Did we trade lazy anti-cheat into lazy anti-cheat ?

[MartisLTU 265]

So i was watching yotube and accidentally found youtuber who plays "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege" with a wii controller and guitar ... and another his video was How to get ban by Battleye in "R6 Siege".

Skip all crap and begin at 0:55.

Dude literally does everything to get BAN by BE ... and nothing, when he sends support ticket to turn himself in... nothing.

 

Did we just trade lazy anti-cheat into lazy anti-cheat ?

 

 

[Keshi 436]

interesting

[Excalibur! 207]

Welp, thats why cheaters never get erased.

[Nite 261]

I'd like to just point out that the same anti-cheat software can be configured differently for different games and have different degrees of effectiveness

[HighSociety 148]

10 minutes ago, Nite said:

I'd like to just point out that the same anti-cheat software can be configured differently for different games and have different degrees of effectiveness

but every anticheat should ban if u are running cheatengine... if its doin something or not.

And the Rainbow 6 devs like... ah let's allow cheatengine what can happen or what?

Edited October 24, 2018 by HighSociety

[Similarities 226]

7 minutes ago, HighSociety said:

but every anticheat should ban if u are running cheatengine... if its doin something or not.

And the Rainbow 6 devs like... ah let's allow cheatengine what can happen or what?

If he actually attached cheat engine to the game, rather than just opening it and having it in the background, no it shouldn't and it won't. He didn't attach CE to the game. If he had, he would've been banned. He used speedhack in an offline match from what I can tell as well, if he had enabled it online, BE would've picked it up. BE bans in waves, so he would not get banned instantly, he'd get banned several days later, this is to ban as many people using cheats as possible at once, rather than letting one person get banned and then go "Ok guys hack is DT"

[Keshi 436]

12 minutes ago, Similarities said:

If he actually attached cheat engine to the game, rather than just opening it and having it in the background, no it shouldn't and it won't. He didn't attach CE to the game. If he had, he would've been banned. He used speedhack in an offline match from what I can tell as well, if he had enabled it online, BE would've picked it up. BE bans in waves, so he would not get banned instantly, he'd get banned several days later, this is to ban as many people using cheats as possible at once, rather than letting one person get banned and then go "Ok guys hack is DT"

^

[vsb 6171]

is it a trade if we still have fairfight?

[HighSociety 148]

26 minutes ago, Similarities said:

If he actually attached cheat engine to the game, rather than just opening it and having it in the background, no it shouldn't and it won't.

Try with BF1 just run cheatengine don't attach it, u will be kicked from the game instant (not banned in first term) BF is using Fairfight. 

But u can be right dunno

Edited October 24, 2018 by HighSociety
wrote Punkbuster cuz brainfk

[Similarities 226]

Just now, HighSociety said:

Try with BF1 just run cheatengine don't attach it, u will be kicked from the game instant (not banned in first term) BF is using Punkbuster. 

But u can be right dunno

VAC does this as well, it will ban you just for having CE open (or it did in the past), but the thing is, it shouldn't do that. It should only ban when you attach to the game, which is what BE seems to be doing. I know for sure that BE detects CE, and some APB cheaters are currently using a custom version of CE to attach to the game to get the crosshair color for their triggerbot. BE is flawed in APB, I've already told Matt a lot of the issues it suffers from, we just have to wait now. 

[HighSociety 148]

I think they are on the right way... i don't see those full blatantly guys anymore (except sometimes speedhack).

no shawcopters and so on.

Edited October 24, 2018 by HighSociety

[MartisLTU 265]

1 minute ago, HighSociety said:

I think they are on the right way... i don't see those full blatantly guys anymore (except sometimes speedhack).

no shawcopters and so on.

True .. there is not so many of them than it was with FF/G1 ... but i dare to say that i start to notice some strange snaps in FC.

[Frosi 722]

The current engine due to it being so dated is a reason why BE isn't doing a great job as of right now. Fingers crossed for improvements to BE after 3.5 even if it's just a small jump. I really want them to reintroduce FairFight with its original settings and have it run silently in the background for a while so it can flag players and help them fine tune it. BE can only do so much and I have yet to see a shaw copter since it's implementation, however, the amount of returning closets is scary as BE doesn't seem to be able to detect their cheat or flag them for whatever else it's looking. FF was pretty efficient at detecting closets over time even if they ran on less "aggressive" settings.

[Similarities 226]

6 minutes ago, Frosi said:

The current engine due to it being so dated is a reason why BE isn't doing a great job as of right now. Fingers crossed for improvements to BE after 3.5 even if it's just a small jump.

 

Elaborate on how the engine has anything to do with it because I keep hearing this excuse everywhere and it's entirely untrue. Anti-cheat effectiveness has nothing to do with the engine.

[vsb 6171]

28 minutes ago, Similarities said:

Elaborate on how the engine has anything to do with it because I keep hearing this excuse everywhere and it's entirely untrue. Anti-cheat effectiveness has nothing to do with the engine.

idk of it relates to “normal” cheats but there’s plenty of code flaws that can be exploited

[Similarities 226]

4 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

idk of it relates to “normal” cheats but there’s plenty of code flaws that can be exploited

That's not related to the effectiveness of the anti-cheat though, that's just related to the game, if you program bad code and rely on the client for everything, the anti-cheat effectiveness is not necessarily diminished, that doesn't stop BattlEye from being implemented properly, it just means that you can cheat the game in more ways or use bugs. That's on the developer of the game to fix, not the anti-cheat to stop.

 

EDIT: To add on to that, the majority of the cheats you see in-game (speedhack, aimbot, wallhacks, etc) will still be possible after updating the engine. It's not going to stop the majority of cheaters from using what they already use.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Similarities

[Mitne 724]

Lol. No wonder I got suspicion over so many players if even blatants are hard to detect for BattleEye.

Someone daring enough should try it in our community.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Mitne

[Nite 261]

2 hours ago, HighSociety said:

but every anticheat should ban if u are running cheatengine... if its doin something or not.

Absolutely not, anti-cheat that does this is intrusive as all hell and turns me off of supporting the game powered by it.

 

A client-side anti-cheat has only one job: to protect/guard the game executable process it is assigned to. It has no business looking in the user's active process list for whatever programs the game devs think can be used to cheat. Foolishness like that is how we get Korean MMOs that close or throw fits everytime I try to run Process Explorer in the background.

[BabeMasi 1]

s

[Similarities 226]

8 minutes ago, Nite said:

A client-side anti-cheat has only one job: to protect/guard the game executable process it is assigned to. It has no business looking in the user's active process list for whatever programs the game devs think can be used to cheat. Foolishness like that is how we get Korean MMOs that close or throw fits everytime I try to run Process Explorer in the background.

1

Unfortunately, you won't be playing any game with an anti-cheat then, because all of them dump process lists, PE headers, and then other things depending on the functionality implemented. BattlEye already has the ability to see every Chrome tab you have open, dump memory pages, enumerate all processes, and run arbitrary code on your PC sent from the master server. VAC does it. EAC does it. XTrap does it. XIGNCODE is a spying tool marketed as an anti-cheat, but also does it. BE does it. PB does it. Every anti-cheat seeing any usage at all already does this.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Similarities

[Nite 261]

1 hour ago, Similarities said:

Unfortunately, you won't be playing any game with an anti-cheat then, because all of them dump process lists, PE headers, and then other things depending on the functionality implemented. BattlEye already has the ability to see every Chrome tab you have open, dump memory pages, enumerate all processes, and run arbitrary code on your PC sent from the master server. VAC does it. EAC does it. XTrap does it. XIGNCODE is a spying tool marketed as an anti-cheat, but also does it. BE does it. PB does it. Every anti-cheat seeing any usage at all already does this.

I know they can do all that but do they have to flip their virtual lid simply because I have a program open while playing? If I'm not trying to inject into process memory there shouldn't be any issue IMO. XIGNCODE is the worst about that too.