[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It's way easier than it sounds. Logitech provides a tool that lets you program their gaming mouses. They use Lua. I don't know Lua but there were plenty of guides for different gaming macros like recoil compensation and the Logitech documentation was decent enough.

[danuker]

Oh. I was thinking you were rewriting the firmware against the manufacturer's wishes.

I am not interested in installing bloatware drivers. Embedded IDEs OTOH...

[NegativeLatency]

Got one of these recently, they run qmk so easy to modify if that’s your thing: https://ploopy.co/

[WithinReason]

Is the program uploaded to the mouse, so does it still work if you plug it into a different computer that lacks the software?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Yes.

[bobleeswagger]

> macros like recoil compensation

Isn't this cheating?

[Sohcahtoa82]

It 100% is.

The problem is that preventing it is difficult to impossible.

You can't calculate recoil server-side because the latency would make it nigh unplayable. But once it's done client-side, it's cheatable.

[bobleeswagger]

This is making me feel old. Totally agree it is difficult, but not impossible.

Logitech is the problem here for even allowing this in the first place. No CRC checks for mouse firmware or anything? It screams poor implementation. I will not be surprised if anti-cheat software starts banning people or companies like Logitech.

Kind of sad to see the number of threads and communities online encouraging this. The point of games is to have fun, when you cheat all that goes out the door.

[Gigachad]

There are multiple mice vendors that allow this. And you can’t ban them because the cheater focused ones will just set their device ID to match some common device.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> No CRC checks for mouse firmware or anything?

It's client-side. Spoofing the CRC checks would be almost trivial.

[bobleeswagger]

If it can be done on exe's at runtime, it can be done on hardware attached to the computer. Signing things securely isn't a hard problem to solve, it's keeping people from attacking that signature that is hard. Something tells me the kids writing lua scripts as aimbots aren't quite smart enough to crack a proper signature implementation.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> Something tells me the kids writing lua scripts as aimbots aren't quite smart enough to crack a proper signature implementation.

They don't have to.

All they need is a signature of a valid firmware, and then inject code that returns that signature.

The "kids" won't be the ones writing the cheats. That'll be someone who knows how to write code that injects code into another running process, and then they sell the cheat software.

Blizzard tried for YEARS to detect a bot program for World of Warcraft called Glider. Every time they found a way to detect it, the bot engineers found a way to evade the detection. It was constant cat and mouse until Blizz sued the developer and had them shut down.

More back on topic, most of the cheaters are just script kiddies. There are only a couple that actually develop cheats, and they tend to be quite clever.

[nulld3v]

The last thing I want is to have to buy a "certified/trusted" mouse to play a game.

[bobleeswagger]

Nobody said they wanted this, but I'd rather that than play with a bunch of cheaters.

[danuker]

Which won't work without a subscription

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Yes. I don't do it. But those examples were helpful since I don't know Lua.