Would scanning memory for cheats be an invasion of privacy?

[jitspoe]

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?

[Smokey]

who cares? we all know you know we watch chunky cheerleaders.. put in in the license agreement. i wouldent give a poop

[KnacK]

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.

[TinMan]

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.

[jitspoe]

I'd have to write OS-specific code for each.

[Playah]

I wouldnt have a problem with that if only you, jitspoe, can look at those informations.

[bitmate]

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!

[KnacK]

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.

[jitspoe]

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.

[TinMan]

what if the hacker were to rename it to h4x0rz0mgz0rz.exe?

[jitspoe]

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.

[IronFist]

Post removed

[toM|vendettA]

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

[lekky]

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.

 

[Qoo]

Fair enough processes in memory, but files on the hard drive would be going too far.

[lekky]

its far far far to vague imo

[Eiii]

If you get too specific you just make loopholes.

[Qoo]

/runs hacks from pen drive





err I mean yeah

[KnacK]

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

[supertanker]

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?