[POLL] HAC2

[sehe]

So, collecting suspect dll's would help much in fightin against cheaters, but some people might disagree with this cuz they are cheaters and scared of being spotted they using dlls with super secret algorythms and top secret information in them (rofl).

[Btcc22]

I voted no, because I'm a cheater and I don't want to get spotted.

[sehe]

Very funny :D

[sanni]

I rather would wish that HAC2 doesn't get detected by Antivirus Software as a thread anymore.
So if collecting suspect dlls is gonna happen without raising further antivirus alerts then sure go ahead.

Although I find it rather funny that the people that can't install HAC2 "because their Antivir is blocking it" are the same that get auto banned by SAPP for aimbotting. Aw the irony :-3

[Crenshaw]

haha lol....do it. we dont need cheaters...these are the people making the servers unplayable for others as they have specific servers they join and rape...sorry for who owns the server though.

this is to sehe...is this really the only forum in which we can share our commands and events for sapp???? as i dont see it happening at all. I'd like to see ppl exchanging commands and events, sorry thats just my opinion. but i played on a couple of servers that has sapp and it lame...ppl cant create events properly (which is easy to do btw).

For example, The Phasor for halo PC/CE community is very small but they all share scripts and help each other out without a question...oh and can you pweez update your website bro...lol

[urbanyoung]

No that's retarded. You don't have any right to collect that information.

[Crenshaw]

DO IT!!!!!!!!!! i dont use any kind of cheats and i still rape....so whats the big deal urbanyoung??? i know alot of ppl using chams and wallhack these days and its easy to spot....especially in a slayer game. if that 1 person would jus come around corners and head shot you when your crouching...i sightjack so i know, i see how they move.

[urbanyoung]

The big deal is that they have no right to collect data they do not own. Maybe they could collect the names, but collecting the dlls themselves is completely ridiculous and could be trivially bypassed (read: don't use winapi to load them). This means the system won't be effective at detecting hacks and all it will do is collect information they have no right to possess.

[Kornman00]

I'm pretty sure they're talking about collecting the names/associated information of modules loaded in memory of the game's process, not the binaries themselves. However, a process can easily run then unload after it applies whatever changes it requires\performs. What would be more effective is to also track memory differences. Just look at what Punkbuster/XLive/Steam do when it comes to 'anti-cheat' measures. TBQH, it'd be far better to have the dedi monitoring for game state discrepancies than to rely on the user running a presumably authentic anti-cheat client. Unlike with Steam, there's no incentive to not circumvent such measures. People playing CE don't have hundreds of dollars of games associated with their CD-keys.

[Btcc22]

I'm pretty sure they're talking about collecting the names/associated information of modules loaded in memory of the game's process, not the binaries themselves.

He was talking about the binaries. I already dismissed this idea as being completely ridiculous for the reasons give by Urbanyoung/Oxide; it wouldn't be effective and it'd be a violation of privacy.

Just so it's quite clear though, the poll had nothing to do with me (as the sole developer on the project) and at no point has doing this been a consideration.

[sehe]

Hehe, I was waiting for the "OMG You don't have rights to do this QQ" posts. Obviously, what cheater would like to see the proof that they are cheating? :D It's easier to say "OMFG This shit is wrong I'm not a cheater unban me you idiot, it must be a false positive, blah-blah etc..". Ofc I didn't meant this 'as the anticheat feature', I meant this as an "extra" like IF you are spotted on cheating, then HAC could collect the dll. This would also help clarify REAL false positives. Players who doesn't cheat doesn't give a **** if HAC collects any dll that loaded into their Halo. And yes, I know you can hide the dll with custom load, but I guess hardly any Halo cheat uses this technique.

[sanni]

Just make it optional, people that are ok with it can check yes others can check no in the option.

[mywarthog]

No that's retarded. You don't have any right to collect that information.

As long as a disclaimer is put saying that it is collected, and that is the only information of that type collected, then it is 100% legal.

[urbanyoung]

Hehe, I was waiting for the "OMG You don't have rights to do this QQ" posts. Obviously, what cheater would like to see the proof that they are cheating? :D It's easier to say "OMFG This shit is wrong I'm not a cheater unban me you idiot, it must be a false positive, blah-blah etc..". Ofc I didn't meant this 'as the anticheat feature', I meant this as an "extra" like IF you are spotted on cheating, then HAC could collect the dll. This would also help clarify REAL false positives. Players who doesn't cheat doesn't give a **** if HAC collects any dll that loaded into their Halo. And yes, I know you can hide the dll with custom load, but I guess hardly any Halo cheat uses this technique.

If you're only worried about dlls that are already around and don't use any hiding techniques, why not just collect the names of the dlls? If there are any new hacks, which is doubtful, it wouldn't take much work to defeat this system, so why bother with the binaries? The problem with what you want to do is that it's completely unnecessary and trivially bypassed, there is absolutely no benefit to doing it.


Just make it optional, people that are ok with it can check yes others can check no in the option.

That would defeat the purpose of the system though. A person cheating would obviously say no.


As long as a disclaimer is put saying that it is collected, and that is the only information of that type collected, then it is 100% legal.

That's assuming the person using the dlls has the right to distribute them.

[Ryx]

Hehe, I was waiting for the "OMG You don't have rights to do this QQ" posts. Obviously, what cheater would like to see the proof that they are cheating? :D It's easier to say "OMFG This shit is wrong I'm not a cheater unban me you idiot, it must be a false positive, blah-blah etc..". Ofc I didn't meant this 'as the anticheat feature', I meant this as an "extra" like IF you are spotted on cheating, then HAC could collect the dll. This would also help clarify REAL false positives. Players who doesn't cheat doesn't give a **** if HAC collects any dll that loaded into their Halo. And yes, I know you can hide the dll with custom load, but I guess hardly any Halo cheat uses this technique.
using dlls instead of code injection is so 2012 :realsmug:

post a list of what it collects and explain, show some trusted people the source and let them compare md5/some hash to see if you modified it, and tell people if they don't trust then they can't play? problem solved. If the actual author was contemplating.

also, clientside anticheats are only meant to discourage people who aren't experienced, so you should be relying on serverside anyways.

[Pooky]

Sounds gay. I wouldn't use HAC 2 if that were the case. Please don't do it.

Disclaimer: I AM A BIG CHEATER WHO ALWAYS CHEATS AT HALO WITH AIM BOTTES

http://i.imgur.com/pKG29ea.jpg

[Btcc22]

so you should be relying on serverside anyways.

Server-side anticheat simply isn't possible in the majority of cases. If it were, we wouldn't have so many client-side solutions.

[Sean Aero]

This thread, just isn't right. It's someone other then the developer suggesting a function, on which the developer has made clear he does not want to add this.
A similar case would be, me posting a thread regarding SAPP and adding a poll that it should be open source as the original code wasn't his to begin with.
Not fair and useless as the decision is up to a single person.