What is Battleye for?

[Guest]

I honestly think that if posts and topics are desired to maintained to a level of decency and not include vulgarities and such, maybe the level of 'moderation' should be increased.

I personally have always kept from direct profanity and references to such, my worst cases simply put in *#$@@, and thats enough -

There are no rules banning swearing and such as long as it's not excessive and not directed at people to flame them, we assume that people here possess a modicum of maturity with the fact they're playing a mature war game and thus can deal with a little swearing here and there

I understand -

Although, there have been warnings, and week leaves given for all caps posts as well, along with 'excessive' profanity posts - im not sure what would constitute 'excessive' profanity - x number of bad words in one post?

Im not here to be the forums police, i dont really care

Im just not used to seeing a topic come up that holds on the boards with all caps and profanity, and apparently this is fine - I really dont want to see the forums all the sudden fall to this where anyone can post anything in their topics, and its fine -

I guess I just have to learn how to turn a blind eye, dont recall seeing this sort of thing go un-hindered - but maybe things are changing here

I fully appreciate the topic here, maybe it just seems lately more and more profanity and such is allowed here as of late, and I recall in the past such posts to fall under admin ruling, but, maybe things are changing

Not a huge deal, again, I guess I just need to adjust to changes here and accept them

Moving on

[oChaos.DNJ 0]

I know something better than the shotgun thing. This is that the people dedicated to the software in-game security pick all the cheats online, put them to the test and make and fill a official server with the database with high level encripting. Then set a daemon on the game that check the database for players using the known cheats...then send a script against the client (the cheater) triggering a block of his MP mode that can only be overriden if he format the OS (so he can no longer access mp mode), send this player id to the goblal server to ban the id, and finally ban the player from the current server.

This is pretty much what PB does, except they ban by CD keys or Hardware depending on type of hack.

Anyways, PB does not stop all cheaters.

[Rexxenexx 0]

Anyways, PB does not stop all cheaters.

Ain't that the truth. I've seen cartillary in BF2 plenty of times.

If someone is dedicated enough anything is possible. But since I've been using BE and Sig checking servers (lastweek and this week) I have not seen anyone cheating. But the week before! With no BE or anything it was ridiculous. I won't go on a server w/o BE again.

[whisper 0]

What I saying is that when I installed patch 1.14 it came with BE that I found wonderfull (since I felt that BIS didnt give a s....t on cheating), that mixed with the new Warfare maps gave me the feeling that this game had a new breath of fresh air...

BE didnt told me to set signatures or whatever...so...as far as I officially know...signatures are unoffcial and BE is official. I found that joining many server asked me for a signature that I dont know what it is and only in case it becomes massive I will do...just because of what I said before (I just dont have the time to figure out how they work ...just in case they fail....etc).

So as a common player...I feel that if I have the official protection..that should be good enough...and when I find signature required server I (sure aswell as 80% of the people) I just try in the next one. For some reason BE does not include the signature feature...

And lets go back to the very basic...lets say im the admin...why the f.....k I cannot go into espectator mode (whatever the map is) to check who is cheating and then BAN him without having to stop the server....CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS?? I find it very simple question....

Addon signatures is completely official since 1.08 (it's not a 1.14 thing, it was there before) :

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Addon_Signatures

When using vanilla ArmA (without addons) you don't have anything to do as client to use the signatures. You just should prefer playing on servers with signature enabled (and there, something is missing from BI part, you can't know if signatures are enabled or not before connecting on the server, and even so, you don't really know signatures are enable before you see someone kicked by the system. BI should have made this information visible, as well as BE activation, right in the server listing).

When using addons, if you want to play on a signature protected server, you should put a key file accepted by the server for this addon in you addons directory. It's not really that difficult, tbh, but signature protection is usually most suited for public vanilla ArmA playing and "major" addons out there.

[baddo 0]

What if

1) BattlEye would always be used in multiplayer mode. BIS can make it happen.

2) Signature checking would always be used in multiplayer mode. BIS can make it happen.

What kind of people would not like to have them both on? Do we have to care about those people? Pros & cons weighing. What do you value more.

Forcing these features to be on and not leaving the user any option to turn them off is something BIS should especially consider for ArmA 2.

[.kju 3239]

An improved server browser and more filter options would already

help. Like to see from the list if a server has BE and/or

verifySignatures active. An filter the list of servers for that -

already possible for BE.

[Yoma 0]

I may sound a little bold here, but my answer to the starting question would be:

To help keep Arma playable in MP.

If you don't understand/get frustrated/get angry with a software company for trying to keep cheaters out of the game they developed, then you might as well get angry with babies because they cry/poop when you don't want them too.

Or maybe get angry with cows because they eat grass and do droppings in meadows.

Or hate Microsoft for providing windows updates that sometimes fail. (yeah i'm pretty sure you'd like that, an unpatched xp 1.0)

Or get angry because you have to look for incoming traffic before crossing the street.

The point i'm trying to make is: not all is fun in life and with bad people comes bad things, no matter how angry/frustrated you'll get about that reality will NOT change.

I personally hate locking my door, my friends hate it too, they have to ring my doorbell and can't just come in. However i have to keep it locked because else bad people WILL come in.

With Arma anticheat measures it's the same thing.

In short: this thread is pointless.

And no you can't "get back to the basics" because the basics will indeed get back to you.

[walker 0]

Hi all

80% of servers now run ArmA with BattlEye and Signature Checks anyway. We are being let down by a minority who allow their servers to run without these functions. Others Run Doolittle's Tool too.

You cannot make a 100% secure system but you can put so many hoops to jump through that they cannot be bothered. Also by using a layered approach it means they have to learn several systems and the maintainers of each system just maintains that one. By adding each layer in you are adding a factor of 1 to the work load to beat them all. As long as all the layers are transparent to the user it makes no difference to the user, only riffraff are inconvenience.

The next layer to add in is User IDs via user signatures this could be done with BIS signatures even. Or a PGP based system. This solves Whitman's problem of identifying the user.

If like many you are running a private server with passwords, then you know Private ID systems already exist. And you can ID people through Team Speak. Security on large servers is now so good that riffraff do not even know how to log on to them.

The security questions then are for open public and recruitment servers.

The Basics apply

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

equalModRequired=1

verifySignatures=1;

BattlEye=1;

It also makes sense to tell people why they are being kicked as this gives them a chance to correct their error.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/server.cfg

An addon help thread on the clan web server is standard.

Where Team Speak is used a Support/help channel is nice.

Most open public servers are probably best running vanilla ArmA any way with all addons blocked, most server and client crashes are people who do not know that you have to run the same addons on server as client. Recruitment servers or large clan servers running open when not being used for clan matches need to insist on all users downloading the servers addon folder which includes that servers public key for the addons.

Remember any server can include its own public key for it addons folder!

It is in the public arena that User certificates become important. This stuff that has already been thoughroughly tested in retail websites and web of trust environments. The theoretical and practical requirements are very well understood. So there is no reinventing the wheel here.

Since the concept is based on web of trust, if a user ID becomes tainted it then becomes useless and the signer looses trust and the ability to sign for others. The system is therefor self regulating.

Kind Regards walker

[Rexxenexx 0]

Well supposedly it slows the connecting AKA: "connecting/disconnecting lag". Which is negligible, but a full game with only tk'er and bk'er risk and con/discon lag is better than createVehicle spam/frozen server from a script kiddie.

[.kju 3239]

The use of equalModRequired is NOT recommended!

It makes joining with modfolders almost impossible on public servers.

It adds zero security and is only to force people use the same

modfolder naming as the server, yet the content of the modfolders

is irrelevant for the command itself.

equalModRequired = 1; => people only can join the server if they

have loaded exactly the same modfolder number and naming as

the server.

[BigRed 2]

A minority of the servers that don't run BattleEye is because there is still a couple of problems that players can't join the server. I think once that issue is resolved 95% of servers will run it.

[Maddmatt 1]

Forcing these features to be on and not leaving the user any option to turn them off is something BIS should especially consider for ArmA 2.

No. It's up to the server owner/admin for a good reason.

Not everyone wants to use these tools, so they shouldn't be forced to. Closed groups for example usually don't want to use them.

Forcing BattlEye on everyone makes things like using FRAPS to take screenshots or videos impossible. Some groups like to record their sessions (thing of the Shacktack and SimHQ AARs). They know the people they are playing with, so they don't want to use things like BattlEye.

If you want to play on a server with anti-cheat, then you can. There are enough servers for that. But I don't agree with forcing everyone to do the same.

Pick a properly protected server and the crowd of morons that like to ruin games will hardly affect you. Let them go play on unprotected servers so that they don't bother the rest of us.

ArmA MP sure seems better now. Not as flooded with Evo as it used to be. I see a decent amount of servers with some good games going on, including Warefare

There seems to be more players too, although I'm not certain.

[$able 2]

Forcing BattlEye on everyone makes things like using FRAPS to take screenshots or videos impossible. Some groups like to record their sessions (thing of the Shacktack and SimHQ AARs). They know the people they are playing with, so they don't want to use things like BattlEye.

Use valid arguments though. Fraps works fine with BattlEye.

And even if you know the people you play with, why does that automatically mean you "don't want to use things like BattlEye"? Just wondering because I keep hearing this argument quite often.

[Inkompetent 0]

Use valid arguments though. Fraps works fine with BattlEye.

And even if you know the people you play with, why does that automatically mean you "don't want to use things like BattlEye"? Just wondering because I keep hearing this argument quite often.

Well, the fact BattlEye kicks you if you Alt-tab because your client stops responding is quite a reason not to use it within closed communities.

[$able 2]

Well, the fact BattlEye kicks you if you Alt-tab because your client stops responding is quite a reason not to use it within closed communities.

I will look into this.

Does it always happen to you on longer alt-tabs or only sometimes?

[mr.g-c 6]

Well, the fact BattlEye kicks you if you Alt-tab because your client stops responding is quite a reason not to use it within closed communities.

I will look into this.

Does it always happen to you on longer alt-tabs or only sometimes?

At least in window-mode and with 1.14 it does not Bastian

I'm pretty sure as i was long times out-tabbed (hours?) when testing our mission.

[$able 2]

Yes, there is a difference in game performance between windowed and fullscreen mode while alt-tabbed, but still, I can only see those kicks happening on rather slow systems.

[Maddmatt 1]

Forcing BattlEye on everyone makes things like using FRAPS to take screenshots or videos impossible. Some groups like to record their sessions (thing of the Shacktack and SimHQ AARs). They know the people they are playing with, so they don't want to use things like BattlEye.

Use valid arguments though. Fraps works fine with BattlEye.

Sorry, I just remember someone saying that BattlEye kicked people using FRAPS and similar programs due to the way they worked. I know some anti-cheat programs in other games have done that before.

Quote[/b] ]And even if you know the people you play with, why does that automatically mean you "don't want to use things like BattlEye"? Just wondering because I keep hearing this argument quite often.

Some groups who trust their members simply don't want to use anti-cheats. They feel they don't need to set up protection like that. Maybe they have other reasons, I am not part of one at the moment so maybe I don't fully understand why.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anti-cheats. It's a great thing for public servers.

And sig-checking is definitely not something that should be forced. It's whole point could be defeated anyway if an untrustworthy person managed to get their key to be accepted on the server.

It would be a pain for modders who are testing their work, for example it would extra work and delays for a work-in-progress mod like ACE if every single update had to be signed for MP testing by the person trusted to sign it.

And both sig-checking and BattlEye do not provide much protection if used on their own, they need to be used together for decent protection.

[baddo 0]

Some groups who trust their members simply don't want to use anti-cheats. They feel they don't need to set up protection like that.

Well, BIS can set it up for them. Not much work for a server admin if it comes as default and is always on. I can understand the argument that closed groups can deal with their members. But how do they know if they are cheating or not? How do you find out about that if you don't use BattlEye and signature checking? You will notice in-game if someone is firing missiles out of his chest, sure... but I think that is not even close to being very useful cheating if one wants to win with unfair play. The good, useful cheating is something you are not going to notice without the help of anti-cheat tools.

And sig-checking is definitely not something that should be forced. It's whole point could be defeated anyway if an untrustworthy person managed to get their key to be accepted on the server.

It would be a pain for modders who are testing their work, for example it would extra work and delays for a work-in-progress mod like ACE if every single update had to be signed for MP testing by the person trusted to sign it.

I can see how it can be an extra burden, but I think that the pros far outwheigh the cons.

You could maybe set up some automated process to deal with the signing. And maybe also do the same for "upload to server". To reduce the manual work that has to be done to get signed addons to servers.

And both sig-checking and BattlEye do not provide much protection if used on their own, they need to be used together for decent protection.

Yes, that's why I think BIS should consider just forcing them to be on always.

[Maddmatt 1]

Some groups who trust their members simply don't want to use anti-cheats. They feel they don't need to set up protection like that.

Well, BIS can set it up for them. Not much work for a server admin if it comes as default and is always on. I can understand the argument that closed groups can deal with their members. But how do they know if they are cheating or not? How do you find out about that if you don't use BattlEye and signature checking? You will notice in-game if someone is firing missiles out of his chest, sure... but I think that is not even close to being very useful cheating if one wants to win with unfair play. The good, useful cheating is something you are not going to notice without the help of anti-cheat tools.

Not everyone cares about all that. No reason to force them to use tools that they don't want to use.

Cheating is a problem that mainly occurs on public servers.

Sure it is fine if it is on by default. But that makes no real difference.

Quote[/b] ]

I can see how it can be an extra burden, but I think that the pros far outwheigh the cons.

You could maybe set up some automated process to deal with the signing. And maybe also do the same for "upload to server". To reduce the manual work that has to be done to get signed addons to servers.

Not only is that creating extra unnecessary work, but it is an unnecessary security risk too with anything that gets uploaded to the server being signed.

There is no good reason to have to go through that for a private test server

Quote[/b] ]

Yes, that's why I think BIS should consider just forcing them to be on always.

No. That is why server owners/admins need to be properly informed so they can turn them both on or off.

I hate cheaters too, but if someone does not want to use these tools on their server then it is none of our business.

If you do not own a server, then it is not for you to decide how it is set up.

There are enough servers with BattlEye and sig checking for us to enjoy anyway.

And if a server owner wants to allow all kinds of mods and stuff on their server, who are we to stop them?

Quote[/b] ]I think that the pros far outwheigh the cons.

I don't see any real pros to forcing them on as opposed to leaving them optional. Only cons.

Enough servers use them. It's easy enough to avoid the ones that don't.

[baddo 0]

A good middle road could be to enable them by default but allow you to go and disable them.

The server admins who don't either know or don't care or are too lazy to do anything about them would have them enabled by default.

This way you could still have your way and the overall situation on public servers could improve.

[.kju 3239]

Right Baddo - definitely the way to go for A2.

[Guest]

I'll add some major issues ive been having

I *think* these are due to battleye

Almost every one of my modding resource addons are causing me to get ejected from servers.

6thSenseEu, Map_Misc from mapfact, and a flag addon I have from ofp.

Im not exactly sure whats going on here, but there are alot of servers I cant even join, because my addons are not 'signed' in their server.

I dont get it, so our addon folder cant hold any addons a server does not have 'signed' without eject?

Something must be wrong here, as Arma continues forward, addons volume is only increasing, how are we supposed to use all these addons for both modding and gaming, if they cause ejects from servers.

[$able 2]

@Baddo: BattlEye is already enabled by default.

@Special Ed: Signature checking is done by ArmA, not by BattlEye.

[Maddmatt 1]

I dont get it, so our addon folder cant hold any addons a server does not have 'signed' without eject?

Pretty much.

Use mod folders to keep things organised. Unlike in OFP, an addon can modify just about anything in the game so the server can't just allow unknown addons.