←back to thread

Anticheat Update Tracking

(not-matthias.github.io)
124 points not-matthias | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.431s | source
Show context
nulld3v ◴[] No.44419002[source]
Very nice walk-through on the reverse engineering process.

Also, they linked this post that made my jaw drop: https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/667333-...

Apparantly BattleEye anti-cheat had an exploit where hackers could permanently ban any player they wanted. BattleEye allowed anybody to log in as a "game server" so hackers simply booted up a fake server, told BattleEye that "player X has logged in and is doing a bunch of suspicious stuff" and then player X's account was no more...

I'm sorry, why do we trust these guys again?

replies(5): >>44419067 #>>44419870 #>>44421138 #>>44421444 #>>44425268 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.44421444[source]
It's crazy that people allow this stuff to effectively run as root. One of these companies is going to have a vulnerability that lets other players run code on your machine in kernel mode.
replies(2): >>44422770 #>>44423332 #
pxc ◴[] No.44423332[source]
It's kind of amusing to me how some PC gamers act superior to console gamers because PC gamers run their games on a flexible, customizable, general-purpose machine that the user controls rather than an appliance... and then immediately hand over control to half a dozen companies at a level that reduces "their" PC to a vendor-owned appliance anyway.

If you are a PC gamer and run anti-cheat software like this, you should probably think of your gaming PC as a much more powerful and much jankier console, and avoid running or storing anything on it other than your games.

replies(4): >>44425057 #>>44426618 #>>44427165 #>>44431639 #
1. MisterTea ◴[] No.44425057[source]
> and then immediately hand over control to half a dozen companies at a level that reduces "their" PC to a vendor-owned appliance anyway.

This was not always the case.

Also, the publishers lie about how invasive their software is - see the Sony rootkit fiasco.

replies(1): >>44425795 #
2. pxc ◴[] No.44425795[source]
> This was not always the case.

I know. :(

(Though, unfortunately, the SecuROM fiasco shows that this has sadly been going on a long time.)

I say it's amusing, but it's a bitter thing for me, too.