Battleye kick

[Cru5ti3 10]

I'm getting kicked from OA servers for "missing OS Privileges" I can play on Arma2 server just getting kicked on the OA ones. Tried updating battleye files but still getting kicked.

[JinxHacker 10]

Same here. Posted in the steam help for it because its a steam problem from what I can tell.

[TheScar 0]

you guys need to run ArmA2/Operation Arrowhead/ComOps as "administrator"

then it will update BattlEye

BattlEye seems to have released a new update this morning

...

well did fine for me /after some attempts"

[JinxHacker 10]

Using steam?

[MJK-Ranger 0]

I'm using Steam and no problem here.

[Von_Lipwig 10]

Me and my mates are having the same problem on our server. Would have been nice if Battleye came with an update feature, or would do so automatically.

Anyway, what would be a solution to this problem? I'm running as admin now and that seems to work, but it also means I cannot play it through Steam which sucks, as I have to alt-tab to communicate.

[pipscouse 10]

Same here. Posted in the steam help for it because its a steam problem from what I can tell.

No. Me and a mate have DVD version and both of us suddenly encountered the same problem this morning

[$able 2]

Me and my mates are having the same problem on our server. Would have been nice if Battleye came with an update feature, or would do so automatically.

Anyway, what would be a solution to this problem? I'm running as admin now and that seems to work, but it also means I cannot play it through Steam which sucks, as I have to alt-tab to communicate.

If you are kicked for this violation, your BE updated automatically.

Did you try to run Steam as administrator and then launch the game from there as usual?

[MJK-Ranger 0]

You all have to be sure you all are running 100% administrator.

And make sure your Windows user have 100% Full Control in permission.

And i always turn off/disable User Account Control (UAC)

[DeadNoise 10]

ya i just tried to run steam as admin and same problem...

[MJK-Ranger 0]

Disable User Account Control

VISTA

Using Regedit

1. Open Registry Editor.

2. In Registry Editor, navigate to the following registry key:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System

3. Locate the following value (DWORD): EnableLUA and give it a value of 0.

Regedit - Disable UAC

Note: As always, before making changes to your registry you should always make sure you have a valid backup. In cases where you're supposed to delete or modify keys or values from the registry it is possible to first export that key or value(s) to a .REG file before performing the changes.

4. Close Registry Editor. You need to reboot the computer for changes to apply.

In order to re-enable UAC just change the above value to 1.

WINDOWS 7

Disable UAC Through the Registry

Click Start, click Run, type regedit, and then click Enter.

Navigate to the following registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System

In the details pane, locate the EnableLUA key (REG_DWORD type).

On the Edit menu, click Modify. In the Value data box, type 0 (zero), and then click OK.

Exit Registry Editor, and then reboot the computer.

[Wildgoose 1]

And i always turn off/disable User Account Control (UAC)

Always hated the nagging windows popups, so disable UAC aswell. Simply go to user account control and disable it.

[JinxHacker 10]

The easiest way is to go to your arma2 and OA directory and right click on the exe and go to properties> Compatibility and click the run as admin and it should work.

http://72ndmr.com/properties.jpg

[$able 2]

ya i just tried to run steam as admin and same problem...

Did you close Steam before doing that?

I just verified that Steam launches its games with the same privileges it's running with. So that should work fine.

You can also do what JinxHacker said for the game executable in your Steam installation.

[pipscouse 10]

Errrm. Why are we being made to do this? Isn't this a f up on BEs side? Or are things actually meant to be like this?

[MJK-Ranger 0]

Errrm. Why are we being made to do this? Isn't this a f up on BEs side? Or are things actually meant to be like this?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1700670&postcount=1

[pipscouse 10]

Thank you for that mate. I stand corrected.

[polar bear 10]

Is it possible to run just BattleEye with admin privileges? I feel uncomfortable giving a game that is so easily moddable admin privileges on my computer. I would feel much more comfortable restricting admin privileges to just BattleEye itself which presumably is not subject to user community mods.

Why should I trust server admins to publish mods that do not contain viruses and malware and other harmful things?

Maybe I do not understand something here but it would seem sensible to grant only the minimum necessary admin privileges and I can't see why the game itself needs to be admin, just BattleEye.

[JinxHacker 10]

Is it possible to run just BattleEye with admin privileges? I feel uncomfortable giving a game that is so easily moddable admin privileges on my computer. I would feel much more comfortable restricting admin privileges to just BattleEye itself which presumably is not subject to user community mods.

Why should I trust server admins to publish mods that do not contain viruses and malware and other harmful things?

Maybe I do not understand something here but it would seem sensible to grant only the minimum necessary admin privileges and I can't see why the game itself needs to be admin, just BattleEye.

Is it worth going thru all this.

[$able 2]

Is it possible to run just BattleEye with admin privileges? I feel uncomfortable giving a game that is so easily moddable admin privileges on my computer. I would feel much more comfortable restricting admin privileges to just BattleEye itself which presumably is not subject to user community mods.

Why should I trust server admins to publish mods that do not contain viruses and malware and other harmful things?

Maybe I do not understand something here but it would seem sensible to grant only the minimum necessary admin privileges and I can't see why the game itself needs to be admin, just BattleEye.

It's not possible because BE runs within the game process.

Also, mods/scripts can only execute commands provided by the engine, so it's not possible for a server admin to run viruses or other malware on your PC.

[alef 0]

Also, mods/scripts can only execute commands provided by the engine, so it's not possible for a server admin to run viruses or other malware on your PC.

There was a bug (don't remember if resolved) where #include or loadFile could read files outside their sandbox, with a full path.

A server can create a gamelogic in you client to run arbitrary code, like loadFile, and get the result via a publicVariable.

Edited July 29, 2010 by alef

[polar bear 10]

It's not possible because BE runs within the game process.

Also, mods/scripts can only execute commands provided by the engine, so it's not possible for a server admin to run viruses or other malware on your PC.

Well in the short term obviously I appreciate that you're responding to some issue out there and I trust the current solution is the best fix in the short term. I do very much appreciate the work you do to keep the game fair and playable--there's nothing worse than having your game ruined by a cheater! So I appreciate that you may have had to do this, and that it's saving us all from grief.

In the long term if BE must always run as admin from now on it probably would make sense to separate it out from the game so that users do not have to undermine the security of their system.

The BE code is trustworthy, I don't mind running it with admin rights. The game as a whole is a bit scarier. Even though you say that mod writers can only execute commands provided by the game engine I simply find it hard to believe there isn't an exploit in there somewhere. Plainly userland applications have the ability to manipulate the game in diverse ways and proving that every one of those alternatives is safe is a pretty tall order. On the other hand, BE itself could be audited for security flaws much more easily as it's much more controlled.

Administrator privileges are a severe thing to have to grant, and if it's required, it make sense to limit it to the smallest unit of code that really needs to have it.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Polar Bear

[emerald 8 10]

Question. I update my in game file. What about the servers we own or play on, don't they need to update too? Or does it happen automatically?

[Deadfast 43]

There was a bug (don't remember if resolved) where #include or loadFile could read files outside their sandbox, with a full path.

A server can create a gamelogic in you client to run arbitrary code, like loadFile, and get the result via a publicVariable.

It has been resolved and running the game without admin privileges wouldn't stop it.

[$able 2]

Well in the short term obviously I appreciate that you're responding to some issue out there and I trust the current solution is the best fix in the short term. I do very much appreciate the work you do to keep the game fair and playable--there's nothing worse than having your game ruined by a cheater! So I appreciate that you may have had to do this, and that it's saving us all from grief.

In the long term if BE must always run as admin from now on it probably would make sense to separate it out from the game so that users do not have to undermine the security of their system.

The BE code is trustworthy, I don't mind running it with admin rights. The game as a whole is a bit scarier. Even though you say that mod writers can only execute commands provided by the game engine I simply find it hard to believe there isn't an exploit in there somewhere. Plainly userland applications have the ability to manipulate the game in diverse ways and proving that every one of those alternatives is safe is a pretty tall order. On the other hand, BE itself could be audited for security flaws much more easily as it's much more controlled.

Administrator privileges are a severe thing to have to grant, and if it's required, it make sense to limit it to the smallest unit of code that really needs to have it.

I can assure you that I am definitely looking into other solutions as well.