Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Won't Ashes have the same incentive structure then? Just get big guilds with bots in their nodes and they can guard for them. Why would Intrepid want to come down hard on their big guilds?
So the only thing that kernel level anticheat stops is what, addons? Pretty steep price to pay to try and combat addons. I've always thought that rule was a lost cause TBH, practically unenforceable.
Potentially.
Realistically, it is up to us players to ensure developers work to keep bots out of their games - and the way we do that is by not playing games that have botters, making sure to tell developers that is the sole reason we are leaving.
Where Ashes "may" have a point of difference in this regard is in not being publically traded. It means the developers answer to Steven, not shareholders. Shareholders want money, and so want bots dealt with in the way that makes them the most money. If Steven wants a bot free game, then it is up to Intrepid to make a bot free game.
As to EAC only really being useful for stopping addons - I know it won't stop my combat tracker, but it also won't stop anything running on MSI's MEG 321URX.
The only real effect EAC has is that it makes some people feel as if they developer is trying. It's effectively a placebo in the eyes of anyone competent and also wanting to play the game in a way that isn't strictly within the TOS.
so if its client side, its even easier to crack...
nothing client side is secure.
So you will install EAC.
If I was using that computer for work or finances, there is no way in hell EAC would be installed on it.
Makes sense. All who plan to upgrade their PC should do the same and keep the old PC running, separated from gaming software and anything they do not trust.
Players who payed for Alpha 2 maybe can afford 2 computers.
At the official release subscribers will have to decide if they play AoC or not, and any of the other games using such protections.
https://levvvel.com/games-with-kernel-level-anti-cheat-software/
I see Intrepid is already on the EAC list there.
Seems like this is something that should be brought up in this month's Q&A. See if we can get an official answer on it.
I am excited about the engagement Dulcibel's post is receiving. Thanks for being a part of the conversation. Sorry about the late response; I have been busy with final exams. I will respond to a few points in this comment. I'm new to the forums, so please be patient if my formatting could be better. I apologize and will learn from my mistakes.
You are striking at the heart of an essential issue here: maybe it should. But it likely would not today because you would have consented to install the software.
This is a great point and also strikes at the problem's heart. While this was already answered effectively, I'll dive deeper for anyone who cares to read into it. Anti-cheat is a technical topic and, hence, is not easy to understand if you are not a technical person. I think that the industry is probably (intentionally) obfuscating the invasion of end-user privacy under the guise of "something... something... eradicating cheaters to save you" and "something... something... that you have nothing to worry about if you aren't a cheater yourself!" In my opinion, it is akin to a police officer having no probable cause to search your home, but you nevertheless consent because "you have nothing to hide, right?" But I digress. To your question, I will do my best to provide a straightforward definition of "kernel-level anti-cheat," but first, let's break down the startup process.
The startup process of a computer involves a few steps:
1. Power on Self Test (POST): When you turn on your computer, the basic input/output system (BIOS) or the newer Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) initiates the POST, a diagnostic test to ensure that the hardware components are functioning properly.
2. Boot Loader: After the POST, the BIOS or UEFI locates and loads the boot loader. The boot loader is responsible for loading the operating system into memory.
3. Operating System Kernel: Once the boot loader finishes its job, it transfers control to the operating system kernel. The kernel is the core component of the operating system and is responsible for managing system resources and providing essential services to user applications.
4. User Mode: After the kernel initializes, it launches user-mode processes and applications. In user mode, applications run with limited access to system resources and are isolated from each other for security reasons.
Now, let's discuss how different anti-cheat methods fit into this framework, from least privileged access to most privileged access as it pertains to end-user privacy:
A. User-Mode Anti-Cheat: User-mode anti-cheat software operates within the user space of the operating system. It monitors the behavior of applications and processes running in user mode to detect cheating activities, such as unauthorized modifications to game files or memory.
This type of anti-cheat software typically employs various techniques such as code injection, DLL (Dynamic Link Library) scanning, and heuristic analysis to detect cheating behavior. However, since it operates in user mode, it's inherently limited in preventing cheating at a deeper level.
B. Kernel-Level Anti-Cheat: Kernel-level anti-cheat software operates within the kernel space, giving it deeper access to system resources and processes. This allows it to monitor and intercept system calls, memory access, and other low-level operations to detect and prevent cheating more effectively.
Kernel-level anti-cheat solutions can implement techniques like driver-based hooks, system call interception, and kernel-mode code injection to detect and block cheating attempts that may bypass user-mode anti-cheat measures.
C. Secure Boot Anti-Cheat: Secure Boot is a feature provided by UEFI firmware to ensure that only trusted operating system components are loaded during the startup process. It verifies the digital signatures of bootloader and kernel files to prevent unauthorized or tampered code loading.
While not directly an anti-cheat mechanism, Secure Boot indirectly contributes to cheat prevention by ensuring the integrity of the operating system and its components. Requiring users to enable Secure Boot prevents unauthorized modifications to the boot process, making it more difficult for cheaters to inject malicious code or modify game files at the bootloader or kernel level.
Comparison:
(a) User-mode anti-cheat primarily focuses on monitoring and detecting cheating activities within user-space applications.
(b) Kernel-level anti-cheat operates at a deeper level within the operating system, allowing it to detect and prevent cheating attempts that may bypass user-mode anti-cheat measures.
(c) Secure Boot enhances system integrity by ensuring that only trusted components are loaded during the boot process, indirectly contributing to cheat prevention by preventing unauthorized modifications to the system.
Something worth noting here is while the industry standard used to be to implement anti-cheat at the user-mode level, over time, hackers have thwarted these defenses because the hackers learn how to run their "cheats" at a higher privilege level than the anti-cheat is running at. In reality, this is the nature of the cyber threat landscape. And it always will be. That is why the developers want to get consent from the end-user to place their defenses at a more privileged/deeper level of access to the system to run in spaces of the machine that are deeper/behind/more privileged than where the cheats would be running at. The problem becomes, by nature of cyber warfare, that the hackers eventually thwart the defense. With enough time, this is always the case, and no data is evincing otherwise. This is one reason the technologies you use every day regularly update: to patch the constant threats to its security. I digress... again.
To the point, why do we care? Well, that's because, one day, user-level anti-cheat became no longer effective at preventing cheaters. Some day after that, kernel-level anti-cheat, as explained here, will (has) become increasingly ineffective at preventing cheaters. So, now, the industry standard aims to make use of the Secure Boot setting, like Riot's Vanguard does on VALORANT (they elected not to require users be running their system in Secure Boot for League of Legends due to the older hardware that comprises its userbase and compatibility issues). To be clear, Secure Boot has even deeper access that sees past the kernel. To my knowledge, Easy Anti-Cheat has a Secure Boot requirement. This is at least what I have surmised from player discussions on Steam and whatnot for games that use EAC. If anyone has any information on this (maybe @Dulcibel can learn more insider knowledge from another conversation with support staff
...this is a UEFI level solution. The question becomes, what would be the next secure step to take when the firmware level anti-cheat inevitably (by nature) fails? I imagine it'd be an "Ashes Box" of sorts, i.e., some console running an OS proprietary to Intrepid. Or maybe we could all play on Local Area Networks at Intrepid-sponsored Internet cafes. I'm not being sarcastic–these would be the next logical solutions Intrepid could take to secure their game by completely controlling the environment in which it runs. In fact, these are the two only solutions I can think of, and that is if the industry standard keeps employing solutions that aim to delve increasingly deeper into end-users' private systems to secure their games. I actually would quite prefer having to buy an "Intrepid Deck" over the idea of having to purchase a new "throwaway" PC to install Ashes on (as not to download the Easy Anti-Cheat on my "main" PC). To be clear, I would not do that because I would not play a game that employed such a privileged level of anti-cheat software, but I like to think a substantial portion of players would feel forced into making that choice. Really, what is the difference in saving players the $1,000 to build a PC when they could buy a $400 Ashes Console? At this point, I'm speculating and ranting. I have a lot to say, but I will hop off my soapbox now and look forward to hearing what you think and researching some of the proffered alternatives, like the one below:
that's some serious long form copywriting to advertise that website. i wonder if that is lucibel's second account hmm.
anyways, imagine you use the solution provided by them, but on day one you start botting...so the behavioral profile will be of the bot since day one and the software will have no way of knowing since there wont even be switching from bot to human. gg
This is a valid point - but you need to also factor in the notion that the bot you are using can't be readily available on the internet at all.
If a developer can get hold of a bot, they can work out how to detect it - if they care to do so.
To be clear, I am not advertising that website, and @Dulcibel did not advertise that website either. To clear up any future confusion, we are merely acknowledging @leamese comment, bringing an alternative solution to our attention. While I can appreciate its concern, this thread's obsession with @Dulcibel "second account" is misplaced. I think it more productive to address the substance of the discussion rather than make arguments ad hominem.
― Plato
Indeed.
The main reason I can see for an MMORPG to want to use EAC specifically is that it is reasonably effective at preventing people running two instances of the game client on one computer.
With Ashes already having had a community vote that said multi-boxing was something we were generally willing to accept though, I don't see a need for that at all in Ashes.
The question fundamentally is whether Intrepid is willing to take part in this crazy cat-and-mouse game. I think having good GM staffing and server-based detection would go a long way in comparison to what's become the industry standard for games where it's a lot more possible to be subtle due to their faster pace.
Bring back dedicated GM staffing that plays alongside the players!!!
This was never effective as a means of anti-cheat, and in most games it wasn't their primary function.
Someone on the server as a character may see a player cheating and ban them. Someone working behind the scenes would be looking for signs of a given cheat, and then will sweep up and ban 10,000 players at once.
If given the choice, I'd rather all staff working on preventing cheating work behind the scenes.
Good point. And that is why I am here—to show Intrepid at least one player cares enough to leave the game.
@Dulcibel @WolfonBail
Have you asked in the Q&A thread?
Date: 2024.06.26
Signature: Tryol🦆
New on Backdoor PC Slots 9: Tryol!
I agree with you in principle. The problem is, that cheaters run wild with this. If you see games like Warzone, Battlefield etc, the cheaters are absolutely ruin games. Even though Activision sued Owning Engine, and won the case, they are still going. So I see what your saying, but I think anti cheat needs to be hardcore and aggressive, to actually work.
As a bridge solution, till there is some sort of way to effectively stop cheaters without giveing anticheat access to your computer, you could set up servers, where people could choose themselves.
Say in Warzone or PUBG, where the cheating is off the chain, you could set up servers, where you have to have the aggressive anti cheat installed to play on them. If you dont want to, you can join servers with "regular" anti cheat measures.
It can help - I think, to set up confirmation on things you buy and stuff, on your phone. So its not too easy to abuse your info.
What needs to happen in order to keep cheating out of your game is for the developer/publisher of that game needs to care more about the experience of their players than the bottom line (or, more specifically, care about their bottom line via wanting people to have great gaming experiences).
EA doesn't care about that. They don't care about the experience their players have with their games.
They knew about OE years before they did anything about it, even though it was never that hard for them to do something about. Game developers like EA look at frustrations in their games as being motivators for players to play more, or to pay more.
In fact, due to comments made two years before it's release, there is an argument that Tarkov is basically a scam game built around this notion, they want their players constantly frustrated so that they come back to "get revenge" or what ever.
There is a reason Tarkov (and EA) don't do much about blatant cheating in their games - or at least don't do anything in a timely manner.
Its fine to disagree. But how is caring more about your player going to stop people from cheating? Reason with them? I would argu, makimng the experience better, would attract more cheaters.
I've been following the conversation about kernel-level anti-cheat solutions, and I share many of the concerns being raised. Intrepid confirmed they'll be using Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC), which runs at the kernel level.
While this might help catch more cheaters, it also opens up significant risks to our privacy and system security.
There are a few things Intrepid could do to address these concerns:
- Be more transparent about why they've chosen EAC and how they'll protect our data. Regular updates could help build trust.
- Implement less intrusive anti-cheat measures alongside EAC. Server-side monitoring and real-time GM interventions could be effective without needing such deep system access.
-
- Regular third-party security audits and encouraging white-hat hackers to test their systems could catch vulnerabilities early.
- Giving users control to disable certain features of the anti-cheat when not playing the game might ease privacy concerns.
- Ensuring compliance with data protection regulations and making clear legal commitments about data handling can reassure us about our privacy.
While kernel-level anti-cheat can be robust, it's not foolproof. A mix of behavioral analysis, machine learning detection, and server-side checks, combined with active GM monitoring, might strike a better balance between security and privacy.
That said, I'll be playing the game anyway. I understand it's tough to find the perfect solution, but hopefully, Intrepid can address some of these concerns to make it a bit safer for all of us.
The reason cheating in those games you are talking about was so rampant was because the people that could have done something about it simply didn't care. It was never a case of not being able to do anything - that is an absolute falacy.
The amount of cheating in any given game is a direct result of how much the developer of that game cares about it's players. There are no other factors.
Well bro time to sell your account. I am all about deter cheaters from playing video games. Thats what makes sick.
No one is suggesting not preventing cheating in Ashes - the suggestion is to do it in better, non-intrusive ways.
Also, selling your account is as bad as cheating - it is against the ToS. Suggesting that you think other people should break the ToS because you don't want them to break the ToS is kind of self defeating.
Simple not true. The devs care highly about cheaters in their games, its what puts butter on the bread. What your saying is, that you can stop all cheating, if you just care enough, without using kernel level security. Obviously, better anti cheats are being developed, because they cant stop cheaters. Companies like Engine Owning is professional cheat makers, they make millions. They keep bypassing anti cheats. Every time they make a better cheat, they update it to bypass that. Your telling me, this cat and mouse game can be completely avoided? Well then, if you got the solution, you can make millions. Get on it!
Imagine you are EA's CEO. Your only responsibility is to your shareholders. If you do not make them enough money, you get fired. If you do make them enough money, they give you a multi-million dollar bonus.
Now imagine someone comes to you saying there is cheating in one of your games, and they want you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that would otherwise go to the above shareholders, and the result of this is less people playing the game, meaning less subscription money to go to those above shareholders.
Explain to me the reason that you - as EA CEO - would give the go-ahead for this. You are littlerally spending money so that you can make less money. It is self defeating behavior.
You seem to be stuck on some ideal that developers automatically want to do away with cheating in their games. This is not a given. The point of game develoeprs is to make money, if people are not leaving their game due to cheating, they have no incentive to do anything about it.
Keep in mind, both industry experience and research suggests that people that are frustrated in game tend to do one of a two things - they either pay money to get past that frustration or they spend more time in game to get past that frustration (sometimes after a break). There is very little evidence that players in any significant number quit a game once presented with a frustration.
Cheaters are a frustration.
So, to game developers (ones like EA, specifically), cheaters in their game are catalysts for people to either spend money if the game has any sort of pay-to-win element, or to spend more time in the game.
The TL:DR here is that a company like EA looks at cheaters as being generally good for business - up to a point.