The ultimate thread about Arma 3 anti-cheat discussion

[HunterUK 10]

Hi Guys,

Having 9 years experience in Working with Anti-cheat programs, you quite honestly say nothing is safe nor 100%. well your correct, you can only carry out prevential security measures when you admin your servers and have constant updating from the Anti Cheat Program. Other back doors that also causes or encourages cheats and hacking is the private community made maps etc, which if not controlled and checked properly by the ACP do'snt help either!. Vac is a waste of time as this has been bypassed long ago as it do'snt detect private cheats or hacks!!.

At the moment in what I know an Arma 3 hack came out on the 25/03/2013 and has been used and viewed by at least 632 people and it is one you have pay, day light robbery he If I say so !!.

So I would look at Battleye being brought back and give sebastian more help and info so that more UPADTES can be brought out asap, but this depends on what Sebastian says from Battleye !.

[MasterDon 10]

I am for Battleye personally. It seems to have plenty of potential :cool:

[crashtheface 10]

is there any relevant information in this thread or is it just a bunch of monkeys slinging crap at each other?

[nuxil 2]

is there any relevant information in this thread or is it just a bunch of monkeys slinging crap at each other?

Nop. this is the monkey thread and you are welcome to toss some bannanas around

but, no. this threas is just for discussion. only relevant info we know is that. Alpha has no AC. AC/Security is still Wip. there is not even a official statement which AC will be used.

so we just have to wait and see.

[WalkerDown 1]

Got another suggestion :)

Go here and write a post. You will get a PM from someone if you sound interesting hehe.

Its a great thread to find people to play with, untill we can actually play on public servers :)

What do you mean? I run 2 public servers and 1 private, and a community of tenth ppl... all of us have stopped playing A3 for now (for the same reason). It's not a matter of ppl, it's the game that isn't much enjoyable (for us) atm. And it's not about the cheaters to be honest, but about the performances (so it hasn't much to do with this thread...).

[HunterUK 10]

is there any relevant information in this thread or is it just a bunch of monkeys slinging crap at each other?

What are you on crashtheface ? I aint slinging no crap !!

[Cuddlecakes 10]

After what occurred last night I hope Battleye or Punkbuster are implemented asap. The game was unplayable on any server as they were all hacked eventually. Their reasoning being that NO anti-cheat measures are in place and until they are they will continue to hack.

[HunterUK 10]

I can sympathise cuddlecake, and i can see what your saying now. To be honest there should be an Anti-Cheat program before they sold the game, a bit premature from bohemia to do this. Personaly i would off waited till they had security and an update before they sold the game, there would of been enough beta testers in the community to help out there .

[RuecanOnRails 10]

The main reason there is no anti-cheat program right now is because the games code is changing too much too quickly. an anti-cheat program would cause more issues than it would solve with false bans/kicks. It would bring game development to a halt as every code change would have to be sent and tested separately with battle eye before getting pushed to the community for further testing.

Anti-cheat can wait until game is released or mid to late beta. Anytime before and it will slow game development causing delays with release of beta/full.

You need to remember, BIS does NOT manage or develop battle eye, they simply implement it. Keeping battle eye updated with the constantly changing game code would difficult to say the least. It could make the "stable" build months behind the development builds.

for myself, an anti cheat program is currently not needed. If you want an actual gaming experience go play arma 2 while everyone else tests arma 3.

[HunterUK 10]

Why was'nt it mentioned before people bought the Alpha ?

[dnk 13]

It's implied in "Alpha"?

[nik21 1]

It's implied in "Alpha"?

This.

[nuxil 2]

Alpha!

its not the name of the game. its the stage of the game.

many people just dont get this.

[gossamersolid 155]

Why was'nt it mentioned before people bought the Alpha ?

How many alphas have you seen have anti-cheat in them?

[ak1287 1]

Why was'nt it mentioned before people bought the Alpha ?

Bohemia assumes that the customer base is capable of comprehending the differences between 'Alpha', 'Beta', and a final product.

Unfortunately, that was too lofty an assumption.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

If admins set up their server filters properly and modders made their mission more secure, scripters would have a harder time.

Where is the documentation on the wiki for this sort of stuff? Stuff mentioned in threads are not easy to find on the forums, they need to be displayed up front so they are accessible to server admins.

I also don't understand where the "hole" is that hackers get in to execute their code. Where exactly does the client get allowed to execute their code. Is there some sort of developer console that clients can use to execute code? I come from a web development background and I find it hard to grasp an architecture where there is a server and client, and the server has no say in what the client can or can't do. Seems like there is no scope restriction for clients.

I mean the game has two bits of data, the data files that have signatures and are checked, and the mission file. If those two are secure, how is it possible for a hacker to come in and execute arbitrary code on the server? The client must have some way that allows them to execute their own code outwith the code in the mission or data file.

Edited April 1, 2013 by ssechaud

[TSAndrey 1]

Where is the documentation on the wiki for this sort of stuff? Stuff mentioned in threads are not easy to find on the forums, they need to be displayed up front so they are accessible to server admins.

I also don't understand where the "hole" is that hackers get in to execute their code. Where exactly does the client get allowed to execute their code. Is there some sort of developer console that clients can use to execute code? I come from a web development background and I find it hard to grasp an architecture where there is a server and client, and the server has no say in what the client can or can't do. Seems like there is no scope restriction for clients.

I mean the game has two bits of data, the data files that have signatures and are checked, and the mission file. If those two are secure, how is it possible for a hacker to come in and execute arbitrary code on the server? The client must have some way that allows them to execute their own code outwith the code in the mission or data file.

I don't know how it works exactly, but you have to understand that Arma's engine is a lot different than other engines. Arma has a fully supported scripting language, with almost no client checks (client can script in whatever he wants to). That's where BE filters come in play: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?138736-Introducing-Server-side-Event-Logging-Blocking

Most admins in A2 didn't really use them correctly and mods like DayZ had a lot of security holes in them.

[HunterUK 10]

How many alphas have you seen have anti-cheat in them?

a Few of them, because they tested the Anti-cheat with the corresponding game.

Edited April 1, 2013 by HunterUK
updating

[nuxil 2]

a few? name two then.

a side note. one major problem with implementing BE at this stage is that the filters would not work. or even worse. give false positives.

1/2 of the scriping commands in the alpha engine is broken, so it would be useless to have BE filters at this stage..

best protection you can get with the alpha is this. know who you are playing with and lock your server. if you dont own a server, join a community that does have one and runs a locked server.

Edited April 1, 2013 by nuxil

[ak1287 1]

a Few of them, because they tested the Anti-cheat with the corresponding game.

I can't think of a single one.

[TSAndrey 1]

It's impossible to implement an anti-cheat in this stage. Just deal with it, and wait...

[HunterUK 10]

a few? name two then.

a side note. one major problem with implementing BE at this stage is that the filters would not work. or even worse. give false positives.

1/2 of the scriping commands in the alpha engine is broken, so it would be useless to have BE filters at this stage..

best protection you can get with the alpha is this. know who you are playing with and lock your server. if you dont own a server, join a community that does have one and runs a locked server.

1) Delta Force Black hawk down

2) WAR Z

I understand in what you are saying about Implementing BE at the early stage etc, But to be completely honest the Arma 3 should'nt of been sold like this early in the development. As you know it also causes problems with the clients who are buying it throwing them into disarray and getting a lot of negative feedback. Look please don't take this the wrong way, but in an Honest opinion the dev teams should of picked on so many clients to test it with various computers likes for AMD, Nividea and there different Cpu's etc and get the feed back that way. Yourselves wanted feed back and this is mine :)

[nuxil 2]

1) Delta Force Black hawk down

2) WAR Z

To my knowledge War Z or "Warzscam" :p was not released with an anticheat on the public alpha release. it came later on in a update. and from what i read its mostly a joke. i dont know about black hawk down.

But to be completely honest the Arma 3 should'nt of been sold like this early in the development. As you know it also causes problems with the clients who are buying it throwing them into disarray and getting a lot of negative feedback.

no one was forced to buy the alpha. people could have waited for the final release. the point in getting the alpha is to be invlovled in helping the devs out.

ofcource client will have problems, all sorts of problems. this is where you come in and report the problems you have. so the devs can fix it for the final release. complaining about this & that isnt working, is rather pointless.

but in an Honest opinion the dev teams should of picked on so many clients to test it with various computers likes for AMD, Nividea and there different Cpu's etc and get the feed back that way.

going public alpha means the devs gets to test a wide variety of hardware setup rather than a selective group of testers with their hardware.

Edited April 1, 2013 by nuxil

[TSAndrey 1]

1) Delta Force Black hawk down

2) WAR Z

I understand in what you are saying about Implementing BE at the early stage etc, But to be completely honest the Arma 3 should'nt of been sold like this early in the development. As you know it also causes problems with the clients who are buying it throwing them into disarray and getting a lot of negative feedback. Look please don't take this the wrong way, but in an Honest opinion the dev teams should of picked on so many clients to test it with various computers likes for AMD, Nividea and there different Cpu's etc and get the feed back that way. Yourselves wanted feed back and this is mine :)

WarZ doesn't have a real anti-cheat, it's just a stat analyzer. People who bought the Alpha can't really complain since they get the Beta/retail version for free. They just saved money...

[HunterUK 10]

To my knowledge War Z or "Warzscam" :p was not released with an anticheat on the public alpha release. it came later on in a update. and from what i read its mostly a joke. i dont know about black hawk down.

no one was forced to buy the alpha. people could have waited for the final release. the point in getting the alpha is to be invlovled in helping the devs out.

ofcource client will have problems, all sorts of problems. this is where you come in and report the problems you have. so the devs can fix it for the final release. complaining about this & that isnt working, is rather pointless.

going public alpha means the devs gets to test a wide variety of hardware setup rather than a selective group of testers with their hardware.

Nuxil !! your just a joke. you obviously don't half what your on about.