Multi-Hack... Does BattleEye Work?

[jovlon 32]

Beyond the novices that hacked based on the first post or YT video that they saw, I personally feel like BattleEye has yet to be effective. 

 

I've been the victim of one of the prominent multi-hacks still out there. In both cases my character was transported on an entirely different part of the map (meaning that there's no way that it could have been desync). This last time I was transported from Electro to the NW Airfield. The guy that I was playing with was transported to his death and in the middle of an intense gun battle. 

 

Additionally, BattleEye (or at least the update) has negatively impacted performance for an abundance of players. I've literally yet to see a real return from having BattleEye. Yes it's Alpha and yes it will perhaps get better but I know from other player's post and players that I've talked to that Battle Eye isn't something that a lot of gamers trust and I now count my self as part of that group. There needs to be a more proactive approach to go with the reactive methods.

 

Do you trust Battle Eye?

Edited January 18, 2014 by jovlon

[gsp167 95]

Yes, I trust Battleye. They'll get thoses l33t h4x0r banned at some point.

 

Remember, Battleye might not ban theses hackers right away, if it's a "new hack" people at BE will analyse the data they receive and determine whether it was a hack or not, then issue the ban.

[Judopunch 523]

Sounds like admin abuse to me, they probably have teleport commands. The issue could be due to an unofficial/non-whitelisted server?

[Hutch (DayZ) 116]

Battle Eye is just like Antivirus Software.

Meaning that is gives the user peace of mind but is completely ineffective against anything but old obsolete exploits.

[Chris529 380]

Cheats need to be identified before they will trigger bans, because of this there's always periods of time where cheaters can use new cheats without getting banned. That particular cheater will probably be banned soon and that cheat will be useless. Then another one will be coded and it continues.

[nighhawk 41]

Sounds like admin abuse to me, they probably have teleport commands. The issue could be due to an unofficial/non-whitelisted server?

Nope, my clan owns a server. It happened to 4 of us in the clan on our server.

[jovlon 32]

Battle Eye is just like Antivirus Software.

Meaning that is gives the user peace of mind but is completely ineffective against anything but old obsolete exploits.

 

And this is my point exactly. Of course those that have never been hacked will feel safe and protected by any anti-(whatever) software. But those that have had issues multiple times realize how ineffective and (in my mind) inefficient this software really is. If my anti-virus software is going to be a constant pain I want to see returns from that. If Battle Eye is going to take away from my performance I want to see a return from that. 

 

Cheats need to be identified before they will trigger bans, because of this there's always periods of time where cheaters can use new cheats without getting banned. That particular cheater will probably be banned soon and that cheat will be useless. Then another one will be coded and it continues.

 

Yes I understand the cycle of a hacker and the hack that they create but this isn't necessarily a new cheat. \

 

I think that the problem is that most people view anti-cheat software and protocols as something that can only react rather than something that can be proactive. People say that it's Alpha so just live with it or that the hackers will be banned soon enough. 

 

I know personally from A) Having worked on small development teams and B) having taken more proactive measures against hackers when on those teams that there's more (and I'd venture to say far more) that could be done. So to say that hacking can't be fixed when there are countless examples of other games that made a point to take a hard stance on hacking is to me absurd. 

 

And yes months and years ago the developers stated that anti-cheating is one of their top priorities (as any multiplayer developer must say) but would you say that at this point in the development that the actions have backed the words? 

[nik21 287]

Ineffective? Do you call 150,000 bans in 15 months (Arma II OA) ineffective?

 

You obviously don't know how things work, what Anti-Cheat software like BE does in the first place is indeed reacting to cheats. ACs are also very limited in cheat-prevention abilities as stuff like that has to be done in the game engine itself.

 

To Quote Dwarden here:

 

same goes about failing to understand what's layered protection
engine in-game protections (clientside, serverside, network archiecture w/e)
engine in-scripting protections (e.g. someone writes them in his mission/scripts/mods/extensions in game like arma)
and only THEN anti-cheat layers do apply
AC server/client side filters against scripting (e.g. again someone must write them manually)
AC bonus detections
AC raw detections (the original real purpose of AC)

http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1250139&p=43423605#post43423605

 

As a player, you only see cheaters that BE hasn't banned yet, not the ones it has. And yes, the future is black for cheaters.

[OrLoK 16185]

Hello there

 

BE is here to stay.

 

I trust it completely.

 

Will there be the odd hiccup with it during production of the game? Possibly

 

Is it actually BE or is it DAYZ's fault? Well you'll have to ask the devs.

 

Will any wrinkles be ironed out? Yes.

 

Is patience key? Yes.

 

Does it infuriate a vast number of scripters/hackers? Oh my, yes.

 

BE works. It just may not work the way you expect.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[jovlon 32]

@Nik21 

 

You obviously didn't read my post. And clearly you've never been a part of any game development team. Yet I don't know how things work eh?

 

And yes I call not getting to the root of the problem ineffective. So let me explain to you how to be PROACTIVE when it comes to hackers with reactive measures to back it up. I'll try to keep it simple and quick.

 

How To Significantly Reduce Hacking

 

1) Much like a security software firm, bring on a security breach team (hackers) to attack and pose threats to your product.

 

2) Once these hackers discover holes, patch them up until they are proven to be 95+% secured (nothing can be 100% as new updates can have unpredictable effects).

 

3) Have said hackers periodically release hacks that are deemed to be secure on targeted websites for download and or purchase.

 

4) This is where the reactive measures come in. Once a gamer attempts to play using measures that the anti-cheat client already has deemed unfair, they will instantly be perma-banned. 

 

You repeat this process and release what are thought to be new hacks until it becomes well known that the company themselves are releasing the hacks. This generally deters 85-90 percent of would be cheaters as they are usually the gamers that simply download (and often times purchase) the hacks. 

 

Yes there will remain a small percentage of gamers that can create their own hacks (I've found to be around 3-5 percent) but it becomes much easier to target those gamers... the root of the problem and eliminate them. You may say that the math doesn't add up and you're right. That's because once the gamers that would pay and download a hack are banned or stopped downloading, there becomes less incentive to continually attempt to work around the system. There's little to no monetary gain or gratification left in it. 

 

Besides the fact that I've personally experienced this method working, as an example lets look at Windows and Mac. There's this large myth that OS X is far harder to hack to Windows OS. This of course is false. The reason that Windows OS gets hacked far more often then OS X is because it has dominated the general market-share and the market-share for key demographics (business, school, etc). Basically there's a far greater incentive to hack Windows instead of OS X. There's more money to be made, more targets, and a higher chance of hacking a major organization (as most support Windows over OS X). 

 

This theory applies to multiplayer games as well. Most hackers are simply looking for the largest markets to hack for. If you greatly diminish the market, they'll move on the next game because there's actually incentive and profit to be made. 

 

And that's where my disappointment comes from Nik21. That there is no proactive approach but rather only a reactive approach which will always welcome hackers. So much more could be done, yet gamers like you accept that this is the best that a development team can do for some reason. 

 

But maybe you're right. Maybe I don't know anything about this at all in any way shape or form. I'm only speaking from experience and what has worked multiple times for the teams that I've been on in the past.