on the map, keyboard and mouse events, GPU utilization, audio playback events, etc. These are all very high information time domain signals that can be correlated with the same from any other player.
After a certain point, I don't think it matters if it is publicly known what your signals are. The amount of information becomes overwhelming in aggregate. You can impose the curse of dimensionality on the cheater.
I don't think these are the type of stats the parent was referring to when they said "If someone at Valve had taken 10 seconds to review my stats".
But sure, those are all examples of statistics to start logging, analyzing, and cross-referencing. (I would argue most of the statistics you listed are of little to no use in identifying false-positives (or good cheaters), but I understand the point you're making with those examples.)
It would maybe reduce the false positive rate by some amount at an increased monetary (and complexity) cost to themselves. I think it would be well past the point of diminishing returns though. Setting up all the infrastructure, policy, processes just to reduce false-positive rates by a few percent, maybe?
I think I'll stand by "that's unreasonable" and "cheaters will game the statistics".
It's been a cat and mouse game since the dawn of gaming and e-sports.
Fun fact: CS 1.6 competetive had what was called "Organner" when teams switched over from CAL to CEVO (first paid e-sports online league) and as well as ESEA which is acclaimed for its anti-cheats; the pro players you see/saw such as n0thing, summit-1g (not saying he did cheat, he wasn't pro in CS1.6, 1g was a pug team that meant 1st generation and a lot of us were in it) -- but everybody in the pro scene around that did cheat, or had cheaters on their team.
n0thing was banned from CAL rigorously for cheating in CAL-Premier and rejoined with complexity after ringing for other teams in CS1.6 matches (ban evading). he's admitted to cheating in CS 1.6, and found fame with Counter-Strike 1.6'd Evil Geniuses organization which encompanied the old compLexity roster.
These dickheads went on to make fortunes; not to say that they weren't good in their own respects, but people such as n0thing openly admit, and will admit if you ask them on the stream if they cheated in 1.6 to get to where they're at.
You could inject cheat codes through your mouse drivers at LANs and if you set a low FOV aimbot, it was undetectable: IE triggers when you aim at their chest, aims up to hit the head; and had advanced net code modifiers to land bullets in places you weren't aiming all together.
Knowing this, completely ruined the pro scene and wanting to watch these matches and personalities all together. To know how many legitimate players out there were passionate about these games, looking to go pro, and really enjoy competing at the highest levels couldn't because the skill gap was so significant, and then even more so because pro players had undetectable cheats.
Still to this day it is virtually impossible to detect hacks, however games such as DotA2 make it signifcantly harder to cheat by only sending frames/updates when it should; rather than old games sending all player data. I believe Valorant has a decent system but all in all; I helped run the leagues and the level and problem at which cheating was occurring, was known about, and not being able to prove what you know, would make you SICK if you ever enjoyed competing in e-sports.
You can inject cheats directly in to the Xbox's back then directly through the fight sticks
You'd know though if somebody was cheating so not sure how crazy the SF scene had cheats but check out tool assisted; when I originally saw it I just put my head down
After just a few hours of watching YouTube tutorials and translating what I could grasp from C/C# into JavaScript (the only language I knew at the time), I had a working Node.js executable that edited memory offsets (using data from hazedumper[1]), letting me see enemies through walls and auto-fire as soon as they entered my crosshair.
I obviously only tried it out on an alt steam account for fear of the infamous VAC ban, but no such ban happened. I only toyed with it for a few weeks as I then grew disinterested but that definitely left a sour taste in my mouth for the "effectiveness" of VAC if a script kiddie like me at the time could throw together something custom in just a few hours, I'm sure it'd be much easier now with ChatGPT...
There must be some very interesting psychology behind this.
Cheating is "this is my actual skill level if there wasn't so much bullshit happening to me"
Of course this is all a lie, but it's what they tell themselves.
I remember trying to hack the levelling-up mechanism on Crysis 2 - it worked by sending your post-game stats (client-side) to a master server, so editing those stats in memory before that happens would work (there seems to be no tracking of stats on the game server side - even though they could've had the game server relay that to the master server).
Memory is fuzzy but I think I managed to level up to a stage where I got the weapons I wanted. For my defense this kind of "cheating" only "cooked the books" on the leaderboards and did not give me any actual advantage in-game.
It feels good when you win! If you cheat, that just means you're smarter than the other player.
I also maintained a browser addon for a while that had 100k+ weekly active users that added various features to a browser-based game. Eventually that game had such bad problems with botting and cheating that they had to introduce an anti-cheat system, and we basically got into a little arms race for a year or so where they'd add a new detection system and I'd circumvent it. Similar to the EVE Online modding it was things like workarounds for bugs in the game, improved UI, keyboard shortcuts, etc. Eventually they drew a line in the sand and said anyone using addons of any kind would get a permanent ban, so that was that.
I think the vast majority of cheaters are just in it to ruin other people's fun but sometimes people are violating ToS for a better or different experience with the game. It's unfortunate that the prevalence of malicious cheating means that anti-cheat technology also has to basically ban modding for fun.
The thing is, VAC doesn't immediately ban you. Or anyone else. It's looking for suspicious patterns across hundreds if not thousands of players and collecting evidence over weeks if not months to make sure they got relatively low false-positive rates and don't end up banning people for a Windows update gone wrong... and additionally, it raises the iteration time for cheat developers as well, and that's the true point. Show cheaters immediately that they're spotted and the only thing you enter is an immediate arms race.
Your way of writing a cheat was probably detected but since no one else used it, VAC didn't trigger.
It's one entry-point among others for RCE. If tomorrow NSA wants to gather any files on your computer, all they need to do is to ask Google to push an update for you through Google Omaha.
https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/privacy/nsa/foia/NSA-Goo...
Google and NSA have a "partnership".
Valve could also have such partnership in theory, through VAC, though unlikely in practice.
They could in theory, but has this actually happened in practice? Pushing a rogue update isn't exactly a novel idea, but despite decades of government document leaks and APTs being analyzed, there's scant evidence that any government pressured a company to push a rogue update. Same goes for other threat models like "government pressuring CAs into issuing a certificate".
So playing that card means moving the entire planet into a lower-trust equilibrium where everyone has to defend against that. In a better-coordinated world the conclusion from that would be "let's not do that", alas on this Earth TLAs have shown that they're willing to burn the commons, forcing a response like RFC 7258.
In all seriousness, DRM/anti-cheats => rootkits/rats. Don't fall for it. Demand better.
To my understanding, the latter is much more effectively solved server-side, but is more costly for the company to run.
I'd rather play a game with server-side anti-cheat than player-side-anti-cheat.
Separately though, anti-cheat is another ball of wax entirely, and I have extremely mixed feelings in this field. Generally I favor "cheat detection should be serverside, don't trust the client" from a general security perspective, but... I can totally see a valid case in there, somewhere, for more rigorous clientside checks. Somewhere along that line though is rootkits and malware, and... well, no, please tell me up front that you loaded your game engine with these things so I can save my money and purchase something else, thanks.
[0] Using a custom mapper, which will help initially to discourage low-effort bootlegs at the very least. It's open source though, and will not be too difficult to add to emulators, at which point the dumped ROM should play fine on them.
Yeah...
The simple fact is, it's simply not possible to have completely server-side cheat detection simply because you'll be relying purely on heuristics which could very well be wrong. It's just not going to be possible to tell the difference between a cheater and a really good player.
For any cheat detection to work, it has to be client-side.
There was a period of time lasting about a month or two where a player with a name like BELT SANDER or ANGLE GRINDER or TABLE SAW hung around. They were pleasant and unremarkable, but they frequently used new Steam accounts and switched IPs.
This person definitely wasn’t supposed to be an admin, but if they were around when someone was cheating and no actual admins were there, they’d somehow elevate their own permissions and ban the offending player. We tried to figure out what was happening and to see if we could somehow stop them, but we never did manage it. They were somehow gaining rcon access to the host server. After a while we just shrugged our shoulders. They didn’t seem to be harming anything, other than our peace of mind about our security. Overall they were actually really helpful for stopping late night/early morning disruptions.
I knew one person who made a wormable payload for a game I won’t disclose which used that method. The methods are in engine.dll so it’s symmetric, clients would infect servers, which in turn infects more clients, etc. Around then was when I decided to start gaming from a VM lol.
How?
Maybe I’m getting my dates mixed up but CS was released in the late 90 / early 90s and consumer virtualisation wasn’t nearly good enough to game in for another 10 years.
Consumer CPUs didn’t have virtualisation extensions and GPU paravirtualisation wasn’t available either in the early 2000s.
VMWare wasn’t even any good for just running Windows 2000 (I mean, it was seriously impressive tech for its time, but it was dog slow even for just basic basic things). So you’d be stuck with Xen for anything serious. And that wasn’t trivial to get set up back then.
Plus given the lack of drivers for virtualised hardware like soundcards and network interfaces, you’d likely be stuck with full fat emulation for those devices.
sim7c00•4h ago