GM / Master map hacker and general hacking and cheating th…

On May 31 2012 01:02 IamMagic wrote:
you joking right? you can't see burrowed units if they are stationary, furthermore even if there is an idea that there are units burrowed there you wouldn't storm completely over the biggest chunks and ignore the smaller chunks to the side, makes no logical sense.

+ he is looking at the army in the dark THAN moving his army... it's so blatant I don't see how anyone with a reasonable IQ can defend him

On May 30 2012 23:57 CruelZeratul wrote:


Don't see the crime there. If they do something on Blizz-servers thats something else. Just reading date you receive is not a crime und selling something like that shouln't be either.

On May 31 2012 01:15 kmh wrote:


Again, this is addressed in the paper. Please don't blame the paper for my misinterpretation of it - you really should read it. They do discuss why sending the entire gamestate isn't feasible for RTS and go into detail that I can't go into because of space restrictions and the fact that I haven't spent enough time on the subject yet.

Like I said, my understanding is that you cannot have a fully synchronized client, i.e. have both clients simulate all movements of all units, simply because by design you will not want both clients to have full knowledge of the gamestate. If both clients have that information available to them in an unencrypted form, you cannot avoid the possibility of maphacks. However, I don't see why you couldn't simulate the movements of all units in the visibility of both players in lockstep.

However, you *can* communicate encrypted updates to the opponent and then only send the encryption keys as needed. This is done by communicating a list of what grid cells are visible to you (visibility map) as well as what units you have in each grid cell. To speed up computation, you do this hierarchically by splitting the map recursively into quadrants. You then send the changes to your opponent. In other words, you communicate your unit list and your visibility map, but do so in an encrypted fashion. Your opponent does the same to you. To avoid leaking information about the amount of units or how much of the map is available to you, you add chaff (fake data) to keep the amount of data sent constant.

Because of the encryption method used, players can decrypt V_a ^ V_b - that is, the union of the visibility map for player A as well as the union for the visibility map of player B. You cannot learn anything about the areas that aren't visible to both.

By design, this makes for the complete absence of passive attacks: i.e. maphacks and production hacks etc. However, it does nothing to prevent active attacks, such as blink hacks, burrow micro hacks, autoinject, auto-anything, adding extra units to your army, hacked build times, hacked unit stats, et cetera. Unlike maphacks however, these kinds of hacks are pretty trivial to detect post facto. That could even be made into an automatic process: i.e. to check the legality of your opponents moves after the game by uploading a signed copy of your replay after the game as well as periodically sending signed hashes of chunks of your action list to the other players during the game. That way, detecting disrepancies can be made automatic and completely traceable.

I can't answer as to how much difference this makes in lagginess off hand. In the paper, they did some analysis and came up with figures as follows: players usually only do a maximum of 2 game-state changing actions per second. The rest are camera-changes that don't change the game-state and thus don't need to be communicated. Calculating all of the encryption creates some overhead, to the tune of less than 20 microseconds per opponent in the worst case. Basically this means that you have to send in the worst case 2 encrypted state changes per second, each a few hundred bytes long, and each taking a few ten microseconds to encrypt.

As for what implications that has for the implementations of the netcode, I'm not really sure. My understanding is that you cannot send the mere input list, but rather that you have to communicate the delta of your gamestate at each simulation tick. You do not have to communicate changes that haven't happened.

It's an interesting topic, and I really don't do the researchers justice. Please don't attack my interpretation of what I've read., because I'm pretty certain I must have gotten a few things wrong when trying to relay the gist of the paper here. Instead, read the paper at http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/onlinegames.pdf and let me know what you think about it - also feel free to contact the researches themselves with your feedback.


---

The paper also cites another paper called "Battle of Botcraft" (available at http://www.cs.wm.edu/~hnw/paper/hop.pdf ) that proposes a method of bot detection based on machine learning methods. This is something we could already start doing right now, without any changes to any network code. By categorizing replays into "hacks" and "not hacks", and detecting common features for the hacked replays we could make hack detection automatic.

For instance, looking at the dsninetail replay, action sequences such as:

15:55 DSNiNETAiL Deselect all
15:55 DSNiNETAiL Blink (Stalker); target: x=32.3,y=46.7
15:55 DSNiNETAiL Attack; target: x=37.9,y=54.9
---
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Deselect all
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Blink (Stalker); target: x=57.8,y=45.5
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Attack; target: x=48.6,y=46.3
---
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Deselect all
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Blink (Stalker); target: x=57.8,y=45.5
15:56 DSNiNETAiL Attack; target: x=48.6,y=46.3

crop up, the same way every time. The time stamp here fails to indicate that the above sequences happen within a single frame.

Squirtle's blink micro on the other hand generates action sequences as follows:

13:59 StarTale Select Stalker x3 (10830,10834,1083c), Immortal (205ec), Deselect 2 units
13:59 StarTale Blink (Stalker); target: x=95.5,y=159.7
14:05 StarTale Select Stalker (10674), Deselect all
14:05 StarTale Blink (Stalker); target: x=97.6,y=155.2
14:06 StarTale Select Stalker x3 (306d4,206e4,10834), Deselect all

Again, the timestamp here fails to indicate that the lag between the actions is much higher: to the tune of several hundred milliseconds.


Machine learning tools could find other indicators too. Comparing the hacked replay to a pro replay you find the following split in the hack replay:

+ Show Spoiler +

Meanwhile, human players such as squirtle would have splits that generate actions as follows:

+ Show Spoiler +

There are loads of potential indicators out there to mine data from, such as click speed/accuracy etc. By comparing these sorts of action sequences and finding indicators, we could get somewhere with automatic hack detection. All we would need are corpuses of "known hack" replays as well as "known good" replays to start training.

On May 31 2012 03:51 KaBaaM wrote:


I just played this guy twice - definitely a map hacker.


http://drop.sc/188814

We spawn cross on Shakuras - he 7pools, sends his overlord right to my base, then his lings, without ever scouting. Then never uses his mutas, probably because I had stalkers ready to defend.

http://drop.sc/188812

I lost the first one, and then my next game is him again cross spawn on Entombed. He 10 pools this time, and I get a cannon up before lings are there. He goes straight to the rocks at my natural, without scouting if I put a cannon up at the front. Then, when I move out to attack, he goes around my army and straight to reinforcements he can't see consistently.

The funny thing is that he still manages to lose, even to someone he just played, and still BMs.

On May 31 2012 04:31 jimbob615 wrote:


yea wtf... he injects his natural hatch at 15:22 on the game on shakuras and his camera isn't even near his hatchery! his first person view barely changes

On May 31 2012 04:31 jimbob615 wrote:


yea wtf... he injects his natural hatch at 15:22 on the game on shakuras and his camera isn't even near his hatchery! his first person view barely changes

On May 31 2012 04:00 Pantythief wrote:


You can always see burrowed units, afaik.

On May 31 2012 04:50 stk01001 wrote:


uhhh.. actually no.. you can't. It's pretty basic knowledge you need detection to see burrowed units. If the burrowed units are moving (roaches or infestors) then you can see a slight ripple on the ground if you look closely, but that's it.

On May 31 2012 04:31 jimbob615 wrote:


yea wtf... he injects his natural hatch at 15:22 on the game on shakuras and his camera isn't even near his hatchery! his first person view barely changes

On May 31 2012 04:15 Tump wrote:
http://drop.sc/188817

Another hacker. Around 850 pts Master league.

PvP, Forge vs Forge

-Looks at my forge through fog of war
-Starts cannon rushing blindly under my base without scouting on Antiga
-Sends all his probes to attack my pylon in his base without scouting it
-Starts building cannons in his main in response to my cannons in his main without scouting it
-Has 20 apm at 850~ masters, and dies to 1 zealot killing all his probes while he's trying to 4 gate me

Pretty blatent. Gonna send in a report.

On May 31 2012 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:



People really shouldn't post mid master hackers in this thread. This thread is for higher level players only otherwise it would get too cluttered.

On May 31 2012 06:27 CruelZeratul wrote:
The recent discussing about hackers really let me think about how it would be if both players would play with complete vision (no production tab). Would be a pretty different game and I'd like to see it as a mod or a fun tournament (even though you can't just give vision like in BW -.-).

On May 31 2012 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:



People really shouldn't post mid master hackers in this thread. This thread is for higher level players only otherwise it would get too cluttered.

On May 31 2012 06:36 mrlie3 wrote:
Can't there be an in-game application within bnet to scan the replay of the match after it was played to detect patterns of hack usage as mentioned in here? It doesn't have to be every replay, just ransoms sequence of sampling to ontrol the server workload. I hope Blizzard can incorporate this in hots!

On May 31 2012 04:24 rotegirte wrote:


The underlying problem is that there is little expertise and incentive in the world of gaming to address such issues yet. If we do some digging, there is little crossapplication from relevant traditional fields. I doubt Blizzard has the budget to run extensive research on that. As D3's launch showed us, they already have their hands full to keep their infrastructure afloat, with the pending RMAH an even bigger issue on the horizon.

On May 31 2012 06:50 lightpwnr wrote:


Are you aware DSninetails is playing on a new ID? His new ID i just discovered from one of his close personal friends is LGimbasftus an-ex friend of mine who is curently scamming a whole clan and claiming everyone who finds out he is scamming is a maphacker. Post it on the front page! LGimbasftus is a blink and maphakcer.

On May 31 2012 06:50 lightpwnr wrote:


Are you aware DSninetails is playing on a new ID? His new ID i just discovered from one of his close personal friends is LGimbasftus an-ex friend of mine who is curently scamming a whole clan and claiming everyone who finds out he is scamming is a maphacker. Post it on the front page! LGimbasftus is a blink and maphakcer.