Also, on the note of games: anti-cheat. One of the few things that I think needs to be closed source. It wouldn't be effective without that code secrecy.

@engal I'm not sure. Isn't anti-cheat software comparable to encryption or security software? Security by obscurity is not really security, so an anti-cheat program is only really good if you can't bypass it even if you know how it works.

I mean, if you discuss the ways that you detect cheats, the second you say it, that method doesn't work. It's a constant treadmill of work. If I say "yah we md5 sum applications running in the background and check them against a database of known cheats" that doesn't work anymore.

@engal If that was the case, it would apply to malware scanners as well, wouldn't it?
They do the same: Check if the signature of a piece of code matches a database of known malware. That doesn't keep open-source malware scanners from working, though, does it?

not a cybersecurity student or researcher or anything like that, but cheats would be easier to update, since the user is the one trying to use it, like any other user installed program. they could update it to say, change a couple meg with random data to randomize the sum. If the methods are hidden, the cheat makers don't know what to do. Same reason good anti-cheats issue bans in waves. Makes it harder to pinpoint what you need to change to get away with it.

interesting point. I am of the opposite thought that anti-cheat should be open source, then the whole community can work to make it better/stay ahead of the cheats. Much like the Linux community works tirelessly to keep Linux secure.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.