An anti-cheat idea
Hello all,
I've had this idea for a while, and I think that it is viable. This could lead to quicker, more efficient banning of proven hackers, with evidence!
Basically, what the feature would do is take a screenshot of the player's screen, randomly, when they are playing. This screenshot would be uploaded directly to a crossfire server database for review by GMs. If the screenshot shows mysteriously coloured figures showing up through walls, player banned. That took about 15 seconds to confirm, rather than 10 minutes or so watching a replay. Obviously this would not catch every cheater in crossfire, but it definitely would catch some, and it would make a part of the GMs job a lot easier. As far as I know, this feature is not currently available in crossfire.
The screenshot requests could be random, but they might also be weighted (i.e. if a player's k/d ratio is 10, it is more likely that a s/s request would be submitted). As we know, the crossfire servers are never full, so it wouldn't be too hard to send the s/s to a connection on a lesser-used server (Delta-7?). Additionally, the s/s's could be compressed to JPEG, and reduced in resolution in order to save space. The GMs would be able to thumb through them more quickly than replays, and thus, they would be able to remove them from the server more quickly.
Known work-arounds:
The player could write a script such that when the request for a s/s is received, a clean, unrelated screenshot is submitted. To combat this, the server could also record the gamestate, and location of each player. That way, if the clean s/s is on Egypt, and the gamestate is recorded as Black Widow, you know the player is bypassing the system.
The player could also toggle his cheats on/off if a request comes through. There should be a limit on the amount of time before a packet confirming screenshot is submitted (say 1 second?). If this is not met, another request should be sent randomly later. Additionally, a notice could be recorded that the player failed to submit a screenshot.
Please let me know what you think of this suggestion, players and GMs. It might be impossible given the crossfire code (I haven't seen the code, obviously), or I might be missing some dumb point that would invalidate this. I hope that this system can be implemented, and will improve the game.
I've had this idea for a while, and I think that it is viable. This could lead to quicker, more efficient banning of proven hackers, with evidence!
Basically, what the feature would do is take a screenshot of the player's screen, randomly, when they are playing. This screenshot would be uploaded directly to a crossfire server database for review by GMs. If the screenshot shows mysteriously coloured figures showing up through walls, player banned. That took about 15 seconds to confirm, rather than 10 minutes or so watching a replay. Obviously this would not catch every cheater in crossfire, but it definitely would catch some, and it would make a part of the GMs job a lot easier. As far as I know, this feature is not currently available in crossfire.
The screenshot requests could be random, but they might also be weighted (i.e. if a player's k/d ratio is 10, it is more likely that a s/s request would be submitted). As we know, the crossfire servers are never full, so it wouldn't be too hard to send the s/s to a connection on a lesser-used server (Delta-7?). Additionally, the s/s's could be compressed to JPEG, and reduced in resolution in order to save space. The GMs would be able to thumb through them more quickly than replays, and thus, they would be able to remove them from the server more quickly.
Known work-arounds:
The player could write a script such that when the request for a s/s is received, a clean, unrelated screenshot is submitted. To combat this, the server could also record the gamestate, and location of each player. That way, if the clean s/s is on Egypt, and the gamestate is recorded as Black Widow, you know the player is bypassing the system.
The player could also toggle his cheats on/off if a request comes through. There should be a limit on the amount of time before a packet confirming screenshot is submitted (say 1 second?). If this is not met, another request should be sent randomly later. Additionally, a notice could be recorded that the player failed to submit a screenshot.
Please let me know what you think of this suggestion, players and GMs. It might be impossible given the crossfire code (I haven't seen the code, obviously), or I might be missing some dumb point that would invalidate this. I hope that this system can be implemented, and will improve the game.
Comments
-
-
good idea, but the gm's won't ban them, mostly due to zp, but they don't give a **** anymore about this gameHello all,
I've had this idea for a while, and I think that it is viable. This could lead to quicker, more efficient banning of proven hackers, with evidence!
Basically, what the feature would do is take a screenshot of the player's screen, randomly, when they are playing. This screenshot would be uploaded directly to a crossfire server database for review by GMs. If the screenshot shows mysteriously coloured figures showing up through walls, player banned. That took about 15 seconds to confirm, rather than 10 minutes or so watching a replay. Obviously this would not catch every cheater in crossfire, but it definitely would catch some, and it would make a part of the GMs job a lot easier. As far as I know, this feature is not currently available in crossfire.
The screenshot requests could be random, but they might also be weighted (i.e. if a player's k/d ratio is 10, it is more likely that a s/s request would be submitted). As we know, the crossfire servers are never full, so it wouldn't be too hard to send the s/s to a connection on a lesser-used server (Delta-7?). Additionally, the s/s's could be compressed to JPEG, and reduced in resolution in order to save space. The GMs would be able to thumb through them more quickly than replays, and thus, they would be able to remove them from the server more quickly.
Known work-arounds:
The player could write a script such that when the request for a s/s is received, a clean, unrelated screenshot is submitted. To combat this, the server could also record the gamestate, and location of each player. That way, if the clean s/s is on Egypt, and the gamestate is recorded as Black Widow, you know the player is bypassing the system.
The player could also toggle his cheats on/off if a request comes through. There should be a limit on the amount of time before a packet confirming screenshot is submitted (say 1 second?). If this is not met, another request should be sent randomly later. Additionally, a notice could be recorded that the player failed to submit a screenshot.
Please let me know what you think of this suggestion, players and GMs. It might be impossible given the crossfire code (I haven't seen the code, obviously), or I might be missing some dumb point that would invalidate this. I hope that this system can be implemented, and will improve the game. -
Splaterson wrote: »this is a good idea... but having hundreds or even thousands of screenshots coming through every minute or so would probs overload the servers... im not sure how powerful they are.and also the screenshots would need to come from the client...
Theoretically, they would limit the number of screenshots submitted per game, in order to reduce the server overheard. For example, if they limited it to 1 screenshot per round per game, then that would be 1 screenshot every 2 minutes per game. If there are 50 games in a server, that results in a maximum of 1500 screenshots per hour (they could modify this number, of course). If each JPEG is compressed to 680x800, or about 100k per screenshot, then we have 150 MB per hours uploaded per channel per hour. Again, these would be pretty high numbers.
The screenshots would indeed need to come from the client, there would be a function incorporated into the game where, when a s/s request is received, the game client takes a screenshot of the crossfire window, compresses it, and uploads it to the server. A few actions would take place if there were exceptions.good idea, but the gm's won't ban them, mostly due to zp, but they don't give a **** anymore about this game
That's a rather pessimistic point of view. I'm just trying to share an idea that I thought would prove useful for improving game quality. I certainly hope the moderators are banning all players equally, even those who spend money on the game, as cheating is cheating.
A few other things I thought of:
But what about privacy?
There may need to be a clause in the privacy policy that permits Z8 to take these screenshots for the purposes of anti-cheat. I can't imagine any legitimate player who would object. The screenshots would need to be just of the crossfire window, so that Z8 games is not obtaining any information about the user that they are not entitled to (think of windowed crossfire with a whole-screen screenshot).
Could users control the s/s submission?
This could be a possibility. There might be an option next to the vote kick option saying "submit screenshot", and you would choose a player. This would then record a screenshot of that player as described earlier. Each player would need to be limited to making (and receiving?) one or two requests per game to limit the overhead. This would probably result in more accurate results than a random function, but it would, of course, result in the screenshot submission of many good players.
Any more contributions are welcome. -
the anti hack Should be like CSS if is Detected auto ban
You mean, like pixel detection algorithm that checks for 255 0 0, 0 255 0, and 0 0 255 (R, G,
? That seems like it might be kind of tough, and could be error-prone. I don't know how CSS does it though.Punk Buster much?:rolleyes:
Punkbuster did have something similar, but it worked, so what's the problem? Presumably it wouldn't be that tough to implement, and there's no copyright on screenshots. -
You mean, like pixel detection algorithm that checks for 255 0 0, 0 255 0, and 0 0 255 (R, G,? That seems like it might be kind of tough, and could be error-prone. I don't know how CSS does it though.
Punkbuster did have something similar, but it worked, so what's the problem? Presumably it wouldn't be that tough to implement, and there's no copyright on screenshots.
I guess you are taking this idea from AA dont you? -
aslong as it dosent make us lag like hell
to begin with there are almost no cheaters annymore im not gona say there are non at all but i havent seen one in ages so great job on them patches , Now we only have to get rit of the false acusing of hacking and the constand crashing and we can all enjoy the game .
special thanks to all the pll that went true the troubel of saving and sending in replays rather then screaming cheater everytime they get killed, cos getting host and vote kickt every 10 min for being good is very annmoying, we gota make our points to and it be easyer if we can just keep playing without being falsly acused of cheating .. -
ur pathetic dude... and u left ur own thread becuz Fallen showed up and ur too scared to do anything about it nowgood idea, but the gm's won't ban them, mostly due to zp, but they don't give a **** anymore about this game
Man stop posting... or i hope they knock u down to theif or wutever -
I guess you are taking this idea from AA dont you?
I used to play Call of Duty. Remember seeing s/ses of people with yellow blobs showing through walls, and LOLing at their permanent ban.aslong as it dosent make us lag like hell
to begin with there are almost no cheaters annymore im not gona say there are non at all but i havent seen one in ages so great job on them patches , Now we only have to get rit of the false acusing of hacking and the constand crashing and we can all enjoy the game .
special thanks to all the pll that went true the troubel of saving and sending in replays rather then screaming cheater everytime they get killed, cos getting host and vote kickt every 10 min for being good is very annmoying, we gota make our points to and it be easyer if we can just keep playing without being falsly acused of cheating ..
I dunno, it's hard to tell how many there are, but I just now reported someone for blatantly hacking, so I thought I would suggest this. I'm not sure if it will stop the hackusations (thats more of a community problem), but it will ban some of the more blatant cheaters. As far as the lag is concerned, 3 screenshots per game, if it spikes your lag, it will be 3 different times for about 5 seconds. It's up to you to decide if you would prefer to suffer 3 little lag spikes, or deal with the situation as is. -
I used to play Call of Duty. Remember seeing s/ses of people with yellow blobs showing through walls, and LOLing at their permanent ban.
I dunno, it's hard to tell how many there are, but I just now reported someone for blatantly hacking, so I thought I would suggest this. I'm not sure if it will stop the hackusations (thats more of a community problem), but it will ban some of the more blatant cheaters. As far as the lag is concerned, 3 screenshots per game, if it spikes your lag, it will be 3 different times for about 5 seconds. It's up to you to decide if you would prefer to suffer 3 little lag spikes, or deal with the situation as is.
Well AA has dedicated serves and CF don't. I don't know about COD since I have never played it online. -
Well AA has dedicated serves and CF don't. I don't know about COD since I have never played it online.
That's true, I believe COD had dedicated servers too. However, when's the last time you saw more than 1 channel in Charlie or Delta full? Or better yet, anyone in a channel other than 1 or 2 of Beta Clan Server. My point is that CF uses nowhere near all of its server capacity, that combined with measures to reduce the dataflow overhead would make this a pretty viable option.SideEff3cts wrote: »Amazing idea.. Wow.
Thank you sir. (I hope that's not sarcasm?) -
That's true, I believe COD had dedicated servers too. However, when's the last time you saw more than 1 channel in Charlie or Delta full? Or better yet, anyone in a channel other than 1 or 2 of Beta Clan Server. My point is that CF uses nowhere near all of its server capacity, that combined with measures to reduce the dataflow overhead would make this a pretty viable option.
Thank you sir. (I hope that's not sarcasm?)
What about Alpha and Bravo servers? When I'm able to play (on weekends), Alpha is alwas almost full and Bravo has few nearly full channels. Lets say that each channel has 20 matches, and there are 12 players at least in each match. 20 x 12 = 240, 240 players in alpha, now add the players in Bravo and the other servers.
In AA, one subject is able to have over 8 screenshots per match. Let's assume that in CF will be 5 per player. 240 x 5 = 1200. So there are 1200 screenshots that the [GM]s and may be the [MOD]s will have to review just to patrol only the Alpha server, in one day.
I dont see this idea working, IMO. -
What about Alpha and Bravo servers? When I'm able to play (on weekends), Alpha is alwas almost full and Bravo has few nearly full channels. Lets say that each channel has 20 matches, and there are 12 players at least in each match. 20 x 12 = 240, 240 players in alpha, now add the players in Bravo and the other servers.
In AA, one subject is able to have over 8 screenshots per match. Let's assume that in CF will be 5 per player. 240 x 5 = 1200. So there are 1200 screenshots that the [GM]s and may be the [MOD]s will have to review just to patrol only the Alpha server, in one day.
I dont see this idea working, IMO.
That's why I suggested fewer screenshots. It would be something that can be controlled based on how much work the mods have. The beauty is that hackers are dumb, they don't just go in and cheat in one game, they will cheat in ten games in a row. That's why, if you only take 5 screenshots per game, if you weight the probability of a screenshot to the players with higher scores, then it is almost certain that a hacker will have a screenshot after 10 or so games. At 5 s/ses per game, and 3 games per hour, with 50 games per server, that makes 5 * 3 * 50 = 750 screenshots per channel per hour. It is still a ton, and in fact, it might need to be brought down to 1 s/s per game, or even just 100 s/s per hour per server.
It's all a matter of how you choose the screenshot times. For example, if a player has a score of 20-0 in S&D, screenshot him. If someone has 0 kills, don't screenshot of course. The idea is to have the server intelligently pick players to s/s. The Mods would be able to limit the number of screenshots coming in. I agree with your point that it is a lot of data to go over, which is why the goal would be to screenshot more for suspicious players.
Another nice feature would be to flag screenshots that have abnormal colours. If you have seen any of those cheating youtube videos, you might notice that most of them outline the players in a bright colour, whereas the environment consists of softer colours. If you flag screenshots with an excessive amount of bright colour (this would be done server-side), then it could make it even easier to thumb through the screenshots. -
That's why I suggested fewer screenshots. It would be something that can be controlled based on how much work the mods have. The beauty is that hackers are dumb, they don't just go in and cheat in one game, they will cheat in ten games in a row. That's why, if you only take 5 screenshots per game, if you weight the probability of a screenshot to the players with higher scores, then it is almost certain that a hacker will have a screenshot after 10 or so games. At 5 s/ses per game, and 3 games per hour, with 50 games per server, that makes 5 * 3 * 50 = 750 screenshots per channel per hour. It is still a ton, and in fact, it might need to be brought down to 1 s/s per game, or even just 100 s/s per hour per server.
It's all a matter of how you choose the screenshot times. For example, if a player has a score of 20-0 in S&D, screenshot him. If someone has 0 kills, don't screenshot of course. The idea is to have the server intelligently pick players to s/s. The Mods would be able to limit the number of screenshots coming in. I agree with your point that it is a lot of data to go over, which is why the goal would be to screenshot more for suspicious players.
Another nice feature would be to flag screenshots that have abnormal colours. If you have seen any of those cheating youtube videos, you might notice that most of them outline the players in a bright colour, whereas the environment consists of softer colours. If you flag screenshots with an excessive amount of bright colour (this would be done server-side), then it could make it even easier to thumb through the screenshots.
Just some details that I forgot to edit. It will be 240 players in one channel.
Another downside of this idea, is that is would only work for chams,wallhacks and full bright hacks. Not for aimbot. -
Hello all,
I've had this idea for a while, and I think that it is viable. This could lead to quicker, more efficient banning of proven hackers, with evidence!
Basically, what the feature would do is take a screenshot of the player's screen, randomly, when they are playing. This screenshot would be uploaded directly to a crossfire server database for review by GMs. If the screenshot shows mysteriously coloured figures showing up through walls, player banned. That took about 15 seconds to confirm, rather than 10 minutes or so watching a replay. Obviously this would not catch every cheater in crossfire, but it definitely would catch some, and it would make a part of the GMs job a lot easier. As far as I know, this feature is not currently available in crossfire.
The screenshot requests could be random, but they might also be weighted (i.e. if a player's k/d ratio is 10, it is more likely that a s/s request would be submitted). As we know, the crossfire servers are never full, so it wouldn't be too hard to send the s/s to a connection on a lesser-used server (Delta-7?). Additionally, the s/s's could be compressed to JPEG, and reduced in resolution in order to save space. The GMs would be able to thumb through them more quickly than replays, and thus, they would be able to remove them from the server more quickly.
Known work-arounds:
The player could write a script such that when the request for a s/s is received, a clean, unrelated screenshot is submitted. To combat this, the server could also record the gamestate, and location of each player. That way, if the clean s/s is on Egypt, and the gamestate is recorded as Black Widow, you know the player is bypassing the system.
The player could also toggle his cheats on/off if a request comes through. There should be a limit on the amount of time before a packet confirming screenshot is submitted (say 1 second?). If this is not met, another request should be sent randomly later. Additionally, a notice could be recorded that the player failed to submit a screenshot.
Please let me know what you think of this suggestion, players and GMs. It might be impossible given the crossfire code (I haven't seen the code, obviously), or I might be missing some dumb point that would invalidate this. I hope that this system can be implemented, and will improve the game.
To what you said, theres an anti virus program, such as the one CF uses, that does the same thing.
I would suggest switching anti-virus programs from certain dates planned; reducing the numbers of hackers till they come up with a way to get through, then change it again. Maybe they will give up? -
I think they fixed the coding so that its next to impossible to speed hack.
Aimbots and other such things that are really obvious are just that, really obvious. Not to mention if you aimbot, you probably cham to.
As for the screenshots, taking them randomly might overtax the servers. However, having a built in one that works similar to the votekick, in which each player can request a screenshot from say 2 people (or the same person twice) would be nice. This screenshots could be sent to the server and* saved in the person who requested the screenshot's folder.
One trick to this is to automatically take a picture of what they see, not give them time to toggle.
They would also need to make the screenshots not lag you, or else it could be abused in matches. Currently the screenshots lag you for about three seconds. -
Happy to see there is a fair amount of support for the idea. Again, I reiterate, it would need to be designed to reduce data overhead and lag! Perhaps, only s/s a small portion of the users screen around their crosshairs (as they tend to aim at people thru walls). Yes, this would only work on chammers, but chammers are a large problem these days, and many cheaters use chams combined with other hacks, so they would be easy to ban based on this method.
Hopefully this can make it to the devs for decision at some point!
Any more comments welcome. -
Only a screen shot from players who have high ratio of kills/death could do the job and it could be send only after the end of the game.
Hackers could quit before the end or reduce their ratio but then i don't see why they would want to do that every time they play, since it's pretty boring to quit without results or have a bad kill/death ratio when you can do better. -
A simple solution would to be the automatic ban of a player's account if a "black listed" address was called in crossfire. Black listed address refers to the protocol called when a hack is initiated.
As for the screen shot idea, due to Game Guard's ease, all you would have to do is detect the value of the screen shot command and then whenever it's called, delay it and automatic toggle off or NOP it. -
Just some details that I forgot to edit. It will be 240 players in one channel.
Another downside of this idea, is that is would only work for chams,wallhacks and full bright hacks. Not for aimbot.
An aimbot needs chams to work actually.
Cause it doesn't aim for body parts, it aims for colors. -
SideEff3cts wrote: »An aimbot needs chams to work actually.
Cause it doesn't aim for body parts, it aims for colors.How do you think the crossfire engine detects golden head shots? Same concept. Well coded aimbots don't rely on colors.
He pretty much posted what I was about to say.
![[Rory]](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/17/navatar_3095917.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 951 CrossFire Announcements
- 942 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 600 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 700 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 28 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic