Digital Paint Discussion Board
Development => Bugs, Feature Requests, and Feedback => Topic started by: jitspoe on May 09, 2006, 03:11:44 PM
-
I guess the title pretty much sums it up. I'm working on ways to improve the cheat detection, and it hit me that some methods I could use would potentially be considered invasion of privacy. Do you think checking for the existence of certain processes in memory would fall under that category?
-
who cares? we all know you know we watch chunky cheerleaders.. put in in the license agreement. i wouldent give a poop :)
-
I guess the title pretty much sums it up. I'm working on ways to improve the cheat detection, and it hit me that some methods I could use would potentially be considered invasion of privacy. Do you think checking for the existence of certain processes in memory would fall under that category?
Nothing wouldbe considered an invasion of privacy as long as it was spelled out clearly in the EULA, and maybe a warning box when you launch the client online ie.. at the time you select JOIN from the menu.
No issues from this peanut gallery.
-
How would this work with different OS'es? As I know that there are many OpenGL hacks and all that for both Windows and Linux.
-
I'd have to write OS-specific code for each.
-
I wouldnt have a problem with that if only you, jitspoe, can look at those informations.
-
It seems as if your a trube quietl person, so it should be ok for most of the community.
In addition, KnacK's idea with the warning box sounds pretty good!
-
I wouldnt have a problem with that if only you, jitspoe, can look at those informations
Well it all depends on how it is implemented.
If a mem resident cheat was detected, would it just shut the client down? Or would memory scanning only take place when trying to atach to a server online, in which case a log note should be recorded in the server logs, an entry made in the gbl, and the client kicked. I would think the latter would be the way to go as nonserver play wouldnt hurt other users.
-
Public servers would initiate the checks for memory resident cheats. If found, it would be sent to a central "database" for review. I wanted to make it flexible -- for example, the server could check if "hack1.exe" is present, but then if later on somebody informs me there's a "hack2.exe", the server could check for that as well, and it wouldn't require a new client release.
-
what if the hacker were to rename it to h4x0rz0mgz0rz.exe?
-
This isn't a thread about implementation. How I actually do it will not be made public, for obvious reasons. I'm just asking if scanning for arbitrary things in the client's memory would be an invasion of privacy.
-
Post removed
-
Heres my take on it, put warnings all over the place.
Maybe a policy something like this:
By installing this software or connecting to any server with DigitalPaintball running, you (the licensee) understand that DigitalPaintball software will inspect and report information about the computer on which it is installed, it will then send this information back to the main DigitalPaintball servers. By DigitalPaintball you agree to allow the software to inspect and report such information about the computer. This informatoin includes, but its not limited to, devices and any files residing on the hard drive and in the computer's memory. You can be assured that your privacy is of utmost concern, and that this information will be only be used in the detection of cheats and hacks which make gameplay unfair. If you feel that this is a breach of your privacy, please cancel the setup now. More information can be found on www.digitalpaint.org.
Something like that would cover you, legally, by saying that they were encouraged to read the privacy policy, and that not doing so was there own fault. Btw, feel free to use that statement if you want :P
-
By installing this software or connecting to any server with DigitalPaintball running, you (the licensee) understand that DigitalPaintball software will inspect and report information about the computer on which it is installed, it will then send this information back to the main DigitalPaintball servers. By DigitalPaintball you agree to allow the software to inspect and report such information about the computer. This informatoin includes, but its not limited to, devices and any files residing on the hard drive and in the computer's memory. You can be assured that your privacy is of utmost concern, and that this information will be only be used in the detection of cheats and hacks which make gameplay unfair. If you feel that this is a breach of your privacy, please cancel the setup now. More information can be found on www.digitalpaint.org.
:-\
-
Fair enough processes in memory, but files on the hard drive would be going too far.
-
its far far far to vague imo
-
If you get too specific you just make loopholes.
-
/runs hacks from pen drive
err I mean yeah
-
Fair enough processes in memory, but files on the hard drive would be going too far.
FIles in the DP folder silly, not your goatse folder
-
Personally, I think it it is an invasion of privacy, but then again I have 15 anti spyware programs and am paranoid about viruses :)
Wouldn't SELinux block it though?
-
FIles in the DP folder silly, not your goatse folder
but thats where i hide my porn :'(
-
I wouldnt care if you scanned my computer. this is one true way to find those hackers.
Just give a LARGE BOLD WARNING SAYING "SCANNING MEMORY FOR CHEATING DEVICE(S)"
Thats just an Idea. and make it as soon as you load paintball2.exe it scans before you can select an option of the game.
Just my opinion
-
Well paintball is already good because I can just open and play within a few seconds and don't have to sit through steam/punkbuster validation. That kind of stuff is just annoying.
-
Validation would be done in the background and shouldn't have a noticeable impact on game play.
-
I still don't really like the idea of scanning my memory...I mean, doesn't PC stand for Personal Computer?
Plus, my really weird anti-spyware utility doesn't allow other programs to do memory scans...(Not mentioned so that i don't attract hackers)...
Plus, my computer can barely handel paintball on its own. Might not be 'noticable' for a fairly high end Celeron or something, but not on a really old pIII with about 25 megs of ram free :/
-
this is probubly a bit late, but why not just put it in the ELUA and just scan the paintball files :)
-
I like this idea Jitspoe, I don't think it would be a violation of privacy accept, like others mentions it should be made known via the EULA. Also, will this prevent people from claiming that I or someone else is hacking, when in fact that is not true? My idea is that, if their computer is scanned, nothing is detected, could we put a little green light on the scoreboard or something silly like that? The reason I bring this up, is because for the first time in....a very long time....I played some pball and not 20 minutes into playing I was being accused of being a hacker.... I know this is something that is probably impossible to get rid of, but I figured it's worth a shot.
**Upon further reading about Build 16, I'm now an idiot, I didnt realise global ban existed**
-
this is probubly a bit late, but why not just put it in the ELUA and just scan the paintball files :)
Because GL Cheats can be hooked from anywhere, not just the gl driver native to paintball. But these hooks will appear memory regardless of where they're coming from.
-
Why dont you just have a server side screen shot thingy. I think that would be the best and the easiest?
-
You can't get a screen of an aimbot, and wallhacks could be turned on and off.
-
well, random intervals own then.
-
Post removed
-
NoCheat isn't exactly external, and punkbuster would cost money, may not be GPL compatible, and is popular enough that there are plenty of anti-punkbuster cheats around.
-
Post removed
-
Most wallhacks cant be turned on/off for dp? Even if they can, you wont know when its taking a screenshot so you still have a chance of getting caught..and i really dont think anyone uses aimbots anymore rofl.
-
that Snaz-Bot still works well.
-
I think server-side would be best, the server should look for anything anamolous, log them, and ban or kick people based on how many times it was detected.
As for screenshots, it had better not send them online, it would kill diaup users. (Such as myself)
I think an external prog would be best approach, so people trying to test Paintball (such as map makers, like myself) wouldn't have to be inconvieniecved) and could turn it off. It would be easy enough to make servers test for this program...
You could make it closed source but free. Shogo, for example, has an Anti-Cheat client. Its optional, but you need it to play on public servers. But if you just want to test (Say, make a map) you can remove it.
I'm not really opposed to this. I just beleive that people should have the choice to have it or not, at the expense of being able to play on public servers. Because to me, anything else is an invasion of privacy.
-
Whatever you do, keep the actual client OpenSource and GPL, make all the anti-cheat stuff external.
-
Making a map would not trigger any kind of cheat detection, unless, of course, you wanted to test how it played with a wallhack enabled or something...
-
Making a map would not trigger any kind of cheat detection, unless, of course, you wanted to test how it played with a wallhack enabled or something...
Yes, I want to play with a Wallhack against the oh-so-skilled BOTS, who make their presense known well enough even if you can't see them.
But yes, keep the client OpenSource and GPL.
I should never had gotten hooked on Linux...
-
I've been suggesting the server-side screenshot thing for as long as I can remember. As far as I can tell, its the only way to be sure whether or not someone is wallhacking. For the competitive DP scene, wallhacking is the only problem, right? Aimbots are easy to detect just by camming someone, but wallhacking is a little harder, depending on how well they hide it or not.
Maybe we should start talking about making a standalone .exe that you enable before you enter a match, and randomly during the match it takes screenshots of your computer, not just dp. Then after the match it uploads the screenshots to a free image service like imageshack, maybe even flickr. Infact, with flickr you could use the developer api and make the images available to the public.
-
Woah woah woah. Make it take screenshots of my computer, and I WILL stop having anything to do with DP. That would be going WAAAAAAAAAAY too far.
Besides, I don't want it sapping my bandwith.
As TOM said, make it standalone and optional. AND make it so that server operators can choose weather the server needs it or not.
If I remember Shogo right, there was an Anti-Cheat client (everybody who wanted to play downloaded it) and the anti-cheat server plugin. If you didn't have the server plugin, clients didn't need the client plugin. Do NOT make it integral with the DP client or server. Make it optional.
-
The screenshot would be an ingame one silly, to detect edited textures, models, and wallhacks.
Well when you're playing a lot of data is going through, so I don't see how bad it would be, like 100kb, a temporary upload killer, would it happen randomly though? because that would be bad, maybe have it happen everytime some alt-tabs into the game or something...
-
then turn it off when your going to alt tab. =]
-
Either way, i won't play. Unless there is an option to turn it off.
Of course, make the servers require it if needed, just users turn it off for testing, etc.
-
Why cause you cheat?
Just have an Anti-Cheat thing that we had way back for q2dp..?
-
I'm not against anti-cheats in any way. I just want the option to turn it off for testing and make it seperate. I'm trying to figure out ways to keep my maps resistant to some hacks. I'm not meeting with a lot of success, but still...