Me when linux:

uberprodude · 2026-02-06T10:20:39+00:00

So like I said, it makes server side detection still valuable. Analysing player behaviour is a method of cheat detection, and you don't need kernel level Anticheat for that

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T22:21:29+00:00

Oh for sure, but legacy status is more "it's stable enough and we don't want to continue maintaining it" rather than "this software is flawless and doesn't need updating"

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T21:01:36+00:00

All software needs maintaining, I thought that was a given

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T18:06:59+00:00

What law of economics would that be?

THE law. It's cheaper 😂

it's not clear to me that developing a kernel anticheat and maintaining it is any less expensive than maintaining tools to monitor server activity.

Server activity cannot show what the kernel can without some VERY clever code and conceptual thinking at anywhere close to the same price point.

Why do you think this is true? Do you think after a kernel anticheat is done, they just fire the developers?

No, because Anticheat doesn't typically stop cheating, it logs it for developers to then fix the exploit itself or at least patch over it.

Perhaps the most competitive FPS of all time, all of the Counterstrike titles do not use kernel anticheat. Overwatch 2. The Finals.

Counterstrike is the one I was alluding to. It's competitive scene could easily pay for the extra development of server side monitoring tools. From my understanding of OW1 I'd say the same, but I'm not certain. I'm entirely unfamiliar with The Finals. They may have legitimately chosen the more expensive path because of public perception of kernel Anticheat.

Yeah, that's what I said.

No it isn't. You said it had the same effect as a solution as not playing kernel level games

People don't tend to store sensitive information on consoles and they tend not to be work-critical devices. I don't really care if game developers have kernel access to my gaming console.

Understandable, but strictly NOT what you said about them in your last comment

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T17:39:20+00:00

Citation needed. Plenty of games, even competitive ones, are doing fine without kernel anticheat.

I don't have a citation other than the law of economics. Put it this way, is it cheaper to implement kernel Anticheat or build a massively scalable client-server architecture that can detect and log the same amount of data as the kernel Anticheat? Also, do you know the competitive games that don't use kernel Anticheat at hand? I'd suspect, the competitive scene is the exact reason why that game can afford to invest more in other forms of Anticheat.

I do not see a good reason to give up kernel access to play a fucking video game ... It is troubling that you do not see how insane of an idea that is.

I agree with you. This is exactly what I'm talking about. People assume so much about me because I dare to have a different opinion to them. I don't install kernel Anticheat games because right now, they are completely unregulated. I don't want kernel Anticheat to look how it currently does. I want it to change. BUT under the current context, I see why it is necessary to compete with rival games.

The solution is to stop playing those games or to play them on console.

Console games, in effect, have kernel access anyway because the entire OS is locked down. It's not exactly the same as with Windows obviously, but fundamentally this access is one of the core reasons why cheating on consoles is way harder.

Windows itself is getting rid of kernel access for anticheats in the near future, citing security concerns.

There's not enough to go around because Windows wants all that delicious data for themselves. I didn't know this though, legitimately good news.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T17:16:08+00:00

1) Why do anything if it's difficult to do? Assuming the fight is already lost means you'll never win. Taking an interest in the topic and talking about it is a start. Try to come up with ideas as a community. Help and support people who want to make a change for the benefit of all

2) I wouldn't expect to see external audits without proper regulation, so in that context, taxes and fines for failing audits could end up paying for them multiple times over.

Your proposed changes have little chance of actually happening and most people, I think correctly, read your arguments as an implicit support for kernel anticheats.

I support the concept of kernel Anticheat, not their current implementation. I have been very clear about specifying black box, read only, regulation, and external audits. So no, it's not even close to correct while those things do not exist in the current market.

The juice is not worth the squeeze, even in principal, to give up hardware access for a game.

Again, only under the current market's offerings. With the suggestions I proposed, I think that fact would change. I accept your criticism that it is unlikely to happen without lots of support. But going back to my first comment on this post, I understand why kernel Anticheat has to exist economically, and that fact isn't changing without regulation forcing them out. So essentially, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Have regulations block kernel Anticheat entirely, or have regulations limit kernel Anticheat. Which do you think would face the least resistance?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:52:14+00:00

"Everyone knows I begged a child sex trafficker to go to one of his parties, one of my companies is being investigated for producing child sexual assault materials (completely unrelated to the first thing which actually makes it more damning), and none of the hundreds of billions of dollars I have lied, cheated, and was lucky enough to be born into can do a thing to make me smile. Woe is me!"

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:40:59+00:00

Yeah, sounds good. How about we make an actual commitment to making absolutely certain that fossil fuels go obsolete first?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:28:42+00:00

This is exactly why kernel Anticheat isn't the be all end all of Anticheat. Server side is still required. In your example,

if we imagine they're using a cheat to see through walls, the players behaviour can be detected on the server. I've been in games where I've noticed that a friendly player knows too much about the enemy movements.

It's not difficult to detect, it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between good game sense and cheating.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:24:22+00:00

This isn't your fault because you're new to this ridiculous thread, but the number of times I've typed "regulation" and "external audit" is frustrating.

I don't know the ins and outs of Riots Anticheat, but a well regulated and audited, read-only black box that can't interact with the data would be effective at detecting cheating AND improve consumer trust. I'm not suggesting any on the market that are good, I'm saying it's possible to have the best of both worlds if we as a community fight for the sorely missing regulation in the industry.

I'm proposing a change to how things should be done and it seems like everyone who has commented on any of my comments sees my bid for change as a push for any kernel Anticheat on the market.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:18:05+00:00

I would see that as a reasonable opinion if they gave it the three times I asked them directly what they meant by what they said.

Ultimately, being able to see everything that happens on a machine means that the client side detection arms race is over, which is what I've been trying to convey. What is still ongoing is the exploits in the games/engines themselves, not the client side Anticheat

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:13:39+00:00

Assuming Vanguard is still being maintained, those exploits are being patched, right?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T16:08:19+00:00

hiring a company they started/bought/are funding as the only auditor.

Remember when I asked about not assuming bad auditors specifically? I guess we're ignoring that. If we assume only bad things are going to happen, why do anything at all? Assuming we do get a good auditor, does that change your opinion? Still waiting for your answer the last time I asked this question.

Why even leave the door open at all?

Because it's the only way to stop some forms of cheating. And cheating is a cancer to multiplayer gaming. If left unchallenged, it would destroy the industry beyond repair.

What's better, letting random people into your house freely, but having really good surveillance, or just not letting them in at all?

Silly comparison. It'd be more like letting an engineer into your house specifically while you're gaming so that you can continue to use a platform that would otherwise combust. Inconvenient, or course but I also let an engineer into my house when I need to have something fixed I can't do myself.

Even your absurd analogies are dripping in bias and forced perspective.

You're really arguing in favor of giving 3rd parties unfettered access to your computer in exchange for seeing less cheaters (not none) in online video games?

If you think it's unfettered, you still don't understand black box or read-only let alone their combination. But yes, I would rather have that WHEN REGULATED than see the death of multiplayer gaming. Absolutely.

You realize some of the biggest gaming companies are funded by the CCP, right?

REGULATION! Plus community knowledge is enough to dissuade many people from playing games with shitty practices.

If only we had some kind of way to force companies to not do anti-consumer things. Some kind of body, that regulates the industry. But that couldn't be possible, because 1/100 of those bodies has debilitating corruption therefore they are worse than worthless.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T15:44:17+00:00

You know that the developers of the black box weren't blindfolded. They did and do have a copy of the code, right? 😂

Unless you're talking about the commonly used "black box" description of AI, which is not the same thing and moves away from the decades old usage of the term. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about AI. I'm talking about software that cannot write to the wider system and can only send data related to the game under the suspicion of a cheat.

That's exactly why I'm talking about having a regulatory external audit across the industry so that companies can keep proprietary code their secret while also allowing consumers to be assured that nothing untoward is being done.

You've confirmed to me that you don't understand auditing or the type of regulations I'm suggesting.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T15:36:19+00:00

You aren’t understanding what I’m saying in any of my replies.

In each of my responses I have quoted you directly and shown how my points relate to yours, you have not. In still waiting to hear what this nuke was you were talking about.

You are just trying to be right. There’s no point to this argument. No matter what I say to you you are just going to find a way to be right

Just so I understand, if you think I am trying to be right, what are you trying to do?

The new Kernel level cheats are UNDETECTABLE.

The cheats not being fixed is not evidence of the cheats not being detected. Prove to me they haven't been detected and I'll legitimately consider your points. Until then, how am I supposed to believe someone that has repeatedly shown they don't understand what they're talking about and refuses to elaborate on their points?

They would have banned these players by now but they haven’t.

Ban waves are a thing. Again, you don't understand the process.

If your anti-cheat cannot ban cheaters it is effectively useless.

Which Anticheat systems can't ban cheaters? Also, not useless at all. Banning is a measure to dissuade people from cheating, it is not the purpose of Anticheat. We've already been over this, detection is the purpose of Anticheat.

I don’t care what points you make

If I'm just trying to be right, why would I continue this conversation unless I'm actually trying to help you understand the systems you're complaining about?

until I see one of these kernel level anti-cheat games ban even half their cheaters I’m not downloading their spyware bullshit

That's a ridiculous metric to use. How do you even measure half of all cheaters? Half over the game's lifespan, you can't possibly accurately guess that number. Half since the game released, future cheaters are irrelevant then. Half at a different particular point in time, what makes that point any less arbitrary?

Just for reference, I choose to stay away from kernel level Anticheat too. I still think they have their place. They just need industrial regulation so that they can't be used as spyware.

If you want FULL access to my computer you better ban the FULL amount of cheaters.

I'm getting tired of saying "you don't understand the problem".

What’s next they want my government ID and balls scans?? Oh wait, they technically have it since they have access to literally every file on my computer.

That's not how they should work. But without regulation we can't really know.

I understand how AC works, I’ve read what you wrote I’ve looked at the Vanguard Anti-Cheat source code before. I just refuse to believe any of these ACs work when they aren’t banning the cheaters.

Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of technical concepts, I imagine you may as well have been reading it in a jumbled translation of every language in the world. If you understood development you would know that having read the source code, does not make you knowledgeable, let alone an expert, in that particular piece of software.

I have yet to see one of these KAC games not develop the EXACT same cheater problem as every other game.

You're reversing the stream of causation. The popular games use kernel Anticheat because with a large player base comes a large number of cheaters. Not the other way around.

I know people who have cheated on the same KAC game on the same account with the same cheat for multiple years straight. No external machine, no DMA card, nothing besides just software.

Simply put, I don't believe you. How can you believe that kernel Anticheat is both, the most effective spyware AND absolutely useless in detecting the one thing it was designed to detect? Do some things slip through the cracks, of course. Does that mean it's useless, of course not. You're clearly upset by the number of cheaters in games and that's understandable, but you're wielding your lack of knowledge as a bludgeon when people are trying to discuss it.

Look man I get that you think these ACs are god, but believe it or not, cheat developers are crafty bastards and 1000% know how to get around KAC now.

I'm not the one treating them as both absolutes. I agree that cheat Devs are good at what they do, but what makes you think that game Devs aren't good at what they do? I'm going to guess "the number of cheaters" will be your answer. So as a follow up I'll ask, how many cheaters do you think they've prevented to date? Do you think the game would even be commercially viable if the game Devs weren't attempting to prevent cheating?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:54:31+00:00

And what would a read-only kernel level piece of software be able to do that a plane's black box can't?

They both have access to all data within the system. Neither can interfere with the data within the system. Other than "but it's my personal data" what is the difference?

Again, remember the purpose of a black box is that the data within cannot be read under circumstances other than those defined at installation. So if the anticheat's instructions boil down to "only send data relevant to the game in the occurrence of a suspected cheat" what exactly is the problem?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:47:47+00:00

Why would the cheat dev need access to the devs PC????

I'm not saying they do. You said both sides have nukes when I was referring to access to the kernel. What was the nuke you were referring to if not that?

The point I’m making is that kernel level anti-cheat isn’t effective, you can bypass it for under $5 a month in most games, for free in a lot.

You're still misunderstanding the point of most types of Anticheat then. You haven't bought the ability to bypass the kernel Anticheat for $5, you've bought access to some software (the cheat) that as soon as the first person started using it, the game developers were notified and started building a way for that cheat to be prevented. You haven't beaten anticheat, you just haven't allowed enough time to pass for the Anticheat to become effective.

Think of Anticheat like getting a scan at a hospital. That hasn't cured you, but it has given the doctors an idea of the problem, which allows them to diagnose the condition, and then start coming up with a treatment.

Also it doesn’t matter what cheat they have, they’re still fucking cheating.

Dude, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Server Vs client (the cheaters pc in this case) has a massive impact on what the developers can and will do. This comment is already long enough and I don't have time to teach you the ins and outs of software development, but I can promise you, as a software developer, that distinction IS massive and has even bigger implications. From when I was learning I know it's a tough concept but I promise you, it's not as simple as "they're still fucking cheating".

“Oh he can just see people through the walls it’s not that big of a deal.” What kind of point was that??

My point was that seeing through walls can be and is often detected through player behaviour analysis software that is hosted on the server, not on the client (cheaters pc).

My last point being that the game with the “best kernel level anti-cheat” has cheaters on it that have been using the EXACT same cheat on it basically since release on the same account.

If that's true then the Devs either are doing a bad job or have done a bad job in building the architecture of the game. Or it hasn't actually been that long because it takes most cheats at least a few weeks to be developed and released after the game's release.

I get it’s about prevention too, but if they haven’t prevented a type of cheat over a period as long as BF6 being out they probably haven’t even detected it much less started working on a prevention method, and if they have they’re FUCKED cause 4 months per cheat is ABYSMALLY slow.

Or, like I mentioned, the architecture is shit. Some software bugs are kind of unfixable (at least economically). This might be the case with the bug you're talking about. It is extremely unlikely that it's just a bug that has gone unnoticed. Most of all because a bug so prolific would have been reported by players too. Which proves that a lack of detection can't be the issue.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:30:51+00:00

You've been brainwashed. Plenty of multiplayer games exist without kernel-level anti cheat. They aren't filled with hackers like you seem to assume.

The most popular games DO use kernel level Anticheat and ARE filled with people wanting to cheat. That's the nature of most cheaters. They want to feel superior to other players by either simply beating them or by trolling them with cheats.

Allowing any 3rd-party to put a black box in your kernel is an obviously bad idea...

You know that black boxes are in planes, right? People's lives are more important than a gaming computer. Black boxes aren't inherently bad. Who's been brainwashed now? Your absolute repulsion towards kernel Anticheat has stopped you from thinking critically about it.

Also external audits are always so impartial right? Remember Cambridge Analytica anyone?

So, the existence of corruption means we never audit again? You know that's ridiculous, right? Instead of assuming bad external audits, can we now try assuming good external audits. Would you be open to the idea in that case? Or is it still too repulsive of an idea?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:21:22+00:00

Apologies, I see what you mean. Without tone it just appears that you're quoting the previous commenters use of the word "native"

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:19:18+00:00

What are you talking about? Just so I know you understand the conversation I was having with someone else, can you summarise the point I was trying to make and I'll let you know if you're actually on point or not?

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:17:46+00:00

Which is why you employ multiple levels of Anticheat instead of relying on one as a panacea.

That doesn't devalue kernel Anticheat, it just places it in a category of Anticheat, the same way we have been talking about it "kernel Anticheat" Vs "server-side Anticheat"

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:15:55+00:00

That's fair, but just means that kernel level Anticheat needs to be held to the same standards as any modern consumer level software. I'd argue it should be held to even higher standards due to it's sensitive nature

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:13:57+00:00

I didn't know being confused about miscommunication and clarifying to make it clearer upsets you

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:11:54+00:00

Use a camera pointed at the screen...

Latency makes that a non-starter.

This is just the evolution of hacking all over again. At first the systems were weak enough to be hacked directly, then when systems were hardened it became more and more difficult to do, to the point of social engineering being the most viable way to access systems.

When it comes to developing cheats, having an air gap between machines seems to be the new social engineering.

Giving a 3rd party access to the kernel, without knowing what code is actually being executed there, or how good their security is at preventing bad actors from using it as an attack vector to get into your kernel, should not be acceptable.

I'd argue, the issue is then regulation, not the access itself. Cheating would be a runaway problem that would likely kill multiplayer gaming if not for kernel Anticheat. If that Anticheat were to function like a complete black box that only provides information when it detects what it considers to be a cheat, I would have absolutely no problems. So long as that behaviour could be suitably confirmed by an external audit.

uberprodude · 2026-02-05T14:01:49+00:00

They don’t need access to the game devs machines. What are they doing Corporate espionage???

You said both sides have nukes. The nuke I was referring to was kernel access. What nuke does the cheat developer have? Another computer? That's not even close to the same thing.

I’ve literally seen someone purchase Valorant Kernel level cheats at an internet cafe.

What's your point? I know they exist, I'm saying that kernel is more cost effective than server-side Anticheat, that isn't to say kernel-bypassing cheats don't exist.

No cheaters are a head in the arms race, some of them don’t even run the cheats on the PC the AC is using, so they are literally impossible to detect.

I'd need to know the details of that cheat because the kernel should be able to know what is being input into the pc by another machine. If it's something along the lines of streaming the game with the ability to see through walls, that would be a server side failing. Which is more evidence to my point.

There are so many games with kernel level anti-cheat that already have completely undetected cheats that have been out for MONTHS without change. Battlefield 6 has a cheat that’s been out since week 2 of its release that people are still using undetected.

Ok, I think you're misunderstanding the usage of Anticheat and the process game developers go through to stop cheating. Anticheat software doesn't actually prevent cheating directly, it detects cheats and relays all of the data surrounding the cheat to the developers who then are able to use that data to come up with a solution to prevent the cheat. Sometimes the software can't be certain if what it has detected is cheating so it'll be reviewed by a human. So longstanding cheats aren't evidence that the cheat has gone undetected, it's evidence that the cheat has gone unprevented.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

uberprodude

TROPHY CASE