Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | not_a9's commentslogin

Always a treat to see these people’s articles. Game hacking is wild - though in this case, wouldn’t enforcement of Secure Boot do the trick?

There are a number of Microsoft-signed drivers that have vulnerabilities in them that can be exploited allowing kernel-level access (memory read/write primitives, etc.) - they would load fine under Secure Boot - and, indeed, malware already has exploited this before.

This does make cheating harder, and does make it a cat-and-mouse game where signatures are revoked and they move on to a new driver, but the fact of the matter is - there are a ton of drivers out there and some of them will always be vulnerable in some way. To this end, I think focusing on client-side anti-cheat at all is a lost cause.


From the conclusion

> Importantly, this work also highlights the defensive implications of such techniques. While Secure Boot and firmware integrity mechanisms would prevent this attack chain when correctly enforced, the explicit requirement for users to disable Secure Boot demonstrates how social and usability tradeoffs continue to undermine otherwise effective platform defenses.


Valorant and Battlefield 6 does require secure boot and they do not sell their cheat for those games. Though there are still cheats available for those games, in particular using DMA hardware.

You connect the DMA PCIe card to a laptop/pc with USB, then it can read any memory on the game PC and display a radar on the laptop screen. They even sell mouse and hdmi/dp mergers, these allow the laptop to show an ESP overlay over your game and aimbotting by sending mouse inputs.


I am aware, but thank you. However, DMA seems to still be far from making your cheat invincible against anticheats.

I got a refund for battlefield 6 after finding out it requires secure boot (the error was not helpful in figuring that out though).

MSVC?

Reminder the company had to spend time and money to get an EV cert and endured Microsoft’s nine circles of driver signing hell to ship this beauty.

Meanwhile they could have used EAC for free (with weaker protection than Rust/Apex/Fortnite, mind you, but still) which would both provide better game security and not be a vulnerable driver (until proven otherwise - and I’m not seeing a lot of proof despite any anticheat driver being reverse engineer targeted to hell and back)


Anticheat has very different requirements to antimalware.

Some interesting reads on what modern anticheats do:

https://github.com/0avx/0avx.github.io/blob/main/article-3.m...

https://github.com/0avx/0avx.github.io/blob/main/article-5.m...

https://reversing.info/posts/guardedregions/

https://game-research.github.io/ (less in detail and less IDA pseudo)


Idle curiosity, but: does Linux have similar offerings to HVCI?


I don’t think Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk 2077 have Linux builds available for the common folk? Cyberpunk has a ARM64 Mac build, though.


Huh, I could have sworn Witcher 3 did, but maybe I am misremembering it merely releasing without DRM.


Witcher 2 had a Linux native build, but never Witcher 3.


> We all know they are inefficient and weaponized by hackers.

Name an exploit in EAC/BattlEye/Vanguard/FaceIT/whatever other big name anticheat middleware (though Vanguard and FaceIT don’t sell their services I think) that has actually been used for anything.

Genshin Impact’s driver got used as a vulnerable driver that one time, yeah. EAC had an exploit to inject your own code into processes, but that quickly got patched (https://blog.back.engineering/10/08/2021/).


ESEA's anticheat was used to mine Bitcoin on the players' computers. They are/were a major competitor of FaceIt. They supposedly had to pay a $1 million settlement over it.

So not an exploit, but even worse.


Well, I read HN. I did stop counting.

Unless you beleive in the conspiracy of AI generated news on HN.

You are the same type of guys who is going to try to sell 'computer security' as a deliverable, thing which does not exist.

Please, stop that.


> because Epic has chosen not to support Linux

Because Epic doesn’t want payhack configs to be advertised in whatever leaderboards Fortnite has, like CS2 had for a while.


Fortnite is easy to run in a hypervisor and also cheaters are using hardware DMA to cheat these days anyway. The proposition that Linux enables more cheating relative to Windows is unproven.


Fun fact: LuaJIT FFI actually has a similar feature. You can do funky things like detour hooking with this functionality too.

https://luajit.org/ext_ffi_semantics.html


Pretty sure HvH is still alive and well in CS2 and high rank Premier is still basically Valve-hosted HvH.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: