EPTRICH where are you???
[Potential Utility] Anti-Hack Software - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jcroisdale
United States1543 Posts
RICH where are you??? | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
Blizzard is widely known for their Cease and Desist micro. If they don't like what you're doing, they will let you know about it, in a rather blunt way. Better to just talk to them, yeah? | ||
|
starfox0_0
United States29 Posts
| ||
|
Bascal
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
Iblis
904 Posts
Not only they don't prevent that much hack/cheat/bot but they are often heavy or annoying for every other users. If the community come up with a need for such software and it is adopted for tournament, Blizzard may see and incentive to work on it and come up with a punkbuster or other NCSOFTlike guardian that does nothing to prevent recent hack/cheat but annoy some legit users. | ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:21 Chargelot wrote: Don't, DON'T, stomp on Blizzard's toes. If something like this is to come to fruition, whoever writes this code needs to appeal to the authorities that be. Something that starts with "Blizzard may I please..." and ends with "Thank you, Oh glorious masters" will do. Blizzard is widely known for their Cease and Desist micro. If they don't like what you're doing, they will let you know about it, in a rather blunt way. Better to just talk to them, yeah? Why does it sound like Blizzard is the real bad guy here? Not that the hackers qualify as anything but bad, but like Zimbabwe, do you blame the small(er) time criminals that loot a shop or join a armed militia or the government that destroyed the economy, infrastructure and social cohesion for personal gain that was supposed to stop these things from happening in the first place. Not sure if Dustin Browder or Activision is Starcrafts Mugabe though. | ||
|
pigmanbear
Angola2010 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:05 Gheed wrote: If you're going to be a dickhead, at least read his entire post. "I'm unsure if this has been proposed before, but it's something I've been thinking about and would be willing to make." But parent has a point, and us programmers see it all the time: Somebody dreams up some idea not thinking through the true effort involved in its realization, and then nothing happens. The way real open-source development works is the author starts a project to fill some need and hacks on it ... they feel they have something worthwhile ... then they release it to the public so others can find bugs in the code, report issues while using, document its usage, etc. OF COURSE antihack is something anybody would like. If a good opt-in antihack were developed, I can't imagine a serious online tournament that wouldn't require it. And so to some of us it will seem as though OP is just making a scene. | ||
|
pigmanbear
Angola2010 Posts
On June 06 2012 00:17 Veritas wrote: Maphack Detection: This would check the position of the opponent's camera for known maphack signs. Fog of war peeking is easy to detect. The "screen lock" feature that some maphacks use would be even easier to detect. If a user is flagged as suspicous then the person running the anti-hack software can be advised to watch the replay when the game is finished. If both parties are running the software then camera positions of each player can be compared to make sure they match. Even if general hack detection is bypassed, this will reveal users using screen lock while fog of war peaking Any credible "anti-hack" software cannot operate on fog-of-war-looking detection. I look into the fog-of-war a lot when I'm planning something for later in the game (where I can drop some units, or where I can put pylons if I'm trying to do a wall-in cannon rush). So I'm suspicious if I'm planning a drop in somebody's base and happen to look where they just hid a Dark Shrine? I don't think so. Trying to detect actions performed separate from the user's controls isn't so reliable for micro hacks either (this ought to be easy to fake ... I'm sure a hack program could move the cursor for you, etc.). A trustworthy anti-hack would have to base most or all of its assertions on known fingerprints of hack utilities, or recognizable interference at the OS level with the SC2 processes. | ||
|
Veritas
United Kingdom106 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:36 pigmanbear wrote: But parent has a point, and us programmers see it all the time: Somebody dreams up some idea not thinking through the true effort involved in its realization, and then nothing happens. The way real open-source development works is the author starts a project to fill some need and hacks on it ... they feel they have something worthwhile ... then they release it to the public so others can find bugs in the code, report issues while using, document its usage, etc. OF COURSE antihack is something anybody would like. If a good opt-in antihack were developed, I can't imagine a serious online tournament that wouldn't require it. And so to some of us it will seem as though OP is just making a scene. I've developed SC2 utilities that read data from the game previously, and what I'm suggesting isn't really all that complex. | ||
|
Veritas
United Kingdom106 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:42 pigmanbear wrote: Any credible "anti-hack" software cannot operate on fog-of-war-looking detection. I look into the fog-of-war a lot when I'm planning something for later in the game (where I can drop some units, or where I can put pylons if I'm trying to do a wall-in cannon rush). So I'm suspicious if I'm planning a drop in somebody's base and happen to look where they just hid a Dark Shrine? I don't think so. Trying to detect actions performed separate from the user's controls isn't so reliable for micro hacks either (this ought to be easy to fake ... I'm sure a hack program could move the cursor for you, etc.). A trustworthy anti-hack would have to base most or all of its assertions on known fingerprints of hack utilities, or recognizable interference at the OS level with the SC2 processes. As I said in the OP, requiring both parties to run an application that checks for known hack utilities is the only reliable method. Any other methods would be to flag replays for review at a later date, not to take automated action. | ||
|
pigmanbear
Angola2010 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:46 Veritas wrote: As I said in the OP, requiring both parties to run an application that checks for known hack utilities is the only reliable method. Any other methods would be to flag replays for review at a later date, not to take automated action. You must have replied to the wrong post. That has nothing to do with anything I said; any fool knows you can't detect a hack without observing it in the wild (that is, running on a user's OS). | ||
|
pigmanbear
Angola2010 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:44 Veritas wrote: I've developed SC2 utilities that read data from the game previously, and what I'm suggesting isn't really all that complex. Reading data from the game gets you nowhere; at best you get the equivalent of a replay analysis tool. Just as a hack can tamper with the game interface (drawing a production tab, etc.) it can also simulate user actions (see Lossbots, for instance). The only way you can prove that a player is hacking is when a hack is detected on the system (as a process tampering with the SC2 process' memory, for instance), and doing so in such a way that you will ever be able to keep up with hack developments is non-trivial to the extreme: Case-in-point, Blizzard has a pretty hard time doing this, and they're the ones writing the software! You can also prove a hack when something "impossible" happens (intense blink micro while not looking at the battle), but at that point you are depending on sloppy work of the attacker, and that is just not how security works at all. | ||
|
Sikly
United States413 Posts
On June 06 2012 01:21 Chargelot wrote: Don't, DON'T, stomp on Blizzard's toes. If something like this is to come to fruition, whoever writes this code needs to appeal to the authorities that be. Something that starts with "Blizzard may I please..." and ends with "Thank you, Oh glorious masters" will do. Blizzard is widely known for their Cease and Desist micro. If they don't like what you're doing, they will let you know about it, in a rather blunt way. Better to just talk to them, yeah? No, not at all. Past experiences with blizzard shows that action produces results, good or bad. Asking for permission wont change anything. However, if someone produces an antihack that works and blizzard bans it than it forces blizzards hand to produce something better than waves and warden, especially for customs. Community demand for the ability to reconnect from disconnected games didn't do shit until the ideas and possibilities for programs to be able to do it came up in the community. Than blizzard decided they would do it properly themselves. | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
However, Blizzard have shown they're willing to overlook ToS violations when it comes to helpful utilities (R1CH's XSplit Scene Switcher and stream opponent announcer, Starboard, my SC2 Scrapbook utility are ones that come to mind). What about the resume from replay program that blizzard won't let tournaments use? | ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
On June 06 2012 02:01 coolcor wrote: What about the resume from replay program that blizzard won't let tournaments use? Is this true? Source? I thought my Zimbabwe analogy might be a bit over the top but if this is true Blizzard is closer to Al-Shabaab IMO. | ||
|
Veritas
United Kingdom106 Posts
On June 06 2012 02:01 coolcor wrote: What about the resume from replay program that blizzard won't let tournaments use? I may be wrong, but didn't that only allow you to resume as single player? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 06 2012 02:01 coolcor wrote: What about the resume from replay program that blizzard won't let tournaments use? Evidence that Blizzard is blocking the use of that program? I have heard nothing of the sort, beyond that it is a mod that is out there and is not perfect. Blizzard will respond to the hackers and has no interest in stopping people from policing hackers. However, Blizzard is a large company and they do not do things quickly. They would also rather take care of several issues at once, rather than try to patch one at a time. It is in the nature of the beast. I don't think program that "detect" hacks are the answer. Detection software vs hacks is an arms race that most people do not have time to keep up with. I would rather Blizzard work on ways to get more information into replays, like showing clicks on the mini map or recording mouse movements(ie not clicking). At the end of the day, it is humans that will need to root out hackers, not a program. The more tools you can give people, the harder it gets to hide the hacks from review. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
There is the thread for the resume from replay program. It does work in multiplayer and the op shows suggestions and bug fixes added. Do you know of any problems the program still has? there is no source for blizzard not letting tournaments use it but tournaments have not used it when it would have been useful to prevent a regame. Is there any other reason they wouldn't give it a try if blizzard had let them? | ||
|
31415926535
Switzerland276 Posts
So I don't know, I think you'll need an army of programmers to maintain the software up-to-date against the multiple versions of various hacks the hackers are going to throw at you. But yeah, probably worth a try. At least, it might send a signal to Blizzard that they should start caring about hackers. | ||
| ||
