Curse

Mohnzh · Oct 03, 2007, 04:24 PM // 16:24

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299021,00.html

...maybe we will get an anti-cheat system that actually works well. Maybe we should look for it in GW2?

Coridan · Oct 03, 2007, 05:30 PM // 17:30

I read about this earlier today as well...sounds interesting....but i think it is a long ways off yet.

Str0b0 · Oct 03, 2007, 05:30 PM // 17:30

I wouldn't bet on it. there is always a way to exploit code. It's the nature of programming. It is impossible to program for every single instance. Eventually someone will figure out a way to get around any new anti-cheat measures and as soon as they plug that exploit another month will pass before someone figures out a way around the plug. Consign yourself to the reality of software. It can be hacked and no one can stop it from being hacked. The best they can do is try to hold it off for as long as possible.

On the flip side of that the more detailed and comprehensive the anti-cheat is the more man hours it costs to create and then you see an increase in game prices. It gets to the point where it isn't cost effective to prevent the cheating because you won't move enough units to offset the cost of creating the anti-cheat. Sorry man Intel or not that's life in the digital age.

Matfei · Oct 04, 2007, 12:39 AM // 00:39

Im envisioning a system which looks for any changes in the game code at all (unofficial) even a texture transparency setting for see-thru walls in FPS games, to soemthing else, if a code has to be changed in any way, or linked to in an unofficial way (the devs would have to supply a anti-cheat company with the update details so the tracker can be updated) but if it finds any unofficial variation in code, it notifys the company of the erronous account and steps are taken...

Sure nothing perfect, but I think a constant file/code scanning system would work to some extent. Granted im not a coder or anything, its just an idea. Im not and expert on how code is handled etc.

Omega X · Oct 04, 2007, 01:16 AM // 01:16

I smell ulterior motive. This is gonna be used for more than just cheating.

wilebill · Oct 04, 2007, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Omega X, sometime ago I remember reading that the IRS was interested in online games, and environments like Second Life, because there was a lot of taxable income not being reported. Taxable income from sales of ingame gold or plat, items, and the like. Possibly, this is why Intel is now getting involved; then again this may have nothing to do with it.

Dr Strangelove · Oct 04, 2007, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Thank god, because everyone knows punkbuster does a spot-on perfect job of preventing cheaters.

arcady · Oct 04, 2007, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Got an alternate URL for that?

October Jade · Oct 04, 2007, 05:34 AM // 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

Got an alternate URL for that?

Ah yes, San Franciscans are allergic to Fox News.

I'm not terribly fond of it either, but at least this is text media. You don't have to hear anyone screaming the article at your face.

Mohnzh · Oct 04, 2007, 05:54 AM // 05:54

Sorry, it's the only link I can find.

Wilebill, I think I also heard about the IRS getting interested in online games for the reasons you mentioned. A friend of mine showed me an article about a year ago in PCGamer (I think that was it) about just that.

Lord Sojar · Oct 04, 2007, 06:01 AM // 06:01

Pardon me, but this is my field of expertise. I will not let this happen so help me God... EVER. This type of direct hardware manipulation is a direct invasion of privacy. This could allow hackers to exploit the function, employing a very simple, yet effective form of key logging by simply assigning a value to each key and having the module detect yes or no to that value.

This had better not happen, or there will be federal lawsuits. It is the programmers duty to stop cheating, not the hardware manufacturers. Personally, this is just another ridiculous Intel PR stunt designed to make the common gamer feel comfortable in their office chair, but meanwhile, the implications this would create in regards to reverse engineering and module rewrites... UM NO.

arcady · Oct 04, 2007, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

Ah yes, San Franciscans are allergic to Fox News.

Well when I joined the US military I swore this little oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. so I don't tend to support threats to everything that document stands for.

It may seem absurd to some, but I see no point in clicking on a link to a site with a track record of politicized fabrications and a history of inciting paranoia rather than reporting. Doesn't matter what side they take, if a broadcaster takes such extremes as the above one does, they aren't worth paying attention to even for things as banal as weather reports.

Muspellsheimr · Oct 04, 2007, 06:22 AM // 06:22

The ONLY conceivable time this would be acceptable is assigned computers during a controlled environment tournament. Anything else, and it will have serious repercussions in regards to hacking and logging.

I would NEVER purchase such hardware, nor would nearly anyone else who understands it's possibilities, and I will actively promote boycotting any game that requires such hardware, as I suspect many others will as well.

bilateralrope · Oct 04, 2007, 06:26 AM // 06:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohnzh

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299021,00.html

...maybe we will get an anti-cheat system that actually works well. Maybe we should look for it in GW2?

So you think there is a problem with Guild Wars when we have had one instance (the armbrace dupe exploit) of people exploiting bugs in the code, which was fixed quickly. So the security measures they are using for Guild Wars should be enough.

If you say there were others, you will need to provide proof of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Str0b0

I wouldn't bet on it. there is always a way to exploit code. It's the nature of programming. It is impossible to program for every single instance. Eventually someone will figure out a way to get around any new anti-cheat measures and as soon as they plug that exploit another month will pass before someone figures out a way around the plug. Consign yourself to the reality of software. It can be hacked and no one can stop it from being hacked. The best they can do is try to hold it off for as long as possible.

Yes, if you give the client access to the code it will be hacked. However the code sitting on the servers is much safer. And for Guild Wars all the important code is on the server, with the various clients treated as untrusted. The client computer doesn't say "I did this" to the server, instead it says "I try to do this" and the server checks to see if its possible.

I've seen how bad the hacking was in Maple Story when I played it for a few weeks. After asking around I found that the main design flaw was that calculations that players would want to hack were being done clientside, where they were getting hacked.

Though to be fair the server side processing does make lag more noticeable. For instance think of any tricky "jumping puzzle" you have played, then throw in about 250ms of lag and tell me how much harder it would make things.

Quote:

On the flip side of that the more detailed and comprehensive the anti-cheat is the more man hours it costs to create and then you see an increase in game prices. It gets to the point where it isn't cost effective to prevent the cheating because you won't move enough units to offset the cost of creating the anti-cheat. Sorry man Intel or not that's life in the digital age.

This is only true if you are somehow stupid enough to think that you can have full control of a computer when you have no physical access to it, and the person you are trying to take the control away from has full access.

Lets take the example from the fox news article of saying you fired 100 shots when you only fired one:
- In a baldy designed system, the server takes this as a fact.
- In a server side system, the server checks to see if firing those 100 shots is even possible. If not, it only lets you fire one while ignoring the other fire commands. Or the command simply says "start firing" and you keep firing until either you say stop, or something prevents you from firing again (say, your target dies).
- In the system Fox is promoting, the game maker will need control of your computer down to the hardware level (say goodbye to running windows games on other operating systems) and have it report back to them. But if someone figures out what is being reported back and spoofs it, there goes the anti-hack system. Not to mention various legal issues of spying on peoples computers.

Lets say someone uses this system for hack prevention, but the spyware module isn't on all computers. This means that either they lock out a portion of their market, or they have "trusted" and "untrusted" players. So the "trusted" players will be under less monitoring (if you aren't going to treat them differently, why have the chip ?). So when one of them does hack things, they will take longer to spot than if they were in the trusted group.

bilateralrope · Oct 04, 2007, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muspellsheimr

The ONLY conceivable time this would be acceptable is assigned computers during a controlled environment tournament. Anything else, and it will have serious repercussions in regards to hacking and logging.

A controlled tournament is very easy to secure without this spyware chip. The people hosting the tournament provide the computers to be used, load any required software, arrange them so that players don't have any quick access to the computer case, then have people watching them to make sure they don't attempt anything.

So basically I'd have the computer locked in a box with holes in it for the cables.

Mohnzh · Oct 04, 2007, 06:42 AM // 06:42

bilateralrope,

I dont think this is geared towards exploiting code bugs, per se. I think itis more generalized than that. Hopefully it will be something that can detect and prevent botting and other forms of "cheating". I tend to suspect whether or not the ideas can be implemented legally. But I cannot support the reporters choice to speculate that some companies do not talk about their anti-cheat technology because it probably violates certain Californian laws.

sindex · Oct 04, 2007, 06:49 AM // 06:49

I still am questioning why Intel bought Havok. Nevertheless I like Intel, but the whole big brother thing kind of creep’s me out. You have to understand there will always be a flaw in the system that can be eventually be exploited. I know the battle still rages with security systems/programs against identity theft, computer viruses, and other technical malicious stuff. What makes you think any of this will go away in the future?

immortius · Oct 04, 2007, 08:55 AM // 08:55

I'ld have to agree that Guild Wars doesn't need any sort of client-side cheat detection - it is too well designed to need it. The netcode found in Korean MMORPGs makes me cry, and I'ld prefer they fixed it rather than rely on external cheat detection systems.

The Intel anti-cheating system is more likely to be aiming to stop wall-hacks and aim bots in FPSes than anything else, as those are unavoidable holes client-side. And by its Intel nature it will necessarily be optional, as any AMD user will be unable to use it.

$neekie · Oct 04, 2007, 08:58 AM // 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Pardon me, but this is my field of expertise. I will not let this happen so help me God... EVER. This type of direct hardware manipulation is a direct invasion of privacy. This could allow hackers to exploit the function, employing a very simple, yet effective form of key logging by simply assigning a value to each key and having the module detect yes or no to that value.

This had better not happen, or there will be federal lawsuits. It is the programmers duty to stop cheating, not the hardware manufacturers. Personally, this is just another ridiculous Intel PR stunt designed to make the common gamer feel comfortable in their office chair, but meanwhile, the implications this would create in regards to reverse engineering and module rewrites... UM NO.

Dont wanna burst your bubble but its already, happening on a small scale. Take Punkbuster, its constantly running proces(since the handshake update). Even wenn your not running games(or non PB games).

BF2142 has a tracking system to, to check how much the players look at the ing add(wich are changeble). It has nothing to do with cheating, but they still look at what your doing. Killing this proces will crash your game...

I dont like these things, but i welcome some active cheater defence(pb is phew phew). I did a lot of research into BF2 cheats, macro use(just as bad as cheats and non detectable) and how PB isnt able to catch up, the cheaters that get cought often get couhgt by admins using PB screenies(investing time to look all of them over) and getting there server streamed by Punksbusted and the masterban list, what does dice/ea do with the official reports..................nothing because they dont accept pb screenies,WTF!

I quit bf2 because of this crap, there are even name spoof cheats(wich got some top 10 players reset) Cheat companies garantee, that you dont get cought, if you do they give you a new game key. But hey the game is 2 years old why support it anymore..............crappy EA.

Sry for the rant, but i really loved bf2 and its mods. Its frustrating to see the game go down. I for 1 would welcome better anti cheat software, or rather see it incoded(dont know if thats possible) in the game, plus i h8 to say it(i love the mods) but companies should stop giving out mod tools. And better protect there games(leggaly), ea isnt able to even sue the cheat companies(dont ask me why, country problem maybe?).

Online games are getting bigger and bigger, about time somebody actually did something about cheaters and autokeybind/macro use(make some clear rules). For all game types and how i dunno, i wouldent mind the spyware(its in alot of games already) Again sry for the rant....

mzzls

bamm bamm bamm · Oct 04, 2007, 09:24 AM // 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by immortius

And by its Intel nature it will necessarily be optional, as any AMD user will be unable to use it.

Well, AMD are a founding member of the Trusted Computing Group, so I wouldn't be too sure.