Anti-Cheat Expert: all your pixels are belong to us

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reverse Engineering Tools as Cheat Signals

  • Some argue that banning players who have tools like IDA, Ghidra, or x64dbg installed is “smart” because most ordinary players don’t use them.
  • Others push back strongly: RE tools are used for learning, research, debugging, and legitimate work; blocking or banning based on their presence is seen as unfair and counter‑productive.
  • Anecdotes: games that won’t start if they see “x64dbg” in a window title; games that silently exit if “git bash” is opened.
  • Concern that such bans mainly inconvenience or provoke technically skilled legitimate users, while serious cheat authors just adapt or swap accounts.

Screenshot‑Based Anti‑Cheat on Windows

  • Discussion around BitBlt and similar APIs: one claim that the article’s described screenshot method only works on very old Windows.
  • Others respond that BitBlt still works on modern Windows, but behavior varies:
    • Capturing the desktop DC generally works; capturing arbitrary window handles may return black.
    • Some windows can be captured, others not; composition model and DWM special cases matter.
  • Consensus: screen capture is still possible but not universally reliable for detecting overlay-based cheats.

Linux, Consoles, and Platform Tradeoffs

  • Several people consider Linux gaming a perk because many kernel‑level anti‑cheats don’t work there, reducing invasiveness.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Some anti‑cheats (e.g., Easy Anti Cheat) partially work on Linux; some games become unplayable when stricter anti‑cheat is enabled.
    • Consoles are cited as having fewer cheaters due to locked‑down systems and hardware bans.
  • Tension between wanting fair games and refusing intrusive software; suggestions include dual‑booting or dedicated “gaming OS” PCs isolated from personal data.

Alternatives and Anti‑Cheat Limits

  • Proposals: active human admins, server‑side physics checks, community‑run servers, and matchmaking that clusters cheaters together.
  • Others argue these measures are insufficient, especially against subtle aimbots or hardware/DMA/video-based cheats that operate outside the game client.
  • Ideas like cloud gaming and remote attestation are debated:
    • Cloud gaming could reduce many cheats but adds latency and is seen as unsuitable for high‑level competitive FPS.
    • Some feel truly cheat‑proof online gaming on open PCs may be impossible.

Privacy, Ethics, and Proportionality

  • Many describe modern anti‑cheat as “accepted spyware” that inspects files, processes, and system state.
  • Core tension: small cheating minority vs invasive measures applied to all.
  • Some are willing to trade significant privacy for cheat reduction; others see this as a disproportionate response for “just a game.”
  • Compartmentalization (separate machines/OSes for gaming) is presented as a pragmatic compromise.