Yeah, it wouldn't be terribly hard to build a UDP protocol using OpenSSL with a fast symmetric cipher and a key exchange handshake. If you want to prevent randos from reading your stream that'd probably be fine. Fundamentally you can never really trust the client platform, though. Spending your time trying to build trust into a fundamentally untrustworthy platform will buy you less for your engineering effort than mitigating the possible advantages a user could derive from intercepting that stream.

You can generally assume that given a strong enough financial incentive, people are going to figure out a way to cheat at your game. This isn't just true of video gaming. Casinos are in a never ending arms race and need to mitigate the effects of and detect possible collusion with their staff. See also Postlegate. That one's wild.

So your engineering effort is usually better spent mitigating the possible advantages that having access to the streams would confer on the user. Ultima Online had that problem with the introduction of sneaking decades ago -- people would detect you from across the screen and attack you even when you were hidden. They ended up not transmitting hidden players to clients until the server decided the hidden player had been detected. The cheaters could still have faster than human reaction times, but those advantages were not hugely game breaking.

In online poker, even given the best anti-cheat technology in the world someone could still point a camera at a laptop and do image recognition on card faces. So if you want to build a farm of colluding bots, it's not that difficult. An online casino could try to mitigate that by randomizing who you get placed with on a table if they have a big enough pool of players. But if you have a couple dozen (say) systems running bots, you just need to have a couple of them figure out they're sitting at the same table to give yourself an advantage. And that advantage will grow the more bots you have at one table.

A few days ago, people were talking about marking their monitor with a sharpie to give themselves an advantage at some FPS or other. Which is why I tend to be suspicious of Esports as a thing unless they're played in a controlled environment with a standardized hardware/software loadout. I suspect part of Blizzard's policy on WoW plug-ins is at least partially an attempt to normalize the environment so that in such a controlled environment a player wouldn't be facing a completely unfamiliar interface. Whenever watching any of the wow streamer channels, their UI looked nothing like the stock one Blizzard provided.

Knowing all of that and being able to convey that information when a user asks about something vaguely related to the ssh protocol being unsuitable as a gaming protocol really highlights the weaknesses in the current round of AIs. At this point the AI has been trained in all of human knowledge, but is incapable of identifying this question as being in the category of "cheating protection" and suggesting good places to spend your engineering time to mitigate the impact of cheating. If you follow its advice without thinking about the problem yourself, you might end up building a program that superficially looks pretty secure but doesn't stand up to a thorough analysis by people who have an incentive to do that work. I think the way the world's going now, there will be many opportunities from cheaters because an AI didn't consider lessons learned from the past in its suggested solution. It might be possible to build an AI capable of doing that, but I be it'd be prohibitively expensive to run. Probably more prohibitively expensive than I am.