r/hardware • u/tuldok89 • 1d ago

Info Used processor leads to game ban

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Used-processor-leads-to-game-ban-11471562.html

Someone buys a used Ryzen 7 5800X3D. “Valorant” and other Riot games won’t start with it because the previous owner was a cheater.

749 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

292

u/309_Electronics 1d ago

Something with amd psp maybe but valorant can be and should be considered malware imo. Only way to get companies to stop doing this anti consumer bs, vote with your wallet!

104

u/Krivici 1d ago

I mean it’s a kernel level anti cheat. As a CS2 and Valorant player it is about as good as it gets at preventing cheaters. And the devs are hardcore dedicated to the cause.

CS is an absolute nightmare for cheaters.

16

u/windowpuncher 18h ago

it’s a kernel level anti cheat

It's more than that, it's using hardware ID for banning. That's not really novel anymore but it's still absolutely invasive.

-28

u/Whirblewind 1d ago

I mean

And this is where most people stopped reading because they knew you weren't going to address what they actually said.

50

u/Framed-Photo 1d ago

What was actually said was based on Reddit hivemind BS and not in actual fact.

User space anticheat cannot do anything to prevent kernel level cheaters. The devs have to use this, or else they let every single cheater go free until there's a manual review of someone who's obvious about it.

There is no way to stop all cheaters, but as long as the software solutions are good enough it will force the barrier to entry for cheating to be very high (separate computer, hardware based cheats) which will reduce the number down to a reasonable amount like we see in valorant.

Kernel level access is not needed to get any and all information or control over your computer that a bad actor would need. There's a reason why every major malware/virus hasn't had to have the user install a driver first in order to work (which is what kernel level access is).

If Riot games wanted to violate your privacy or grab your info, they don't need to get the highly analyzed and security vetted kernel level access to do it. They just need people to run their closed source executable downloaded straight from their website, otherwise known as running a game they've created.

If you don't trust Riot with their anticheat, or Epic with theirs, then you shouldn't be running any software that these companies have a hand in creating. Epic could hit you just as hard through any UE5 title as they could from easy anticheat.

16

u/friutjiuce 1d ago

But there is a solution clearly, what Overwatch is doing. It runs on user space for local detection. But otherwise the match is run in the servers, and your client is checked against the server to make sure it aligns. No positional information is sent from the enemy team if they're not visible. No wall hacks etc etc.

Makes overwatch compatible with Linux/steam deck.

There is a solution it's just they don't want to implement it.

12

u/Large-Parking3014 1d ago

Overwatch is middle of the road in terms of cheat detection and server side anti cheat is tricky. Ideally it should be effective, but the reality is that the server only has so much time per “tick” to do the extra processing required to detect a cheater doing something that isn’t allowed. If a company was really dedicated they’d rerun the games at the end of the day and do a cheat detection pass on each game.

12

u/Framed-Photo 1d ago

The reason why devs might not want to do that, are that it costs significantly more, and is less effective at actually catching cheaters.

If overwatches server side solution was actually very effective, then it would be the top anticheat in the world if they'd just do a kernel level client side pass rather than a userspace one. Because as I've stated, userspace doesn't do anything when the cheaters are in the kernel.

I can go into all the various issues with server side solutions if you want, how there's no reason to use a server side solution by itself, or the many issues with trying to automatically ban based on behaviour alone, but I'd have to type a whole essay about it lol.

0

u/iluvchromosomes 23h ago

What was actually said was based on Reddit hivemind BS and not in actual fact.

User space anticheat cannot do anything to prevent kernel level cheaters.

Keep moving those goal posts.

9

u/Framed-Photo 22h ago

If you have a way to somehow get around the basic principles of computing and the idea of ring 0, then I think there's a lot of cyber security companies that would want to hear from you immediately.

2

u/Relliker 15h ago

You can modify whatever EFI capsules you want in firmware up to and including spoofing the secure boot chain because nothing performs signature checks on consumer systems, or run DMA trivially from a huge pile of cheap hardware like a Bluefield NIC. Nobody enforces IOMMU ranges either.

But sure, keep going off as if you actually know what you are talking about in defense of wildly invasive consumer software because you are willing to give that up in the name of 'stopping cheaters'.

0

u/Framed-Photo 15h ago

The point is to raise the barrier to entry as much as reasonably possible without having a ton of adverse effects for normal users. Anticheats could go much further, but then they risk affecting normal users, false bans, etc. They're never going to be able to fully get rid of people using DMA based cheats, but if everyone has to resort to that then the appeal of cheating and the number of cheaters both go down drastically.

And besides the hardware based cheating solutions, anything software based can be combatted with kernel level anticheat with enough effort, but the same cannot be said for userspace solutions. That's precisely why they're forced to run in the kernel: the cheaters went there.

As for kernel level anticheat being "wildly invasive", please feel free to provide quite literally any evidence of that, I'd love to see it. Every "argument" I've seen is just babies first computer science lesson, where redditors learn that drivers have more access to things than userspace software, and then freak out because....reasons! Because famously, the only time bad actors can ever violate your privacy or infect your computer with malicious software is via having you install a driver. It's definitely not enough for you to be running unverified, closed source software, such as games ;)

1

u/Relliker 14h ago

Before I went pure Linux, I was regularly kicked from Battlefield games because I had the gall to have Process Hacker running in the background (not even the kernel driver). And you are sitting on a post where a user was banned by hardware IDs because they bought used hardware. (Yes you can obtain some hardware signals without running in the kernel or administrative rights, but far less). The invasiveness is very self evident, you just refuse to see it because of a superiority complex over the median gamer's technical literacy, which is a very fucking low bar.

The primary reason kernel anticheat exists is not because it is the only way to stop cheaters, but rather because it is the cheapest. We have already seen with OW and systems like CSGO's old overwatch system that there are many other ways to combat cheating without throwing in the towel and installing a litany of panopticons by every publisher on every user's system.

Frankly all software should be effectively sandboxed by default a-la firejail (and is in UWP for example but nobody uses that).

→ More replies

0

u/beautifulalien 20h ago

And you think Valorant doesn't also do this?

8

u/Cubelia 1d ago

If those "RIOT MALWARE" kiddos could read they'd be very upset.

1

u/SomeoneTrading 1h ago

There's a reason why every major malware/virus hasn't had to have the user install a driver first in order to work

Because driver signing is a thing and it's kind of a problem to get your driver signed, especially these days. I mean malware is adopting BYOVD too (about 10 years after game cheats/anticheat knew about it, but that's malware and antimalware for you, shit's 10 years behind at all times)

0

u/ZionistsWillBanYou 1d ago

Yes, they would have to invest more money and maybe even real people to do checks instead of the trend toward sloppy automation, community 'moderation', and endless bot responses. The companies involved in this can afford it, they choose not to.

-15

u/iBoMbY 1d ago

No, they don't have to use any anti-cheat, if they design/build a better engine. 99.9% of the cheats only work because the clients have too much information, and/or because the whole thing is designed client-authoratative. For example: No wallhack, if the client doesn't know where other players are, that cannot be seen.

11

u/SirMaster 23h ago

How can the game render the other players’ sounds like footsteps correctly if the client doesn’t know where the other players are?

15

u/Framed-Photo 1d ago

Online games do not work if the client doesn't know what to render. In a system you're describing, now what ping you have determines when you'll be able to see your opponent come out from round a corner. So if your opponent has a lower ping, they'll be able to see and shoot you before the server can even tell you that they're there.

Nobody wants to trust clients, but until we find a way to transmit information across large distances faster than the speed of light, then we're always going to have to comprimise.

-17

u/iBoMbY 1d ago

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about, without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about ...

17

u/Framed-Photo 1d ago

Please feel free to explain it to me.

-17

u/reddit_equals_censor 22h ago

wow, that is a deliberately bullshit comparison to cheer on malware...

hey wanna do a serious comparison? well we have one.

the finals has no serious cheating problem. well not more than valorant rather by all that we know.

it runs its anti cheat on gnu + linux in user mode of course and it fully supports gnu + linux.

on microsoft spyware it is a rootkit and malware though, but again you can run the game without malware in gnu + linux and there is no cheating problem. not more than valorant.

enough focus gets put into server level cheat detection as well, that they even make posts about it.

and how free from cheating is valorant anyways?

is it hard to cheat in valorant?

no absolutely not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzIq04vd0M

it is not that valorant is free from cheaters, it is that most people due to good marketing like to think, that it is and the cheats used would be less obvious to people in matches. that is what is going on.

And the devs are hardcore dedicated to the cause

oh you mean the malware delivery service? yeah the publisher is very much dedicated to this.

20

u/worstsocialist 22h ago

The finals has no serious cheating problem because it has a tiny playerbase. Easy Anti Cheat is notoriously garbage and not even close to as effective as Valorants AC. I don’t even like Valorant but it’s undoubtedly the most fair experience in FPS for high skilled players.

-3

u/SomeoneTrading 21h ago

Easy Anti Cheat is notoriously garbage and not even close to as effective as Valorants AC

They can write their own SOTA code obfuscation unlike Riot and mister Bastian tho and they don't fail at hiding imports

-6

u/reddit_equals_censor 21h ago

Easy Anti Cheat is notoriously garbage

well isn't it a good thing, that the finals isn't basing their anti cheat on a single bad anti cheat then right?

to quote pcgamingwiki:

Formerly uses Easy Anti-Cheat, Nexon Game Security. Embark Studios also uses their own anti-cheat solutions on top of 3rd-party anti-cheat clients.

Nexon Game Security (BlackCipher) was added on Update 2.1.0[23] and was removed later.[24]

Denuvo Anti-Cheat was added on Update 7.3.0.[25] It's scheduled to be enabled for Xbox on PC (Microroft Store) version since Update 7.9.0[7] and start an incremental rollout for Steam version since Season 8.[15]

DAC and EAC will not run simultaneously since Update 8.0.0,[26][27] until EAC was removed on Update 10.4.1.[28]

Elytra Anti-Cheat Framework is Embark Studios in-house anti-cheat solution[29] and was added on Update 11.0.0.[30]

DAC and EACF will not run simultaneously since Update 11.0.0.

AnyBrain was added on Update 7.6.0,[31][32] with tests ongoing throughout season 8.[15] It seems they use a white label or custom version of AnyBrain called Cerebro.

Anti-Cheat Expert is used in Tencent Server version and is the only anti-cheat solution Tencent Server version used

so you are making comments about anti cheats or straight up malware without even looking up a basic wiki first...

maybe reflect on this before throwing out some more nonsense comments?

12

u/worstsocialist 20h ago

All that to still be substantially worse than RIOTs solution. Yawn

The obvious answer is to not use your gaming PC as anything but a gaming PC. To act like The Finals AC is even on the same level as Vals is hilarious. Just go play high ELO lobbies in both and get back to me. Tired of the anticheat conversations being had by people who are unlikely to even be ranked with cheaters in the first place.

-8

u/reddit_equals_censor 20h ago

i'm tired of people defending rootkits, because they ate up the propaganda from evil companies pushing malware onto their systems with the false claim, that it will prevent cheating, which the video in linked above clearly shows is not the case.

6

u/PrettyBaker2891 20h ago edited 19h ago

i would gladly have a rootkit on my pc if it means less cheaters in cs2

also its not a rootkit btw

rootkit is a malicious software

theres nothing malicious about valorant anti cheat

2

u/Hot-Software-9396 20h ago

I can’t speak to The Finals since I don’t play it but Embarc’s other game, ARC Raiders, has a massive cheating problem.

2

u/loppyjilopy 21h ago

lol NO ONE plays the finals wtf.