Brilliance, thy name is "hardware bans"

http://www.mpcforum.com/showthread.php?89622-EVERYTHING-about-GUID-Bans-HARDWARE-Bans

Although PB isn't much more effective at detecting hacks it does do one thing better, disable hackers from using other accounts from the same computer.

This in conjunction with a two-strikes system would work great. If every computer is given two strike's then we'd have less players creating fake accounts to bypass their bans.

Looks like we have an expert in the house <.<

Hazarath wrote:Looks like we have an expert in the house <.<

google works wonders, btw this idea came from the EU community.

The same community that wanted to use us as ginni pigs? [idk how to spell guenie] xD

Anyways, yes, a more invasive anticheat would work wonders for CA.

Zirrick wrote:http://www.mpcforum.com/showthread.php?89622-EVERYTHING-about-GUID-Bans-HARDWARE-Bans

Although PB isn't much more effective at detecting hacks it does do one thing better, disable hackers from using other accounts from the same computer.

This in conjunction with a two-strikes system would work great. If every computer is given two strike's then we'd have less players creating fake accounts to bypass their bans.

The only problem I get with these types of Anti Cheats like Punkbuster is that sometimes they run problems with the user when he or she doesn't even have ANY hacks on hers or his computer.

Although this only happens to me on one game, battlefield heroes, the error code hasn't even been fixed yet so if Combat Arms runs into a problem where most of the players get banned because of their computer and not any use of hacks then it'd turn into a very big problem.

Gotron228 wrote:

Zirrick wrote:http://www.mpcforum.com/showthread.php?89622-EVERYTHING-about-GUID-Bans-HARDWARE-Bans

Although PB isn't much more effective at detecting hacks it does do one thing better, disable hackers from using other accounts from the same computer.

This in conjunction with a two-strikes system would work great. If every computer is given two strike's then we'd have less players creating fake accounts to bypass their bans.

The only problem I get with these types of Anti Cheats like Punkbuster is that sometimes they run problems with the user when he or she doesn't even have ANY hacks on hers or his computer.

Although this only happens to me on one game, battlefield heroes, the error code hasn't even been fixed yet so if Combat Arms runs into a problem where most of the players get banned because of their computer and not any use of hacks then it'd turn into a very big problem.

Yeah I get that, but they could/should assign bans like this to hackers in this game. Not necessarily use punkbuster, just make a ban system that sticks. No more 3-4 accounts from the same person just they can have their laughs, and if that account gets framed they can look at a history of where that account is usually logged into. This protects innocent people being hacked, and the rampant hackers we have now. This also punishes higher ups that make new accounts to hack with.

Zirrick wrote:http://www.mpcforum.com/showthread.php?89622-EVERYTHING-about-GUID-Bans-HARDWARE-Bans

Although PB isn't much more effective at detecting hacks it does do one thing better, disable hackers from using other accounts from the same computer.

This in conjunction with a two-strikes system would work great. If every computer is given two strike's then we'd have less players creating fake accounts to bypass their bans.

NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT PUNKBUSTER

I swear, I got banned on 3 different computers on America's Army because of PB. You know why? I WAS USING FIREFOX *facepalm*

I have a everlasting hate for punkbuster, it thinks anything that isn't the game isn't a hack. I'd rather take Valve's anti-cheat.

You see, Hackshield now does a really lame job of preventing hacks.
All it does is get the new hack updates, filter out hacks released before the update. New hacks are released within 24hours of the Hackshield update. So for the rest of the month, Hackshield does nothing to prevent hackers.

Zz.

Nexon should just get a better anticheat

Let's discuss MAC address bans, which to get around, require the change of PHYSICAL parts of your computer. What do you all think?

It sounds good. But how does it work?

But I don't think many CA gamers will approve of this.
I've heard rumours that some people keep alternates to hack on.

Oh jesus D:

If we do this kind of hardware ban, we have to add a 2-3 strike system. 1st strike for hacking is a 2 week ban, 2nd strike for hacking gets the account used to hack banned. 3rd strike for hacking gets that computer locked out of CA, permanently. Of course we'll have to add in a system of checks and balances for this system. But as punishments/chances at redemption this system could be effective.

I didn't advocate the switch to punkbuster, just the way the ban-system/ban-types punkbuster uses.

Zirrick wrote:If we do this kind of hardware ban, we have to add a 2-3 strike system. 1st strike for hacking is a 2 week ban, 2nd strike for hacking gets the account used to hack banned. 3rd strike for hacking gets that computer locked out of CA, permanently. Of course we'll have to add in a system of checks and balances for this system. But as punishments/chances at redemption this system could be effective.

I didn't advocate the switch to punkbuster, just the way the ban-system/ban-types punkbuster uses.

Then really, we 2 3 strike systems. One for casuals, like say, chams, and the second one for OPK/flyhack ghost aimbot/etc.

First one would be like the one you mentioned. The one for extreme hackers would be

1st. Account Banned
2nd. IP banned(doesn't really work, but w/e)
3rd. MAC banned.

Hardware bans or work based on the unchangeable serial numbers most computer parts carry, there are ways of changing this, but they are few(I mean like 1-2 programs, and sometimes they can't do it and I've only seen them work on Hard Drives). What this essentially means is to avoid a hardware ban is to literally change the hardware that was used to tether the ban upon it. Most people that buy/download hacks won't be willing to buy a new HD/CPU/RAM chips/any other expensive part just to play a free game. This also means anyone that uses dummy accounts for the hell of it won't be spared. This also means that people will have to come up with rock solid evidence to ban someone. Overall this concept does have its flaws, but the risks involved are COMPLETELY outweighed by the benefits it would provide.

Side-Note: I'm sorry I've been unable to post on the main forums of CA, the forums are showing me actual formatting code (ie:<.p.>I LOVE MAPLESTORY<./p.> take out the periods). Its getting quite annoying, and it takes me 10 more minutes to figure out what the hell exactly I'm saying.

Slayer_of_1 wrote:Let's discuss MAC address bans, which to get around, require the change of PHYSICAL parts of your computer. What do you all think?

I can spoof a MAC address.

Anyway I always point this out in all threads about a new anti-cheat program.
Just know that no matter what program you use there will always be a way to bypass it, and that people will do it, and they will sell those hacks.

The more I think about it the more impossible this war against hackers seems.

Easy. The best way to counter hackers is to hire FBI agents to track down the IP of every hacker, walk into their house, and smash their computers to bits personally.


Ya'know, just for lulz?

Yup, there are always ways to bypass anticheats but you see, the hackshield we have now doesn't detect anticheats. All it does is update definitions, and prevent older hacks from being used.

Something like scrimspot would be awesome.

true, but really we should have a server-side anti-cheat.
It slows the hackers production speeds a bit.

Yep.

Any examples of games that use them .

Valve, there plethora of FPS games.
There are hacks developed for them tho, but it doesnt slow the computer down at all. Hackshield & PunkBuster does.

Hm, a server sided anticheat.

If it's server sided, can it scan your PC for hacks?

well, the only one I've seen so far is VAC used by valve, operated through the steam client manager.
That one scans for a database of hacks (like hackshield), and modified core files (stuff that the engine.exe uses).

so yes it scans for hacks, and it monitors player behaviors for any suspicious activity.

Makes me wonder why CA uses Hackshield, iwhen VAC is a much much better option.

Vac is integrated through the Steam Engine and the steam engine only. Nexon would never give their game over to Valve, since they want 100% control and 100% of the profits from CA.

Then the next best option is something like Scrimspot.

yeah I understood how VAC works, but I'm saying Nexon should create their own server-side anti-cheat. It works great for them (no need for a contract with AhnLab), and great for us (less hackers, more people stay).

But this way we can't give any1 a second chance :S
Don't get me wrong, I hate hackers, but every1 makes mistakes and they should get another chance
Maybe after second account banned for hacking enforce hardware bans

Zirrick wrote:yeah I understood how VAC works, but I'm saying Nexon should create their own server-side anti-cheat. It works great for them (no need for a contract with AhnLab), and great for us (less hackers, more people stay).

A NA player has informed us that Nexon had their own tool to work together with hackshield.



But yeah, Nexon having full control over their anti-cheat could be awesome/a fail. Knowing nexon, it would take months to get the system working properly.