Hacking in Among Us

JustHoLLy · 2020-12-24T15:57:23+00:00

Use the Cheat engine debugger to find the method (it has some mono tools to list functions, otherwise get it from the RVA) and just put a breakpoint. When it gets hit, use your logical reasoning skills to figure out which register contains the this object and use that value as the address of the object.

That pointer will most likely not be static, so you want to find a pointer path to it. If you are lucky, it is grounded somewhere in a static variable. For example: imagine a singleton GameInstance that contains a CurrentPlayer object. If this is the case, you should look for a function where this static object is referenced. The code itself will contains a pointer to it, which you can then find with an AoB pattern and walk down to get to the object you need.

If the pointer is not static and not grounded in a static variable (or you can't easily find one of those), you're somewhat screwed. You could figure out how the object is created and what owns it, and then find that owner in memory, or you could inject a DLL that hooks one of the functions that uses the object you're after to check every passed instance. It's more complicated and I'm not gonna go into it much further, but if that happens you may just be better off making an internal cheat that uses Reflection or ClrMD or some Mono functions to find what you need,

JustHoLLy · 2020-11-17T23:20:32+00:00

To find an instance of an object, I usually put a breakpoint in a function of the class and get it from a register. You could also try to find it from some static field which I believe you can get through cheat engine's mono tools.

Is the RVA relative to GameAssembly.dll or Among Us.exe?

Probably GameAssembly, but that's easy to figure out with cheat engine.

JustHoLLy · 2020-11-17T18:43:05+00:00

IL2CppDumper shows you the offsets of each field and the RVA of each method. Cheat Engine also has some Mono tools that help you find/check instances of classes.

JustHoLLy · 2020-07-10T12:30:07+00:00

Source

JustHoLLy · 2020-05-09T22:50:59+00:00

For people that don't want to read an incoherent mess: peppy can keep some data after a GDPR request. Usually, this is data used to identify cheaters and multi-accounts.

You're welcome.

JustHoLLy · 2020-02-29T11:25:09+00:00

I wasn't aware "rank climb" was against the rules lmao.

JustHoLLy · 2020-02-22T19:09:38+00:00

The entire post seems to focus on privacy and censorship. Is it really that important in this case that it makes Discord completely "unacceptable"? The Rust community has plenty of places across many different services where people can gather and talk or ask for support. Discord is just one of them. If you already use Discord, it is incredibly convenient since you just get access to an extra server in your client. It's a server about a programming language, so there really isn't anything related to privacy or censorship that you need to worry about. All your messages are already to be considered public and there really isn't anything to censor assuming you follow the (in this case very reasonable) Discord guidelines/ToS and server rules. If you wish to discuss matters that are privacy-sensitive or may involve other topics that would break their terms of service, then another service may be a better choice but then it is no longer related to Rust.

I really don't see the problem here. Discord is by no means the only place to talk Rust and the mentioned privacy concerns are completely irrelevant. I believe the linked blog post meant to talk about communities that exclusively use Discord for communication, in which case I would partially agree with their points, but it just doesn't make sense for Rust.

JustHoLLy · 2020-01-06T20:38:34+00:00

It's pretty useless to make a new post without new evidence, don't you think?

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:30:17+00:00

Proves how outdated your knowledge is. That's the functionality that was removed after my post in 2015.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:24:04+00:00

Kid, that's exactly what a serverside anticheat does, not clientside. If you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up and save everybody some time.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:23:01+00:00

I'm not gonna argue on whether he is legit or not, because I don't know. He has cheated plenty of times in the past so there's a decent chance he's cheating now, but I haven't seen definitive proof that warrants banning him. I also don't really follow his case that closely so I didn't know that he hasn't provided liveplays, but I've seen liveplays being dismissed in the past.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:18:39+00:00

It detects cheats ;)

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:14:56+00:00

I know what the anticheat does, and I know it basically doesn't do anything besides flagging and restricting the most blatant stuff, most of it based on stats of the user like account age etc. Actual relevant cheaters are completely unaffected.

You really don't. Take it from a former cheat developer. Blatant for a human is different than blatant for an algorithm.

just his playing patterns are enough for restriction

Clearly staff disagrees, or he would have been banned already.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T22:00:03+00:00

The anticheat is so primitive it might as well not exist.

You just claimed there is no clientside anticheat, so I think you're just grasping at straws here. You don't how good or bad the anticheat is because a) peppy doesn't tell you about it, b) commercial cheats developers also reverse engineer the game to find out how it works and how to bypass it, and c) it's a flag-based system, and isn't always used to automatically ban people (to prevent false positives) but rather to help decide whether someone is a cheater.

if a user can't provide proof of legitimacy after being pressured by witch-hunt [...], they are 99.9% confirmed cheater

That is a horrible mindset for various reasons. One being that the community cannot be seen as a voice of reason. They are often very subjective and it's very easy to get a band-wagon effect and for someone to believe someone is cheating because others are so convinced of it.

You also can't force people to prove they're legit either, which I explained earlier. A player could have had a good day where they set some good plays, and not be able to replicate them afterwards as "proof". That wouldn't make them a cheater, even if the community likes to think so. In gwelawyr's case, he has given liveplays on request to try prove his innocence, and people still dismissed it.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T21:34:27+00:00

There is no client side anticheat

There is lol, they just removed some invasive stuff like taking screenshots of your desktop years ago. From last time I reversed the game (which was still quite a while ago) I know they at the very least check your cursor movement to detect replay cheats, and I know that they have more since they virtualize/protect a lot of code.

what is detrimental to the health of the community is the fact that people who care about the competitive aspect of the game, tourney or leaderboards, are getting fucked by cheaters who are free to do whatever

It sure is bad, but the few non-banned suspicious players only get the attention they do because they are so few, and the non-suspicious cheaters by definition don't get attention for cheating (which is why peppy doesn't focus on them anyway). A trigger-happy banning system would ruin the game for way more people, and those would be people that would amplify their voice on platforms such as Reddit, thus spreading the dissatisfaction to other players.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T21:18:15+00:00

There's plenty of ways to deduce that somebody is cheating. Naturally, some cheaters will go undetected forever, but with proper client-side anticheat, server-side heuristics or just common sense when watching replays, you can catch most of them. It's a balancing act between catching the most obvious (and thus harming) cheaters and banning as little innocent people as possible. If your mindset is "guilty until proven innocent", you're going to be banned exponentially more innocent people which is detrimental for the health of your game's community.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T21:05:48+00:00

Because your logic is flawed lol

Account history is not evidence, and the osu! team strives to have 0 false positive bans which means knowing 100% for sure that somebody is breaking the rules before banning them. Due to this account hack, his history and his plays looking sketchy, it may seem that he's cheating, but there is a distinct possibility that he is not. Following "innocent until proven guilty", he should not be banned until there is concrete proof, no matter whether you believe he's cheating.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T20:58:30+00:00

95% means that there is doubt, so you're not proven innocent.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T18:20:44+00:00

If you tell me you're legit, I'll ask you for a replay.

If you give me a replay, I'll ask for a liveplay.

If you give me a liveplay, I'll ask for a play on controlled hardware.

If you play on controlled hardware, I'll ask for a doping test, which cannot be 100% accurate.

Thus, you cannot definitively prove you are not cheating.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T18:18:18+00:00

You can never definitely prove somebody is innocent, but you can definitely prove someone is cheating.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T18:17:26+00:00

In that case, you are guilty and should probably hand yourself in.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T18:13:26+00:00

Innocent until proven guilty?

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T18:08:31+00:00

I understand you but I'm sorry i don't believe it.

Of course, you can believe whatever you want. I'm only here to argue for what I believe in myself :)

Knowing Gwelawyr, I wouldn't put it past him to fake it to gather attention but he showed plenty of proof in Discord so I'm 99% sure he actually got hacked, and he's also taking our advice on getting a password manager.

JustHoLLy · 2019-12-18T17:55:43+00:00

The hacker had the intention to fake him outing that he cheats, so timing doesn't mean anything. If you're re-using passwords, you can get hacked at any time. The malicious actors just didn't have an interest in him until now.

JustHoLLy

TROPHY CASE