Hacking, Cheating and NS2 Anti-cheat

124»

Comments

  • XaoXao Join Date: 2012-12-12 Member: 174840Members
    Kouji_San wrote: »
    hakenspit wrote: »
    How does what you have said in any way shape or form devalidate my statement that pistol scripting can be stopped?
    Just because you feel a maximum fire rate is not a good solution does not mean its not a solution (its just one thats not ideal).
    TF2 went a slightly different path but it is equally a valid solution.

    Obviously it wasn't a response to counter yours... I was just quoting myself because I already touched on that subject and you missed it, what with it being in another post. Also I personally not a against"fixing" it using the TF2 autofire mode implementation, but it really depends on the max fire rate and comes with it's own set of problems as well...
    • Setting it to autofire 100ms (NS(2) speed), it brings everyone up to the point of "pro mouse clicking" :P
    • Setting it to autofire 150ms or even 200ms will disable burst fire mode for those dire situations.
    • Keeping it at manual fire with a max of 100ms still gives "pro mouse clickers" an edge and adds some depth to the pistol firing.

    This manual fire rate issue has been on the table for, well probably for over a decade now (other games as well). And it's true that autofire is a "fix". But in effect it also lowers the skill ceiling to a small extent, something that is frowned upon in this community.

    But no one is clicking the pistol manually and as soon as you open up the bind mwheel option every single person will dual bind their fire key to mouse scroll up/down and pistol fire that way, I was totally against the TF2 method when I first heard it but I now realise it's the only way for fair competition.

    I'm so sick of hearing the lazy bang bang bangbangbangbangbangbangbang of autohotkey's auto fire scripts.
  • MrFangsMrFangs Join Date: 2013-03-27 Member: 184474Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    Zxaber wrote: »
    To try and get back to discussing solutions, here's my thoughts on unfair textures. I'm thinking that a whitelist is probably going to have to happen. [...] Consistency checking would be put in place for the default materials (if its not already). Any mod that adds alternate textures would be checked against a whitelist, and if found, a way to verify the files would be used. I'd like to think a checksum would work here, compared against an online list with each published version of a mod to allow for people using obsolete mods.
    I agree with the basic idea of a whitelist. However, don't place too much trust into checksums... They are very easy to circumvent once somebody wants to hack. Basically, the first thing you hack is the checksum-generating code. After that, any time the server asks you for the checksum of file, it simply generates the checksum for the original file that was backupped somewhere when the hack was installed. This also defeats approaches like asking for the checksum of a random part of the file - you just run it on the original, while you actually *use* the hacked version. Of course, this also works when the server asks for the checksum of the checksum-generating code...

    Basically, you need some secure local code to bootstrap from, otherwise the whole approach is futile. Maybe Steam can provide this - I'm not familiar with what it allows developers to do.
    The only issue is that I don't know how long it takes to gather a checksum from multiple files of various sizes
    I don't have hard data about this, but I don't think it's much of an issue. Modern hashes like SHA1 are pretty fast. The most time would be spent on loading the file into RAM, but you have to do that anyway when the texture is loaded.
  • lwflwf Join Date: 2006-11-03 Member: 58311Members, Constellation
    MrFangs wrote: »
    Zxaber wrote: »
    To try and get back to discussing solutions, here's my thoughts on unfair textures. I'm thinking that a whitelist is probably going to have to happen. [...] Consistency checking would be put in place for the default materials (if its not already). Any mod that adds alternate textures would be checked against a whitelist, and if found, a way to verify the files would be used. I'd like to think a checksum would work here, compared against an online list with each published version of a mod to allow for people using obsolete mods.
    I agree with the basic idea of a whitelist. However, don't place too much trust into checksums... They are very easy to circumvent once somebody wants to hack. Basically, the first thing you hack is the checksum-generating code. After that, any time the server asks you for the checksum of file, it simply generates the checksum for the original file that was backupped somewhere when the hack was installed. This also defeats approaches like asking for the checksum of a random part of the file - you just run it on the original, while you actually *use* the hacked version. Of course, this also works when the server asks for the checksum of the checksum-generating code...

    Basically, you need some secure local code to bootstrap from, otherwise the whole approach is futile. Maybe Steam can provide this - I'm not familiar with what it allows developers to do.
    The only issue is that I don't know how long it takes to gather a checksum from multiple files of various sizes
    I don't have hard data about this, but I don't think it's much of an issue. Modern hashes like SHA1 are pretty fast. The most time would be spent on loading the file into RAM, but you have to do that anyway when the texture is loaded.

    Like everything it's possible to bypass, but because if you did that could give VAC a chance to detect it.
  • JektJekt Join Date: 2012-02-05 Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
    This should be bumped. Do want proper demo system in NS2.
Sign In or Register to comment.