You can set it to an OnClientInvoke callback and the server will regularly check that the client isn’t being tampered with: - ClientSide You should use a remotefunction instead since exploiters won’t be able to spy on it, except on the beta version of synapse, preventing a large number of script developers from spying on the anticheat remote. ![]() ![]() ![]() Instead, use a remotefunction to signal to the server the client is being tampered with! Return -> Return nothing (Doesn't fire the remote) If rawequal(self, ACRemote) then -> Safely checks if self is the AntiCheat remote ) -> Or :InvokeServer if the anticheat uses a RemoteFunction Local OldFireServer OldFireServer = hookfunction(DummyRemote.FireServer, newcclosure(function(self. It’s a very bad practice as it can just be bypassed by this simple code snippet: local DummyRemote = Instance.new("RemoteEvent") -> Or RemoteFunction if the anticheat uses a RemoteFunction In the majority of games, I kept seeing in opensource exploit scripts (and even in an AntiCheat from Community Resources!) that the anticheat system used a Simple Ban Remote that once fired, often wipes the player’s progress, and/or just straight up bans the player Table of Contentsġ: Using :FireServer or :InvokeServer to signal to the server the client is being tampered with Warning: This post is for developers that already have a client and server anticheat. This really frustrates me, as a developer, to see beautiful games being ruined by exploiters. Seems like a rather arbitrary double standard to suggest that only some forks should be allowed yet not others.As an anticheat developer, I often saw games that had awful anticheats practices. Moreover, what about games like Crafter by Oil Boi or MC2 or Wuzzy that completely blur the line between what is and is not "Minetest"? These two games alone are completely divergent from the traditional Minetest Game, yet nobody is disputing whether they should be promoted in the Minetest Forums, IRC channels, subreddit, etc. Just because someone modifies the engine then suddenly it's no longer qualified as Minetest? Yet somehow if you modify the bundled game then it qualified as Minetest? Who decides where that arbitrary line is drawn? And in the case of servers, how would anyone know whether it was the engine or the game the has been forked unless the server operator divulges that fact publicly? To the best of my knowledge, Minetest is supposed to be a free and open-source framework for game development. So I guess they should be barred from the master server list since they don't represent the real and true game that players expect. What qualifies as a genuine Minetest server anyway? Minetest Game? Good luck with that because I'm willing to bet that not a single one of the top 10, 20, or even 50 servers in the master server list are running the officially distributed "Minetest Game" with no custom mods, texture packs, or other alterations and additions to content or code. ![]() So the notion that somehow forks steal players and that only authentic servers should be listed is absurd. I also know Monte48, the developer of Multicraft, is an active contributor to Minetest and routinely opens PRs to port features over to the official branch. Over half of the mods on my server have been released on the forums, and many are published on the ContentDB. Technically my server is a fork of 0.4.14, and I feel it is a worthy representation of Minetest and FOSS. Having non-Minetest servers in the official Minetest server list is officially endorsed by some devs so I guess we have to deal with it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |