I just gave an in-depth breakdown of why that's not true. Your reply amounts to saying "nuh uh!" with no justification. There is nothing to engage with in this reply. It doesn't even attempt to have any substance
Your in depth breakdown doesn't address the substance of the argument at all, it's mostly a distraction.
Servers can not bear the entire weight of guarding against cheat, it's impossible. If you don't understand that then you are not in a position to be writing any sort of breakdown.
Several games and game protocols require security on the client side to be able to stop cheats. You can't have security on the client side if the client has full access to the hardware and OS.
It's not more complicated than that, and your 'breakdown' doesn't adequately address that. You can dismiss this point if you like as you did when I made it in my previous reply, but it doesn't make it any less a fact.
That's ridiculous. A server only needs to be capable of running a single authoritative copy of the game and handling dead simple network requests to prevent every kind of cheating that matters except input automations, which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway. If you have a case where this isn't true, feel free to expand on it instead of just blindly believing it must exist. You don't need client-side control to make very powerful guarantees of systemic security in much more serious contexts than a game. You're not only doing special pleading, but you're doing it for a scenario that, as far as I can tell, has no theoretical reasoning and no examples, because you haven't provided any. I have to conclude it's imaginary. I gave you a good breakdown of what threat models I think exist and some sketches of technical solutions, like client separation and authoritative servers. I speak from both sound theory and experience implementing netcode here. Maybe you are too, but I can't tell from what you're saying, because again all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!" I see no why, how, or when in that argument. Is the problem you can only fix by having total control over the whole platform of every client in the room with us right now?
> every kind of cheating that matters except input automations
So basically, except the most common types of cheating.
> which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway
Yes, this is basically what I was saying when I said you can't stop cheating so long as the consumer has control of the hardware.
> instead of just blindly believing it must exist
Well, with respect, I think it is you who is blindly believing all cheating can be stopped server-side. I find that claim to be patently ridiculous.
> no examples, because you haven't provided any.
> all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!"
You're right, I haven't provided examples because this is common knowledge in the industry or to anyone that knows anything about trying to prevent cheating. I wasn't prepared to have to give a lecture to defend my point. But really, if what you are saying was correct, then all these companies must just be incredibly incompetent for not preventing cheating server-side, right? Because it's just so easy?
More than that, it's a very basic principle in security that if someone controls that hardware, most security can be defeated. The exception is stuff with DRM and things like a TPM where the consumer doesn't have full control, and that is the only way to truly prevent cheating. That's just a fact.
So you're saying that the sole concern in anticheat software is macroing? Alright, do you need to control every peripheral connected to the computer as well? How can you guarantee there isn't a SoC on someone's keyboard that sends a bunch of signals that they didn't have to type? Maybe we gotta put a little spy chip in every copper wire sold in every country, just to be sure it's not connecting anything to anything else. You know, in case someone is trying to cheat
Anyway, the fact that industry giants want to be in the very lucrative business of controlling the computers people use and have made up all manner of silly justifications for it is not news to me, but I have no reason to believe them, and saying "well lots of people who I consider to have enough authority that you should take their word for it also believe this, take my word for it" isn't particularly compelling. If you don't expect to need to justify your position why even bother making the claim? I don't assign automatic unquestioned epistemic authority to you just because you claim to be espousing the consensus view of an industry, and it's an industry full of crooks built on an industry full of crooks in the first place
> So you're saying that the sole concern in anticheat software is macroing?
Can you quote where I said that? I'm certain I said no such thing.
Are you really reducing any client side cheat to just macros? That's either disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
> Alright, do you need to control every peripheral connected to the computer as well?
Ideally, yeah. Look at Playstations for example. People can't play with cheats running on the same OS interfering with the game because they don't have control of the hardware. They can still cheat with peripherals though, as the situation with the Cronus Zen showed, and so yes, to stop cheating control of the peripherals is needed. With a recent real world example to corroborate.
> Maybe we gotta put a little spy chip in every copper wire sold in every country, just to be sure it's not connecting anything to anything else. You know, in case someone is trying to cheat
You're trying to dismiss what I'm saying with hyperbolic sarcasm, but it isn't working and isn't funny. iPhones, Apple Devices in general, Nintendo devices, plenty of Android devices, game consoles, none of these give the consumer control of the hardware. They don't need a keylogger and transmitter to stop cheating, they just need for the cheaters not to have control of the hardware. Like I've been saying.
There is a reason GTA5 on console has no cheats and on PC they are rampant, and it isn't because Rockstar are completely inept at preventing cheats serverside, it's because that isn't possible.
> "well lots of people who I consider to have enough authority that you should take their word for it also believe this, take my word for it" isn't particularly compelling.
My stance isn't based on faith but detailed understanding. You have yet to support your position with any evidence, and so far your point is refuted multiple times over by real world evidence. Occam certainly isn't on your side.
If you want to support your argument you're going to have to do better than trying to dismiss mine as just being the result of an appeal to authority fallacy. Do better, or admit you had no idea what you were talking about and were just speculating/guessing.