So, here's a thing:

Hacking into Kernel Anti-Cheats How cheaters bypass
Faceit, ESEA and Vanguard anti-cheats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzIq04vd0M

It's a 40 minute video (with a somewhat annoying presentation) but it
gives a nice overview of some of the more advanced methods cheaters
are using to get an advantage in online games, many of which are not
easily defended against by even kernel-level anti-cheat programs.

Not being into that 'scene', I was unaware of how far the technology
had developed. Not that any of the concepts are actually surprising -
I'd often speculated that using a secondary PC to monitor and overlay
information was a possibility - but I wasn't aware that such
techniques were actively being used.

Honestly, it all seems a bit overkill just to say "I sniped you
hahahaha" in an online shooter. I suspect that the presenter is being
a bit naive in assuming that cheats are merely being used for
bragging/trolling rights; as likely, the cheaters who invest in such
techniques are probably doing so because they're cashing in on their
wins somehow

(it probably ties into how closely tied online gaming has become with
gambling)

Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.

* in short: An interface card that does direct memory reads (hacked to
disguise itself as network card to make it less obvious) is installed
onto the PC running the game; this card reads the memory used by the
game, then pushes the data over to a second computer which interprets
the data, then overlays it - via an HDMI combiner - onto a screen
shared by both computers.

>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>
>

I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.

I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)

I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.

Thanks.

-pw

PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>
>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>
>>
>
> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>
> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>
> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -pw

What about cheating AI?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

I'd say whatever cheats they're using aren't very good, when a guy my
age can go into twitch games like multiplayer and come in first or
second place most of the time.

I attribute this mostly NOT to my reflexes getting better with age, so
much as many multi-player games are cross-platform these days.

This usually means that there are a crap ton of console gamepad
holders that are getting their ass served to them on a shit stick by
some dude with a mouse and keyboard like yours truly.

Even in PC platform specific MP games, cheating is usually kept under
control well enough that either I rarely notice it, or the cheats just
don't do that much to help the player.

The bigger problem has always been the perception and accusation that
the other guy is cheating by players who just aren't very good. "I
keep dying therefore everyone else must be cheating"... etc.

Spamming of cheat accusations is really annoying. Luckily it usually
becomes a self-solving problem, because in most games, eventually the
whiners leave, and I suspect in many cases simply choose to not play
at all.

If I went into a game like Counterstrike right now that I never play
anymore, it would probably take me at least 20 minutes, maybe an hour
to fully warm up, get my mouse sensitivity dialed in right, etc.
before I was keeping up with the joneses and then coming out on top
round after round.

I think a lot of players don't get that. Practice makes perfect. A
lot of folks who don't play competitive shooters regularly expect
immediate gratification and start accusing others of cheating when
they don't receive their golden egg right away.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>
>>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
>> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>>
>> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>>
>> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -pw
>
>
>What about cheating AI?
*--

It exists? Explains a lot over the years!

On 08/04/2024 21:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So, here's a thing:
>
> Hacking into Kernel Anti-Cheats How cheaters bypass
> Faceit, ESEA and Vanguard anti-cheats
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzIq04vd0M
>
> It's a 40 minute video (with a somewhat annoying presentation) but it
> gives a nice overview of some of the more advanced methods cheaters
> are using to get an advantage in online games, many of which are not
> easily defended against by even kernel-level anti-cheat programs.
>
> Not being into that 'scene', I was unaware of how far the technology
> had developed. Not that any of the concepts are actually surprising -
> I'd often speculated that using a secondary PC to monitor and overlay
> information was a possibility - but I wasn't aware that such
> techniques were actively being used.
>
> Honestly, it all seems a bit overkill just to say "I sniped you
> hahahaha" in an online shooter. I suspect that the presenter is being
> a bit naive in assuming that cheats are merely being used for
> bragging/trolling rights; as likely, the cheaters who invest in such
> techniques are probably doing so because they're cashing in on their
> wins somehow
>
> (it probably ties into how closely tied online gaming has become with
> gambling)
>
> Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
> 'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>

I didn't watch the video and the only real experience I have of
anti-cheat measures is World of Tanks. So there the big one is all the
calculations are server side so for all practically purposes* you can't
change those calculations and the client only has access to the
information it requires.

That doesn't mean there aren't mod's classed as illegal but all the ones
I know about give you fairly minor advantages and you also risk having
your account banned although who knows how effective the detection
system is.

Something that I think is more detrimental to WoT is what some of the
paid services do. So you give someone some cash (possibly a few hundred
pounds) and they will obtain certain items for you like desirable reward
tanks. The real problem comes that they don't just play on you account
but have lots of other false accounts and during periods of low player
numbers they put them all in the battle queue together hoping to have
the account that's paid money on one team and multiple false accounts on
the other. The worse part though is WG seem to do very little about it
as you can see these false accounts racking up thousands of battles in a
short time period while doing little more than drive to a location and
wait to be farmed.

*Of course that doesn't stop a noticeable minority claiming that the
reason their stats are so bad is that everybody else is cheating.

PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 03:25 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>
>>>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
>>> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>>>
>>> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>>>
>>> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -pw
>>
>>
>>What about cheating AI?
> *--
>
> It exists? Explains a lot over the years!

A lot of people complain about it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 03:25 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>
>>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>>
>>>>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>>>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
>>>> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>>>>
>>>> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>>>>
>>>> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> -pw
>>>
>>>
>>>What about cheating AI?
>> *--
>>
>> It exists? Explains a lot over the years!
>
>
>A lot of people complain about it.

Similar to my other post, complaints about "AI cheating" usually is a
side effect of incongruence between the difficulty options or
progression of a game, and the players expectations for "optimal
difficulty".

It is difficult for a single player game to "adapt" its difficulty
level to the playing habits and style of the current player, because
that would typically involve the use of true AI (which most games do
not).

What most gamers call AI is, simply enough, the "difficulty" of the
game.

If AI is ever properly utilized in computer-controlled player
behavior, it is possible that a game can learn to optimize it's
difficulty so that it provides each player just the right level of
challenge to remain entertaining as long as the player wants to
continue playing.

But until then, there are two fundamental truths when it comes to game
AI:

1) "I beat the game" really means "the computer was programmed to let
me win"
2) "The AI is cheating" really means "I suck at that game"

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 14:28 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 03:25 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about cheating AI?
>>> *--
>>>
>>> It exists? Explains a lot over the years!
>>
>>
>>A lot of people complain about it.
>
> Similar to my other post, complaints about "AI cheating" usually is a
> side effect of incongruence between the difficulty options or
> progression of a game, and the players expectations for "optimal
> difficulty".
>
> It is difficult for a single player game to "adapt" its difficulty
> level to the playing habits and style of the current player, because
> that would typically involve the use of true AI (which most games do
> not).
>
> What most gamers call AI is, simply enough, the "difficulty" of the
> game.
>
> If AI is ever properly utilized in computer-controlled player
> behavior, it is possible that a game can learn to optimize it's
> difficulty so that it provides each player just the right level of
> challenge to remain entertaining as long as the player wants to
> continue playing.
>
> But until then, there are two fundamental truths when it comes to game
> AI:
>
> 1) "I beat the game" really means "the computer was programmed to let
> me win"
> 2) "The AI is cheating" really means "I suck at that game"

Interesting, I never thought of it like that.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:25:25 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>
>>>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
>>> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>>>
>>> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>>>
>>> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -pw
>>
>>
>>What about cheating AI?
>*--
>
>It exists? Explains a lot over the years!

AI cheats all the time... but usually to provide a better experience.
The most visible example is in racing games, which use 'rubber band'
mechanics to maintain a constant challenge. Get too far ahead of the
other racers, and the AI will preternaturally zoom forward until it is
right behind you again (at which point it - usually - resumes its
'normal' racing behavior). But it also works in reverse; fall too far
behind, and the AI often slows down to give you a chance to catch up.

(The "Need for Speed" games are infamous at this, with varying degrees
of success. There was almost no rubber banding in "Underground", and
it worked to the detriment of the game (I often lapped the AI). I
think EA did it pretty well in 2012's "Most Wanted", where it was hard
to notice the rubber banding happening at all. On the other hand,
2011's "The Run" had some of the worst rubber-banding I've ever seen
in a racing game, with the AI achieving almost supersonic speeds to
keep up).

But the AI cheats in other genres too; in strategy games, the
developers often grant it the ability to see the whole map, or give it
bonus resources. In shooters, the AI often dodges your bullets even if
it can't see you actually shooting at it (the Scarj mosnters from
1998's "Unreal" were infamous for this). Even in "Alien: Isolation"
(which worked hard to make the AI 'fair', the eponymous xenomorph
would instantly detect you if you stood right behind you, because the
AI had a vision cone facing straight back.

Of course, are these really 'cheating'? The thing is, it's not really
hard to make it so the computer can trounce a player in most video
games. Even if the computer isn't granted any special bonuses, the
sheer speed at which it can make its moves can make it an unbeatable
opponent. If the developer just keeps increasing the tic-rate,
eventually even the best player is going to be overwhelmed. The
challenge often isn't beating the player, it's providing a reasonable
level of challenge... and (equally importantly) expressing how its
being done to the player.

Because often when players complain about the AI is cheating, it's not
because of the specific techniques, but because those techniques
aren't communicated to them. If you go into a RTS game assuming the AI
has the same limits as you* and then find out that some or all of
those restrictions are reduced for the AI, that seems profoundly
unfair. But if you go into the match knowing that it can churn out
units faster (especially if you give it some in-universe lore to
explain it) then it's less 'cheat' and more 'challenge'.

But, yeah, the AI in pretty much every game has advantages the player
doesn't. Then again, players have a real brain and aren't limited to
scripts, so maybe it should be the AI complaining about humans. ;-)

* e.g., the same resources as you, that it can only see the parts of
the map that it has specifically explored, that it can only build
units at the same rate at you, and has the same build-limits as you
do)

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:24:43 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 08/04/2024 21:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> So, here's a thing:
>>
>> Hacking into Kernel Anti-Cheats How cheaters bypass
>> Faceit, ESEA and Vanguard anti-cheats
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzIq04vd0M

>I didn't watch the video and the only real experience I have of
>anti-cheat measures is World of Tanks. So there the big one is all the
>calculations are server side so for all practically purposes* you can't
>change those calculations and the client only has access to the
>information it requires.

I think even if "World of Tanks" some of the techniques described in
the video could be effective. Things like "wall hacks" - allowing the
player to see the target even if obstructed by terrain, buildings, or
fog of war - would be incredibly successful. So too would a hack that
would automatically adjust the player's aim to more accurately hit
their target.

>That doesn't mean there aren't mod's classed as illegal but all the ones
>I know about give you fairly minor advantages and you also risk having
>your account banned although who knows how effective the detection
>system is.

Many of the hacks described in the video aren't actually detectable,
because they don't rely on software - or at least, not software
running on the PC actually running the game - to do the dirty work.
Even the best anti-cheat can't run at anything less than ring-zero
"kernel level" access.* But - as the video points out - hardware runs
beneath ring-zero, and a USB device or PCIE card can access data in
ways that are functionally impossible to detect.

The best game developers can do is try to find a signature of known
devices and ban people using those, but since hardware IDs are easily
spoofed that's not much of a defense. More often, detection is
dependent on checking to see not if a mod is being used, but if the
gamer is playing preternaturally well... but even that is fraught with
false positives.

None of the techniques in the video are surprising... except in the
fact that they're actually being used. It just seems like way too much
effort for such a small reward... especially in non-ranked games.

I suppose it would be different in esports, where there actually being
money on the table would change the risk/reward balance. But
otherwise? It seems to me you must be an incredibly small person to go
through all that work just to dominate other gamers simply to pretend
you are the best. That's why I can't help but believe that a lot of
this cheating is done to gain monetary benefits from the various
gambling mechanics that are embedded in too many games. Win the game,
get the valuable lootbox prize, sell it on trading sites, repeat.

* At least, not so far. I've not heard of any anti-cheat that runs at
'negative ring levels' with SMM or Intel ME yet... fortunately.

On 10/04/2024 16:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> I didn't watch the video and the only real experience I have of
>> anti-cheat measures is World of Tanks. So there the big one is all the
>> calculations are server side so for all practically purposes* you can't
>> change those calculations and the client only has access to the
>> information it requires.
>
> I think even if "World of Tanks" some of the techniques described in
> the video could be effective. Things like "wall hacks" - allowing the
> player to see the target even if obstructed by terrain, buildings, or
> fog of war - would be incredibly successful. So too would a hack that
> would automatically adjust the player's aim to more accurately hit
> their target.

As I say not seen the video but wall hacks really don't sound useful at
all as visibility (spotting) calculations are server side so there isn't
an idea of using you're MkI Eyeball but instead if the server decides
you can see an enemy tank then you'll have a nice icon on screen, and
mini-map, showing exactly were it is. As an example there is a mod
called Tundra which removes vegetation. That sounds good until you
think, it doesn't help you spot anything and it also means you don't
know where to position your tank to to use the camouflage (makes you
more difficult to spot) they provide.

Aimbots already exist but don't seem particularly useful as aiming isn't
really that hard, there's RNG involved and the game has a ballistic
trajectory calculation which needs to be taken into account.

One of the advantages about WoT and cheating is besides that it's server
side it's also not very 'mechanically' skill based but instead far more
around positioning and knowing, for example, when it's worth trading
shots or should you stand and fight or pull back. An AI just isn't very
good at that.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:28:43 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:50:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 03:25 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:10:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>>>
>>>>>>Still, if you're interested in a surface level description of how the
>>>>>>'pro' cheaters are doing it*, this is a good video to start with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested because it is a techie thing but I am not willing to
>>>>> spend 40 seconds or even 4 seconds on a video.
>>>>>
>>>>> I avoid cheaters by not playing games on-line! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I will end up watching a little of this vide though Spalls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> -pw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What about cheating AI?
>>> *--
>>>
>>> It exists? Explains a lot over the years!
>>
>>
>>A lot of people complain about it.
>
>Similar to my other post, complaints about "AI cheating" usually is a
>side effect of incongruence between the difficulty options or
>progression of a game, and the players expectations for "optimal
>difficulty".
>
>It is difficult for a single player game to "adapt" its difficulty
>level to the playing habits and style of the current player, because
>that would typically involve the use of true AI (which most games do
>not).
>
>What most gamers call AI is, simply enough, the "difficulty" of the
>game.
>
>If AI is ever properly utilized in computer-controlled player
>behavior, it is possible that a game can learn to optimize it's
>difficulty so that it provides each player just the right level of
>challenge to remain entertaining as long as the player wants to
>continue playing.
>
>But until then, there are two fundamental truths when it comes to game
>AI:
>
>1) "I beat the game" really means "the computer was programmed to let
>me win"
>2) "The AI is cheating" really means "I suck at that game"
>
>

*--

AI, of course, did not exist back in my day. I just wrote a buch of
If/Then/Else statements :-)