A: laziness and cost. It just doesn’t matter the same way that baking code matters, I guess.
So they toss on some cheap anti cheat instead of architecting it safely (expensively.)
A: laziness and cost. It just doesn’t matter the same way that baking code matters, I guess.
So they toss on some cheap anti cheat instead of architecting it safely (expensively.)
- Almost all games are going to use a licensed or shared game engine. That means the softwsre architecture is already known to skilled cheat developers with reverse engineering skills.
- Obfuscating the game will only go so far, as demonstrated by the mixed success of Denuvo DRM.
- The game will not be the most privileged process on the machine, while cheaters are glad to allow root/kernel access to cheats. More advanced cheaters can use PCIe devices to read game memory, defeating that mitigation.
- TPMs cannot be trusted to secure games, as they are exploitable.
- Implementing any of these mitigations will break the game on certain devices, leading to user frustration, reputation damage, and lost revenue base.
- And most damning, AI enabled cheats no longer need any internal access at all. They can simply monitor display output and automate user input to automate certain actions like perfect aim and perfect movement.
> Obfuscating the game will only go so far, as demonstrated by the mixed success of Denuvo DRM.
Denuvo is for the most part DRM, rather than anticheat. It's goal is to stop people pirating the game during the launch window.
> The game will not be the most privileged process on the machine, while cheaters are glad to allow root/kernel access to cheats.
This ship has sailed. Modern Anticheat platforms are kernel level.
> TPMs cannot be trusted to secure games, as they are exploitable.
Disagree here - for the most part (XIM's being the notable exception) cheating is not a problem on console platforms.
> AI enabled cheats no longer need any internal access at all. They can simply monitor display output and automate user input to automate certain actions like perfect aim and perfect movement.
I don't think these are rampant, or even widespread yet. People joyfully claim that because cheats can be installed in hardware devices that there's no point in cheating, but the reality is the barrier to entry of these hyper advanced cheats _right now_ means that the mitigations that are currently in place are necessary and (somewhat) sufficient.
Antiecheats work in layers and are a game of cat and mouse. They can detect these things some times, and will ban them (and do hardware bans). The cheaters will rotate and move on, and the cycle continues. The goal of an effective anti cheat isn’t stop cheating, it’s be enough of a burden that your game isn’t ruined by cheaters, and not enough of a target to be fun for the cheat writers.
Also, spending hundreds on hardware is standard for anyone playing competitive games. For example, Escape from Tarkov's "unheard edition" costs $250 for just a single game, and people still buy it. When you factor in the cost of gaming mice, hall-effect sensor keyboards, 480Hz displays, and high-end systems, the total investment adds up quickly for improvements that will never match the capabilities of a cheat, which is how a lot of them also like to justify their cheating, it's simply the most cost effective way to dominate in a game, especially if your livelihood depends on it.
I don't disagree with the second half of your statement.
so you use a kernel level anti-anti-cheat
The nature of FPS games means only environment integrity can stop cheating. It's not exploitable per se. Just the game skill can be done by a computer perfectly.
Conversely who knows how long it will take for AIs to play Hearthstone with never-before-seen-cards well.
When you have software running locally, you can arbitrarily modify how it runs.
Like an aimbot is a powerful cheat, and there's no amount of security that can prevent one from being used outside of an anticheat being able to look deep into what your system is doing, what it contains. The only way to prevent that kind of thing is to remove your control of your own computer.
Me with a pen and paper exceeds many human capabilites.
Likewise with wearables like a smartwatch.
Does it have to be direct neural integration to be a cyborg? Definitely people with profound brain injuries have been enhanced to the ability to interact again.
But if we have to define a criteria... I guess, integrated just enough so it can't be trivially removed, making it more of a "body part" rather than a "tool".
Point is, it'll certainly spark a discussion and re-evaluation of what's "fair", potentially shifting the consensus from somewhere around the current "glasses are fair game, but a programmable mouse is not" to somewhere more accepting of differently-abed individuals.
Well, you can on PC at least. Xbox and Playstation security has matured to the point that code modification in online games isn't really a thing anymore, the worst they have to deal with is controller macros most of the time.
1) Their secure boot implementation has never been broken, which means you can't upgrade from an exploitable version N firmware to a non-exploitable version N+1 while persisting a backdoor like you could on older systems like the PS3. You're stuck at version N until another exploit is found.
2) They rotate the crypto keys used for online play with every new firmware so they can easily lock those old exploitable firmwares out of online play for good, even if they try to spoof their version number. There's no getting around not having the new keys.
Meanwhile the Xbox One took a decade to get even a limited jailbreak that allows arbitrary code execution inside the game sandbox, but can't escape the game sandbox to take over the kernel, and the Xbox Series systems have yet to be jailbroken at all on any firmware.
Hypothetically being able to break anything with physical access doesn't count for much in practice if the thing you want to physically attack is buried inside a <7nm silicon die, doesn't trust anything outside of itself, and has countermeasures against fault injection attacks. The Switch may well be the last big victory for console hackers, the writing has been on the wall for years now.
- GOOD software are simple and easy to understand, which makes it EASY to cheat.
- BAD software are needlessly complex and finicky, so it's HARD to rig it for a cheat.
- Anti-cheats intentionally make software BAD and over-complicated, so cheaters would have hard time modifying it. But computers are brittle and also aren't smarter than humans so cheaters will eventually find a way.
- Security is completely irrelevant topic since game clients are "bought" and run on your hardware; Digital Restrictions Management built to work against you as user is anti-consumer, anti-right-to-repair, anti-human, super bad thing, and lots of efforts are made to keep PC away from it as much as practical.
It has nothing to do with laziness or cost. If anything it'll be the best programmed game that gets hacked fastest. And PS2 that gets emulated last.
And cheats do not always rely on exploitable bugs. A bot using screen capture and input device emulation works at the OS level and in other contexts (ex: accessibility), it would be a legitimate thing to do.
Some games aren’t able to prevent cheating. The client has the data on where the enemies on their screen are. The cheat only needs to move the mouse and click on the enemies heads. Other games like MMORPGs involve the cheat just playing the game and farming on behalf of the player.
It just becomes a cat and mouse game where the anti cheat is trying to detect something hooking into the game process while the cheat tries to hide itself.
From a player perspective that's not cheating, that's running a bot. It's automation of a routine grind - which is typically designed to make players hate it and spend money instead. Automating boring stuff is simply natural.
For pay-to-win games it's effectively a balancing system, a pushback against player-hostile mechanics. Not unlike an adblocker on the web.
That's strictly in context of MMORPG genre, of course.