Talk:Valve Anti-Cheat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Valve task force.
VG To-do:

Isn't the external link kinda stupid since it references Wikipedia? 86.142.104.176 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. I've removed it. --Tom Edwards 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Polymorphism Removal

This is simply incorrect information. Especially without citation - polymorphism is a common technique in computer science in regards to development within a single assembly (dll file, etc). Overloading this method beyond this is more commonly known as dll injection - where a malicious program could replace pre-loaded module method bytecode with their own without the host program knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.82.176 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Polymorphism is the practice of writing code that changes its memory foot- and finger-print with each execution. It's not hooking, which is the main thing VAC (and other anti-cheats) work to prevent. I've reverted your removal until this is sorted out, as per Wiki etiquette. --Tom Edwards 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, I do very much doubt that this is happening, and without a source, I tentatively remove it. Feel free to restore it again, when you have a proper source. Martijn Hoekstra 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, OK. Bear in mind there will most likely never be a source, as getting one would involve linking to dodgy websites that can't be trusted even if they hold positions of authority within their...culture. --Tom Edwards 09:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November Bannings 2006

Do you think that it may be a good idea to have a link to where Valve stated that 10,000 accounts had been flagged i.e the 18th Of Nov 2006 weekly news update?

As with this, you're missing the footnotes that provide that exact information you want. --Tom Edwards 12:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Is Valve Banning Innocent Steam User Accounts?"

What do people make of this? I've seen more than enough falsified crap on the VAC forums to dismiss it, but their claims that the accounts are unbanned a few days after the alleged infraction make me uncertain. The post is from a year ago, but the comments go up to 2006-11-11. --Tom Edwards 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a large disparity between actual Valve staff and the people that run their support system and forums (generally, it appears that some of the people writing FAQ questions for the support system are also forum moderators). The moderators/support workers don't really understand too much about what's going on but they're very vocal and will defend Valve to the point of locking threads, deleting posts, and posting outright lies. If you actually get to talk to someone within Valve, they're usually a lot more understanding and reasonable because they're smart enough to know that mistakes can and do happen, and no system is perfect. They also have enough technical knowledge to give decent advice rather than the completely misleading stuff given out in the FAQ/on the forums (eg. "VAC only bans for modifications to game DLL/EXE files"). I don't think anyone can really claim that false positive bans are impossible at this point (though the Steam forum moderators/support staff continue to do so) since there have been several separate occurrences of them throughout VAC's history. I don't remember anyone on Valve's staff ever claiming false positives were impossible -- just that their new scanning methods made them more unlikely than before (before meaning the time when they banned for every hook or memory corruption, before the HLAmp bans). I would give Valve the benefit of the doubt and simply discount claims made in their FAQ/by their forum moderators.
In this instance, while the story isn't verifiable there doesn't really seem as if there'd be any reason for an actual cheater to claim that he was banned and subsequently unbanned at a later date. I remember reading a few threads to this effect on the Steam forums as well so I think it's pretty likely to have happened and been relatively widespread, though whether the exact cause was a problem with VAC's cheat detection or a problem with the banning system I'm not sure. Deaf-mute 09:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Was there a specific time when these ban reversals were taking place? --Tom Edwards 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the time, or whether the problem was with the VAC system itself or just the Steam client. It seemed that different people claimed to be affected over a period of a few months. Valve haven't talked about it at all and I don't think any technical information or reliable data is available. Deaf-mute 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantages section

"While most cheat systems ban offenders immediately upon detection, VAC cheaters can simply replace banned accounts by repurchasing the game once on a new account and again after being caught for hacking again, cheating indefinitely without ever being removed from the game environment." Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see how this is any different from any other anticheat solutions, barring any requiring personally identifying information and then banning that. Since repurchasing the game and getting a new account works for the vast majority of games out there, the exceptions being the aforementioned banning of the identified account owner, not the game account, I don't see how this can be called a VAC disadvantage since it's hardly exclusive to VAC.

Edit: Forgot to login and sign this entry. Zeraliten 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: "Legitimate players endure a month of uninhibited cheating from each and every individual cheater." Reference #4 cites "that value is too large" when 3 weeks is being mentioned, meaning we can assume at -most- a 3 week ban delay. For all we know the delayed ban could be anything from a few hours/days and up to 3 weeks and even on a randomized timer, making "a month" misleading. I'd suggest changing "a month" to "potentially up to three weeks", removal of the sentence as a whole or asking a valve employee for a reasonable "up to X", though that might be going a bit far just to keep the "Legitimate players endure....." Zeraliten 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've ditched all of it. The guy's edit summary ("I'm sorry. I love and respect wikipedia and won't do this again, but I'm angry.") should be a good enough explanation of why! --Tom Edwards 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed for "no fail safe hash detection method"

a citation for this can be found on the hash collision article. i personally like http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/ as it isn't overly technical and could be understood by most people.

i can't seem to get the citation to add properly here (i really need to find some time and learn how to work this) so i would ask that someone else add it in. 204.83.242.189 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks! --Tom Edwards 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of a tweaking

I've just added a couple of points to the disadvantages section, and I've given the Criticism section a big overhaul. While I'm still getting used to the referencing situation, I know that a couple of the things I've put in there will probably need a reference to be substantiated. I didn't add any {{cite}} tags cause I'd probably add too many, or to incorrect points, etc.

Now, I'm 100% certain without a doubt that everything I've written is correct... I may have crossed the neutrality line at some point (but that's why wikipedia is a collaborative process!) but I have personally enjoyed all of the aspects I mentioned, so they do exist. As for the issue of references, well, once again, that's why it's a community project. I'm going to do my best to find some decent sources, but something like the issues concerning 'Steam User Forum moderation' will be very difficult to source. I would even go so far as to suggest that the Steam User Forums are ineligible as a source because of the moderation issues (they uphold the lore of Valve to the letter, with an iron fist :p).

As for the other stuff, most of it's either tautology or things that can be drawn from basic inference anyway, but I will still endeavour to find some good sites. Obviously in the mean time everyone should go mental rectifying my errors or exacerbating my eloquence. :) - You've been taught FluckED 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many claims that can be substantiated without linking to dodgy sites here, or that can't be proven without statistics that aren't available to the public. If the claims were all logical things might be different, but asking me to believe that "the number of active cheaters remains constant" - meaning that new cheaters buy the game at the same rate as old cheaters are banned (cheaters not being deterred by bans is something else) - flies in the face of reason.
The "number of available working public cheats/ effective cheats only ever increas[ing]" is POV, as it depends on your interpretation of 'working' and 'effective': by VAC's definition none of them work, and criticism of that philosophy belongs under the Delayed Ban heading. If old cheats aren't moved into an instant ban category, then that's definitely worth mention - but it should be in a much more direct manner. And sourced if at all possible, because it's an unbelievably stupid situation for VAC to be in.
When I e-mailed a friend at Valve about the length of VAC2 delays, he told me that my figure of three weeks was "too large". That might have changed since, but in the face of my source I'd want to see evidence of that.
"Non-cheating players may be inclined to start cheating to 'level the playing field'" is already mentioned in the disadvantages section. It isn't expanded upon so I don't see any reason to include it again. --Tom Edwards 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgot one other thing: VAC discussions are locked, not deleted. Don't take any of this personally by the way. :-) --Tom Edwards 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had plenty of my posts and threads deleted from the VAC forum. Usually, it's when people discuss technical information on how VAC could be improved or how it currently works.
Yes, but I was replying to a claim that discussions of bans were. --Tom Edwards 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

This section needs attention. In light of the fact that Tom Edwards reverted my attempt to clean up this section, I will gradually edit it so that, to the dismay of Valve employees, the actual ISSUES discussed in the criticism section are discernible through the convoluted mess that has become this section.

Whether it has been the intention of the people maintaining this section to obfuscate the truth - and the obvious reason for the section existing - it is the case now that the main POINTS and ISSUES are obscured by a lot of useless information and weasel words.

If you have an objection to this, Mr Tom Edwards, please state why you object to the clarification of these issues here, so that we can establish the best course for the overhaul of this section, and possibly the entire article.

While I am still operating under the assumption of good faith in your edits, Tom, I believe that you have inadvertently contributed to concealing the truth from the public, in much the same way as Valve Software deliberately does this for their own profit. - You've been taught by FluckED 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My responses are under the heading above this one. --Tom Edwards 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truthfulness of the article.

First off, if you look in the disadvantages section, it says that VAC works by blacklist bans. This claim is unreferenced, and Valve has never fully stated how VAC works.

Also, due to the ammount of unreferenced content on this page, I feel this page's truthfullness is to be verified. AbJ32 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Abj32, there are a lot of sections that need citations so the truthfulness of this article is highly questionable. G859 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you don't accuse text of being untruthful just because it's unsourced. The reference boilerplate is already there for that purpose - and it will likely stay there until the article is deleted, if it ever is, as there is very little in the way of official information on how VAC works. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mathack.jpg

Image:Mathack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)