This was fixed long ago and the hacks have progressed way beyond that anyway.  All of the client and GL hacks out now use some kind of loader that does things like patch the running HL process directly to allow custom DLLs to load (or to load them itself).
 
As long as code is going to be running on a client's machine and users have the knowledge and inclination to reverse engineer what's going on, there is no "all you have to do is <...> to stop the hacks" solution.  Like Alfred said, it's impossible to prevent.  You can make it hard, though...really hard (know anyone who has reverse engineered the HL networking protocol recently?).  Hopefully we can make it hard enough to be effective.  It's not simple stuff.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlcoders] ogc required to play??

PB never worked in the first place (I heard it was so dum you could rename pb.exe to hl.exe and it wouldnt detect I thing).
 
I told (and other people) valve about the clinet dll bug about 3 months before anybody made a cheat out if it, they didnt do anything about it. If you dont know they all work on the fact that you can load an bogus client dll which the server will allow you to have. This is done because if a mod cannot find the client dll it wants to load, it will try C:\windows\ and \valve dir. Now all you have to do is rename the mods client dll, put yours into one of those dirs, when yours is loaded rename the original client dll back to client dll and then the server is none the wiser. I thought it would take about 2 lines of code to fix it (i.e. make sure the dll its loading isnt from C:\windows\ or from another mods dir (i.e. \valve).
----- Original Message -----
From: andrew
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [hlcoders] ogc required to play??

I would like to repot to that WONID comment. I have in the past talked to Valve about doing something like that and there thing is they will have nothing to do with the WONID for legal isssue, at least thats what i was told. So i think that is not the answer. and we know how OGC works but its no the only cheat out there so working just to get rid of that is not the answer. Valve has something good coming i am sure, We can only hope they are not going to do something that will piss people off but i am sure there will be those rebals.
 
wacko
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [hlcoders] ogc required to play??

pff. doing a test of the signature movements of OGC players (latest ver), over a local PB enabled lan game, with some bots, and a ghost following the cheater, PB is ineffective. I went and downloaded all the HL hacks I could.
 
PB doesn't even need to be hacked... I can run a clean PB, and it works fine.
 
I've found: the newest OGC has a unique 3 letter random signature now, the test I ran had it as 'buc'. (ogc.buc.cfg). no need for "loader.dll" or any other currently checked dll. If I was lame, I could walk into a PB enabled sever, turn on aimbot, targeted at the chest, with a 10 degree botfov, and look like I was really good.
 
My test partner randomly switched the cheats off/off, and with varying degrees of obviousness. (aimbot head/aimbot off/no wallhack/wallhack/white wall/spiked models/no spikes/all off/no recoil/ etc...)
 
Conclusions:
pattern matching is a must. ogc*.???.cfg for anticheat methods.
Need signatures of OGC versions.
Need a central valve anticheat sig updater(update ACheat sigs on WONID check) the sig of the AC module also being checked on wonid scan...
Need a wonid complaint/banning system. (ideally, a central banlist distributer. if more than three reged servers complain (more than 5 people on the server complain, or admin steps in) then the wonid is banned, and sent to all the registered servers. their banlists are updated, and the punk finds out that his wonID is no good or, the wonID is revoked for a couple days...
 
I'd like to remind everyone that cheating is lame. I feel that the game becomes lame when you cheat

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to