I don’t think you understand how this works. It’s not hard to get ~30 people to report one person like I was referencing in your example not 3-4. What you are wanting will never work and will never happen because it can be abused.
If I or anyone did then it would be posted but there isn’t. It’s not hard to combat cheaters on your server if it’s that big of a problem which I doubt it is but just like any game there will always be people trying to bypass it.
On top of that, the reports should only be valid from known server owners and with sufficient evidence, ie: logs of triggered events, screenshots, etc.
This would reduce the false positives, along with reducing the number of “we don’t like this guy lets band together to get this guy banned” type situations.
Obviously though, there would need to be some sort of standardization to this so that reports can be analyzed automatically.
This certainly isn’t fool-proof, but could be a step in a good direction.
If it’s that easy according to you, why don’t you write a proof of concept?
Also, no, there’ll never be a ‘cheater reporting’ system - not for ‘trusted’ server owners, not for anyone else either. Any such data supplied by users can and will be faked, leading to an insane amount of ‘invalid’ bans and more people needed to review such.
I would’ve, but client scripts doesn’t allow me to use Process in my C#
Also, I don’t do C++, but the matter of the fact is that checking for writing to memory is just doing the opposite what you’re already doing.
Taking a glance at the cheaters, they’re allowed to execute lua directly into the scripts, I mean, at least let us C# devs disallow Lua executing.
I am and will be support you for a long time, yet following along the development is weird, “drm” checks which would be “too hard to implement” yet russian developers did it within the first week… I don’t know man, you guys are too focused on RedM
What? I highly doubt “russian developers” had the exact same patches as FiveM does; if you mean the 1737 EXE changes: these DRM checks were explicitly targeted towards patches FiveM performs for enabling OneSync.
LOL, I highly doubt you can just prevent memory writing without a kernel mode driver; detecting and blocking the presence of random processes does not count as such, we already do that and cheaters work around each attempt within a day.
NtWriteVirtualMemory/WPM are undetectable without a kernel mode driver, if you think otherwise you’re again free to write a PoC even standalone instead of making up an excuse along the lines of “lol sandboxed shit? that’s just because you think we are idiots!”.
If there is no client-side Lua script loaded, the Lua script runtime isn’t running. If you’re still getting kids “executing Lua”, they clearly just load that runtime. How do you think “disallowing” such would help at all, if said check is client-side?
… and again, what? You can’t “check for writing to memory” as said above.
and finally, what? 1737 was released for months before RDR3 release, nor are there any critical changes needed on FiveM at all so of course the new thing is being worked on first as that has a goddamn deadline.
yeah totally “allowed” which is why there’s dozens of hooks to prevent that from happening, which stopped being updated when people stopped sending us updated copies of cheats.
cheat detection isn’t a matter of “lol just disallow everything!”, since there’s no API or option for “disallow everything” whatsoever on an open system like Windows.
So, you’re telling me that people can fake their logins to the FiveM forum? Because that’s what I was suggesting, is that people with the Server Owners role make these reports. I know that this role is moderated and has to be accepted. Not only that, go ever further to validate the claims, have it ip based, and actually make the key produced in keymaster with the ip address mean something. So you have not only have to be accepted by the moderators on the forums here, but also make sure that the server sending the response is validated from the ip defined from the key and the user being apart of the Server Owners group. And one final thing is that you could only accept 1 request of a user per server, so they can’t spam it with requests and the user get a global ban.
I’m not convinced that if all those things mentioned above were in place that there would be an “insane amount” of invalid bans.
That doesn’t mean they should be trusted to ban arbitrary people.
Which still means trusting random people - even if ‘allegedly moderated’ - to ban random people. That’s a big no-go.
99% of people are RP server owners. RP servers are big drama sinks, especially the big ones. As seen in many regional servers, it’s also not unheard of that people try to gang up on one competing server/streamer/etc. as a pair of multiple potentially ‘approved’ server owners.
Again: we will not do any non-client-side (as in - not from clients that themselves hold a particular token able to ban themselves) third-party cheat reporting, no matter what, especially not in cases where server owners can ‘arbitrarily’ send requests to any hypothetical API if they so feel like it.