1. Post #81
    Dennab
    January 2008
    121 Posts
    I don't understand why you want to allow the cheaters.. Why shouldn't we be able to detect them, you've got the choice to remove it from your servers and it's up to others to remove it from theirs if they so wish.
    Cheating is relative in GMod. Wallhacks/ESPs are allowed on my sandbox-DM server.


    I wouldn't like it banning people from every gmod server who use a simple lua script to see where things are on a large map. This is especially true for sandbox servers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 4Dumb Dumb x 1Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  2. Post #82
    PROUD BRONY 4LYFE
    Drakehawke's Avatar
    February 2009
    3,312 Posts
    Cheating is relative in GMod. Wallhacks/ESPs are allowed on my sandbox-DM server.


    I wouldn't like it banning people from every gmod server who use a simple lua script to see where things are on a large map. This is especially true for sandbox servers.
    I don't think it detects Lua hacks unless ScriptEnforcer is on and they're bypassing it (i.e. running a script the server didn't send them). Not sure though, it'd be silly if it did.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events

  3. Post #83
    Gold Member
    Alex_grist's Avatar
    January 2007
    1,076 Posts
    Cheating is relative in GMod. Wallhacks/ESPs are allowed on my sandbox-DM server.
    Then just remove the cheaters.cfg file like I said before.. Is deleting a file really that difficult?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  4. Post #84
    SirCrest is my life, so is yours.
    Goz3rr's Avatar
    October 2009
    7,457 Posts
    Then just remove the cheaters.cfg file like I said before.. Is deleting a file really that difficult?
    You seem to be failing to understand that deleting cheaters.cfg will only have the bans not be actually executed on your server. It's still possible that people get banned on your server.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  5. Post #85
    PROUD BRONY 4LYFE
    Drakehawke's Avatar
    February 2009
    3,312 Posts
    Then just remove the cheaters.cfg file like I said before.. Is deleting a file really that difficult?
    I wouldn't like it banning people from every gmod server who use a simple lua script to see where things are on a large map. This is especially true for sandbox servers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events

  6. Post #86
    garry's Avatar
    September 2001
    12,435 Posts
    Where are you getting your hard facts from Goz3rr

    Edited:

    If you want people to be able to cheat on your server - you should probably turn Script Enforcer off?

    Edited:

    If you want people to be able to cheat on your server - you should probably turn Script Enforcer off?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 5Dumb Dumb x 2Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  7. Post #87
    SirCrest is my life, so is yours.
    Goz3rr's Avatar
    October 2009
    7,457 Posts
    Where are you getting your hard facts from Goz3rr
    From what i saw cheaters.cfg just contained a bunch of banid's. How would removing that impact the actual banning?

    If you want people to be able to cheat on your server - you should probably turn Script Enforcer off?
    That clears pretty much all my questions, all your anti cheat does is target SE bypassing, not clientside lua scripts where SE is off.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events

  8. Post #88
    PROUD BRONY 4LYFE
    Drakehawke's Avatar
    February 2009
    3,312 Posts
    If you want people to be able to cheat on your server - you should probably turn Script Enforcer off?
    Your blog post confused people a bit I think, you implied that normal Lua scripts which could be perceived as hacks would get players banned even on ScriptEnforcer disabled servers. You later on commented that unless you were trying to bypass Script Enforcer you'd be fine, but that wasn't clear from the original blog post.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  9. Post #89
    Dennab
    January 2008
    121 Posts
    Where are you getting your hard facts from Goz3rr

    Edited:

    If you want people to be able to cheat on your server - you should probably turn Script Enforcer off?
    Thanks, that clears up that. I'll keep SE disabled on my server.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    Hentie's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,129 Posts
    Great to hear that you're not just putting random people on a cheaters list, and that there's actually a solid system behind it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  11. Post #91
    Gold Member
    winsanity's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,814 Posts
    This thread reminds me of the shitstorm caused by switching Garrysmod.org to torrents way back, and all the complaints and questions it brought.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  12. Post #92
    Gold Member
    DarthTealc's Avatar
    October 2007
    507 Posts
    Ah good. So cheats in single player and in non-SE multiplayer are okay, but not in SE-protected multiplayer. I'm cool with that.

    What about when Scriptenforcer fails to run even though sv_scriptenforcer = 1? On our servers our anticheat occasionally picks up loads of people (everyone who is playing at the time) because SE isn't running until the map changes, even though we always have it turned on (we don't ban people for SE failing to run). Are we safe in those cases?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  13. Post #93
    Gold Member
    roxi's Avatar
    August 2011
    65 Posts
    But wont this just make pure DLL based hacks.

    And yes "Vac" is suppose to pick DLL hacks but lets face it. It never does?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  14. Post #94
    ExplosiveCheese's Avatar
    June 2010
    1,618 Posts
    But like it's been said before, if you don't hack, you have nothing to worry about. If you use SethHack, well screw you for ruining a good game.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  15. Post #95
    Gold Member
    Hentie's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,129 Posts
    This thread reminds me of the shitstorm caused by switching Garrysmod.org to torrents way back, and all the complaints and questions it brought.
    I kind of liked that idea :(
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  16. Post #96
    Free Gameservers
    darksoul69's Avatar
    August 2006
    3,004 Posts
    I kind of liked that idea :(
    Same.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #97
    shirly's Avatar
    May 2009
    32 Posts
    So, if its not on my system now, and never will be, I have nothing to fear? Well, I will pass this on to a friend of mine that stopped using SH right after he got it, hes scared like a motherfucker right now, cause he only used it on his server.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  18. Post #98
    Lucky9Two's Avatar
    June 2008
    806 Posts
    Thoughts from the blog post:
    What about those of us who run military ops and are required to have NVG & FLIR for piloting? This kind of ruins the point of our equipment or even being able to run ops.
    I don't play multiplayer at all because there's no server I would want to play on because the ratio of good/bad servers is so unbalanced; the only one I do go to is a theater.
    What about toggle-crouch scripts? Client-side helping scripts? Would you get banned for those too? What's the point of making lua if you're not going to be allowed to use it?
    Speaking of which, what's the point even writing this? It's not like you're going to read it & post a response. Oh well I guess, I'll just put in my 2 cents & dash.
    Thoughts after reading this thread:

    Script enforcer is kept off on the two servers I go on so it shouldn't be a problem then.

    I'd suggest making an amendment to your post, but telling people on Facepunch what to do is extremely dangerous from my observations, so I'll just leave now.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  19. Post #99
    PROUD BRONY 4LYFE
    Drakehawke's Avatar
    February 2009
    3,312 Posts
    Ah good. So cheats in single player and in non-SE multiplayer are okay, but not in SE-protected multiplayer. I'm cool with that.

    What about when Scriptenforcer fails to run even though sv_scriptenforcer = 1? On our servers our anticheat occasionally picks up loads of people (everyone who is playing at the time) because SE isn't running until the map changes, even though we always have it turned on (we don't ban people for SE failing to run). Are we safe in those cases?
    You need to put sv_scriptenforcer 1 in autoexec.cfg not server.cfg.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 4Useful Useful x 2Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  20. Post #100
    Gold Member
    highvoltage's Avatar
    May 2009
    1,827 Posts
    From what I've picked up by reading the thread is that only cheats that bypass Script Enforcer when its turned on will trigger the new system.
    So peoples fancy night vision, wallhacks/ESPs, and client-side helping scripts wont get them banned unless they also have a script to bypass Script Enforcer to allow them use them.

    So in other words, the little "cheat/hack" scripts don't trigger it, the scripts that bypass SE do.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  21. Post #101

    April 2012
    36 Posts
    What happens if someone includes hack code in a Workshop addon? Will everyone who uses it get banned? We can't check the code because .gm can't (officially) be extracted.

    What about single player?

    What about sandbox servers which don't use Scriptenforcer? I was once an admin of a (now dead) community where the sandbox server didn't use scriptenforcer, and I used a radar and x-ray addon to help me administrate. Would I get banned for that if I did the same thing today?

    What about addons which have functionality similar to common hacks? For example, a TTT server I currently help administrate has a detective item which allows the detective to see through walls and see what the players are holding. Would that cause all our players to be banned?

    Do people only get banned if they hack on scriptenforcer servers (aka bypass scriptenforcer)? Eg as long as you're not able to use the hack on the server, you're okay?


    In addition to banning people, why not remove pixelrender? Why not improve scriptenforcer (it sometimes doesn't block scripts until the map is changed)? Why not remove menu plugins? I know some of these have been done in Gmod 13, but it has been in beta for some 6 months. If you're willing to ship your banning feature, why not ship these other changes to help prevent hacking?


    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem banning users who are hacking in multiplayer. But if using any addon risks the user getting banned from all servers, nobody is going to trust using addons, nobody is going to risk coding something with similar functions to hacking tools (eg smartsnap snapping to props, similiar to aimbot), and people who aren't hackers will get banned.
    I heard that excuse from people who got banned from baconbot all the time.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  22. Post #102
    Gold Member
    DarthTealc's Avatar
    October 2007
    507 Posts
    What does that have to do with anything? Isn't baconbot the one VAC detects? I doubt baconbot users are going to care about the cheaters.cfg system when they're VAC banned.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Australia Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  23. Post #103
    Insert title here.
    Registered User's Avatar
    October 2010
    516 Posts
    Good job Garry! I just hope no false positives arrive from this.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  24. Post #104
    Gold Member
    Th13teen's Avatar
    July 2011
    192 Posts
    If garry believes that he can put out bans globally on people then it shouldn't give any false positives, and if one or two arrive (with proof) then perhaps he can do what valve did with the MW2 bans and give out a free copy of gmod to them (perhaps gmod9 )
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 5 (list)

  25. Post #105
    Shane's Avatar
    March 2010
    336 Posts
    Really excited to see how this pans out, been away from Garry's Mod for months and I am glad to see that lots of progress is being made toward the cheating! Good work Garry!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  26. Post #106
    El_Jameo's Avatar
    May 2009
    436 Posts
    Glad this is in place. I don't see why anyone would want others to have hacks running at all (except for making Machinima's or whatever, it's still useful there, but we can still use them in the sense of basic Lua hacks that don't try to bypass SE).

    This won't take all of them out, but it's more than a massive step forward. Have my hat Garry.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  27. Post #107
    Gold Member
    Hentie's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,129 Posts
    What does that have to do with anything? Isn't baconbot the one VAC detects? I doubt baconbot users are going to care about the cheaters.cfg system when they're VAC banned.
    I think he means that you sound like a cheater by making all these complaints.

    What I got from this thread:
    If you make or use any lua cheats like aimbots or wallhacks, you're probably not going to get banned.
    If you add any lua cheats to your server, nobody will probably get banned.

    If you create or use any third party program/module that has the intention of bypassing scriptenforcer when a server has scriptenforcer on, and you run any script, even if it isn't a wallhacking or aimbotting script, then you will probably get banned.

    I say these with probably because I'm not 100% sure.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  28. Post #108
    Sorry about the downtime, now buy shit.
    CrispexOps's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,588 Posts
    To be honest, I really don't see the point. All you're really doing is going after SethHack which only alleviates about 10% of the problem. The major problem is Lua hacks and private ScriptEnforcer bypasses.

    There will never be a way to stop this or even significantly impact it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  29. Post #109
    Gold Member
    Hentie's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,129 Posts
    To be honest, I really don't see the point. All you're really doing is going after SethHack which only alleviates about 10% of the problem. The major problem is Lua hacks and private ScriptEnforcer bypasses.

    There will never be a way to stop this or even significantly impact it.
    I thought it was SE Bypasses, not just SH
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  30. Post #110
    Gold Member
    DarthTealc's Avatar
    October 2007
    507 Posts
    If the system works by detecting when SE is bypassed, wouldn't it also detect private SE bypasses? That would cover Sethhack and any other hack which bypasses SE.

    I think he means that you sound like a cheater by making all these complaints.
    All these complaints are not complaints. They are questions to figure out if Garry's system has flaws which could result in innocent people being banned, so that Garry fixes the flaws before that happens. (If he knew about flaws but considered them features, then I'd be complaining). If it only bans for bypassing Scriptenforcer, then the odds of being incorrectly banned are much lower than I was initially worried about.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Australia Show Events

  31. Post #111
    Gold Member
    Hentie's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,129 Posts
    Nothing to worry about then?
    Everyone can just go back to jacking off?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  32. Post #112
    Gold Member
    DarthTealc's Avatar
    October 2007
    507 Posts
    You have my permission.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Australia Show Events Funny Funny x 4 (list)

  33. Post #113
    Gold Member
    Alex_grist's Avatar
    January 2007
    1,076 Posts
    If the system works by detecting when SE is bypassed, wouldn't it also detect private SE bypasses? That would cover Sethhack and any other hack which bypasses SE.



    All these complaints are not complaints. They are questions to figure out if Garry's system has flaws which could result in innocent people being banned, so that Garry fixes the flaws before that happens. (If he knew about flaws but considered them features, then I'd be complaining). If it only bans for bypassing Scriptenforcer, then the odds of being incorrectly banned are much lower than I was initially worried about.
    You're looking for flaws in a system that garry is intentionally keeping secret, nobody innocent has been banned yet so why not wait until that time before complaining.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  34. Post #114
    Robots FTW
    SiPlus's Avatar
    December 2011
    888 Posts
    Garry, if there will be thousands of bans, won't GMod shut down at all because of crash at launch due to unloadability of the CFG?

    Maybe holding ban list (togglable with serverside cvar) on garrysmod.com would be better.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 Russian Federation Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  35. Post #115
    Gold Member
    dingusnin's Avatar
    February 2010
    2,040 Posts
    You're looking for flaws in a system that garry is intentionally keeping secret, nobody innocent has been banned yet so why not wait until that time before complaining.
    I was wrongly banned, he removed me from the cfg now, but banid puts you in a diff file, so I am still banned on a load of servers :(
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete France Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2Winner Winner x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  36. Post #116
    Dragon Dildoes
    Dennab
    April 2009
    4,432 Posts
    I was wrongly banned, he removed me from the cfg now, but banid puts you in a diff file, so I am still banned on a load of servers :(
    Did he really unban you, that's a shame?

    Thought multihack was enough proof to keep you in...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  37. Post #117
    garry's Avatar
    September 2001
    12,435 Posts
    To be honest, I really don't see the point. All you're really doing is going after SethHack which only alleviates about 10% of the problem. The major problem is Lua hacks and private ScriptEnforcer bypasses.

    There will never be a way to stop this or even significantly impact it.
    Not with that attitude

    Edited:

    Garry, if there will be thousands of bans, won't GMod shut down at all because of crash at launch due to unloadability of the CFG?

    Maybe holding ban list (togglable with serverside cvar) on garrysmod.com would be better.
    Why do you guys worry about these stupid things? Do you think I don't have a brain?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Funny Funny x 13Dumb Dumb x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #118
    Positive energy is space expanding, negative energy is space contracting. Or reverse?
    onebit's Avatar
    July 2005
    6,552 Posts
    To detect cheats or hacks mentioned earlier we reserve the right to periodically scan your computer’s memory (when Garry’s Mod is running, and only as part of Garry’s Mod).
    So I'm guessing that's how it works?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  39. Post #119
    Gold Member
    dingusnin's Avatar
    February 2010
    2,040 Posts
    Did he really unban you, that's a shame?

    Thought multihack was enough proof to keep you in...
    That was on CSS, not gmod. I wonder why you think it's a shame... Good thing that Garry is in control, and not some brainless idiot.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete France Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  40. Post #120
    Gold Member
    slayer3032's Avatar
    November 2007
    3,502 Posts
    Hey garry, you do know that when you run a banid command whenever a writeid command is ran all of the current bans will be written to the ban config right? Anyone who would possibly want to remove the cheaters.cfg would essentially have to delete the config and all of their bans to get rid of them as they would be written to their ban config.

    Source's banning system is rather poor and doesn't have a whole lot of control with there not really being much of a timer with a server restart resetting the timer if it crashes or something along the lines of that. It also doesn't tell the client the reason they were banned nor the length remaining. This could be an ideal time to change that. The last time I used the built in ban commands in 2009 they were broken and if I didn't execute the banned user config it would clear all of my bans every time I started the server.

    Also, just because garry mentioned that if you want people to cheat then turn off SE doesn't mean that you won't get banned from everything just because you used SethHack on a non-SE server. You all seem to think that this system is serverside, if this was the case then it could be possible for an individual to spoof one of these bans to garry's servers. It would make the most sense for his anticheat to be purely clientside to prevent such a thing happening to ensure all of the bans are 100% accurate since it's the client telling the ban server it cheats rather than a client telling a 3rd party server to tell the ban server that it's cheating.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)