[sthomas1618]

Agreed. Definitely not trying to say encryption is a poor strategy. But it does seem obfuscation is most of their anti-cheat techniques.

But the larger point I was trying to make is that all these studios are very secret about anti-cheat but they all seem to be fighting the same battle. Makes me wonder if the industry would be better off with cross-studio collaboration and open-sourcing anti-cheat libraries (that won't be defeated by knowing the details).

[Thaxll]

> open-sourcing anti-cheat libraries (that won't be defeated by knowing the details).

This doesn't make any sense. Anti cheat rely on the fact that it's not known. There is no such a thing as open source in the anti cheat world. It's all very secret for a good reason.

[sthomas1618]

I'd curious to know what strategies make secrecy a necessity. I come from a WebDev background and open-source libraries are almost always always secure and safer then your own (due to the sheer amount of developers and ingenuity working on one repo). Admittedly, game development is a different beast and has to deal with far more client-code so I'm admitting my ignorance here.

[Thaxll]

The attack surface is not only on the game but on the operating system that the client controls. I mean the game is just a process, the process runs on your computer, you control the computer so you can do anything.

[monocasa]

The attackers are literally already able to run arbitrary code on the same machine, which is normally game over from a security perspective. Your secure webdev libraries also break under the same constraints.

[sthomas1618]

> Your secure webdev libraries also break under the same constraints.

No argument there. Different design goals. But I still stand by quality of engineering that open source allows.