CheatDetector 0.5.2.1

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by IAF-SDS*:

 

Not a bug.

 

To my knowledge there are 2 ways to get a head shot kill percentage above 100:

 

1: Fire 1 bullet and kill multiple people. Say 2 people are in a line and the bullet goes through 2 heads. Boom. 200%.

2: There have been hacks which produce kills (head shots) without actually requiring bullets to be fired. I'm sure you can find some youtube videos of individuals just standing around and killing everyone.... the whole time the hacker isn't even firing bullets. Not sure if this method is still possible - but this is the reason why some cheaters had 2,000 % headshot.

"1: Fire 1 bullet and kill multiple people. Say 2 people are in a line and the bullet goes through 2 heads. Boom. 200%."

This would still not give you more headshots than kills right (in quantity)? If one bullet goes thru two heads (should be a rare event in itself), you would get two headshots and two kills, resulting in a headshot number equal to the kill number.

 

Are you sure this is not a bug, especially in the context of the player discussed above?

 

He has more headshots than kills, in quantity.

 

Put differently, if a headshot is always a kill, how can a player have 73 more headshots than kills, as shown in this example above?

 

Weapon: QBU-88

Kills 292

Headshots 365

 

 

"2: There have been hacks which produce kills (head shots) without actually requiring bullets to be fired. I'm sure you can find some youtube videos of individuals just standing around and killing everyone.... the whole time the hacker isn't even firing bullets. Not sure if this method is still possible - but this is the reason why some cheaters had 2,000 % headshot."

I have seen the hacks that kill people without firing bullets. If such a hack gets headshots without firing bullets, would the headshot count but not the kill since a bullet was not fired?

 

Here's an idiot getting kills without firing bullets: http://www.youtube.com/watch_v=jaz00...=youtu.be&hd=1

 

I can see having a weapon kill percentage number over 100% by CheatDetector because that percentage number is derived from the averages of that particular weapon from a pool of players, but here we're looking at his BF3 stats (not averages from a pool of players) and his stats show he is somehow causing more headshots than kills, and 73 of those headshots did not count as kills.

 

What do you guys think?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

iaf sds, thx for informing me about this forum thread on battlelog. i will post some info for the players there.

 

having read all the other posts here, i cant give a any better explaination for this (headshots>kills) as already posted. could be a bug. i honestly dont know :-)

 

but to make a long story short:

since 99% headshots are considered suspicious (if not impossible), >100% headshots are even more suspicious

 

for now i will leave it as it is, but if there is any confirmed bug with the headshots stats i will try to eliminate all false positives.

 

merry xmas to all you :-)

-grizzly

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by IAF-SDS*:

 

Merry Christmas to you too Grizzly and everyone else here.

 

As you already know Im sure, there are a lot of trolls running loose in the BF3 PC forum, so don't let them bother you if any insult the plugin.

 

I intentionally avoided replying to that thread and brought it here.

 

 

I see you replied to that thread with this:

"...at the time you joined the server your bf3 battlelog stats were checked. the plugin then found your qbu88 having 292 kills and 365 headshots

thats a hs/k of 125%

the average hs/k with the qbu is ~38%

 

since this plugin should only ban cheaters, it will only act if you exeed the average by 320% (which is 121% hs/k).

you did exeed the limit, so you got banned."

You said the plugin will only act if a player exceeds the weapon hs/k average by 3.2 times or 320% of the average hs/k percent. The average hs/k for this weapon is 38%, and if you take 320% of that you will get 121%.

 

But this confuses me, because it should be impossible to get more than 100% of your total kills as head shot kills right?

 

Regardless of what may be a bug in the posts above, if every kill I ever made with weapon X was a headshot, I should have 100% headshots, never more.

 

Any weapon with higher than ~31% hs/k average would therefore exceed the max of 100% hs/k possibility when the plugin takes a multiple of 320% (~31% x 3.2). In this example, if someone used the QBU88 with an aimbot where every kill he made was a headshot, he should come back with 100% hs/k which technically would not get him banned because he wouldn't exceed the 121% hs/k.

 

 

I see the weapon stats here http://i-stats.net/index.php_action=average

 

The highest average hs/k weapon number is for the sniper L96 with a hs/k average of 57.85%.

 

If the average is 57.85% hs/k and 100% is the maximum possibility where every shot would be a headshot, what % hs/k should be too much? Should 150% (instead of 320%) of that weapon's hs/k percentage (or 86%) be considered suspicious?

 

Most of the weapons fall below 30% hs/k http://i-stats.net/index.php_action=average

 

Perhaps the sniper guns should be set at 150% and everything else at 200%.

 

What do you think?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

PLUGIN UPDATED TO VERSION 0.2.1

0.2.1

-NEW: You can now setup the ingame notification (4. Notify) in detail.

-FIX: Tiny update to the scores to find the best reason (most suspicious/impossible stat) to be used in various messages.

-FIX: SPM is now only taken into account if the playtime is above 1 hour.

-FIX: small code updates.

 

0.2

-UPDATE: You can now download/update CheatDetector directly through your procon gui.

 

note that it may take some time until the plugin is available in the packages tab in procon. please be patient :-)

you can also download the latest as always here

 

Any weapon with higher than ~31% hs/k average would therefore exceed the max of 100% hs/k possibility when the plugin takes a multiple of 320% (~31% x 3.2). In this example, if someone used the QBU88 with an aimbot where every kill he made was a headshot, he should come back with 100% hs/k which technically would not get him banned because he wouldn't exceed the 121% hs/k.

 

What do you think?

yes you are right. there is some room to make the detections on certain weapons (mostly sniper rifles i guess) more accurate. just like you said 100% hs/k would not trigger "impossible stats" like it maybe should, but it would trigger "suspicious stats" which is set at 270% (83% hs/k)

 

this will be made more accurate in future updates

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by russel5*:

 

Thanks, merry Xmas

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by HexaCanon*:

 

just a note in the code

 

AS-VAL:

avgkh = 0.16; //avgkh = 0.1483;

 

shouldnt it be 0.15 ?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Mandizzy*:

 

Great, another plugin hammering the already "overloaded" Battlelog with requests.

You will most likely have to change your stats fetching mechanisms in the nearer future due to request limits and problems coming with that.

I wonder if it's possible to have a separate plug-in just for fetching stats from various sources like battlelog and bf3stats and have other plug-ins request data from this plug-in? This way we reduce the load on the data sources and make procon lighter and faster.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by MorpheusX(AUT)*:

 

I wonder if it's possible to have a separate plug-in just for fetching stats from various sources like battlelog and bf3stats and have other plug-ins request data from this plug-in? This way we reduce the load on the data sources and make procon lighter and faster.

That's what we've done and that's what will come with the next Procon Patch as a temporary solution.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

just a note in the code

 

AS-VAL:

avgkh = 0.16; //avgkh = 0.1483;

 

shouldnt it be 0.15 ?

actually its 0.15 yes :-) but i thought 0.16 would be better

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PHX_Big_Deal*:

 

When a player get temp banned he will be only for 15 minutes in the ban list and after that he will be deleted. You will only find him in Metabans. After check the player how i can bring him back to the server ban list when i dont have ea guid? It would be great if a cheater is detected to write his data in a log file with ea guid so that i can ban him after check in server ban list.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by OscarMike*:

 

Hey,

 

seems like a great plugin! I do have a question though:

 

Does this plugin work if our Procon Layer is running in Sandbox mode? We do have the necessary domains/ports open for Battlelog stats querying (Truebalancer plugin works 100%). Do we need to add any other exceptions for traffic with this plugin because of Sandbox mode? I was just wondering because every scanned player has received values of 0%. I'm just testing the plugin on 1 of our 5 servers at the moment. Just wondering if this is normal?

 

Thanks & keep up the good work!

 

EDIT: Plugin works in Sandbox mode. Only had to wait for night time and the plugin successfully banned 3 cheaters with HK% of 97%+. Great plugin!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

When a player get temp banned he will be only for 15 minutes in the ban list and after that he will be deleted. You will only find him in Metabans. After check the player how i can bring him back to the server ban list when i dont have ea guid? It would be great if a cheater is detected to write his data in a log file with ea guid so that i can ban him after check in server ban list.

you could activate "log to file" (5. Debug). but this is only recommended if you use the plugin on your local computer (not the layer). note that this will only log the plugin output you see in the plugin log (not the guid but the name).

 

i recommend you increase the "length of temp ban (min)" (2.TBan). the maximum here is 1 year (535680 minutes)

 

Hey,

 

seems like a great plugin! I do have a question though:

 

Does this plugin work if our Procon Layer is running in Sandbox mode? We do have the necessary domains/ports open for Battlelog stats querying (Truebalancer plugin works 100%). Do we need to add any other exceptions for traffic with this plugin because of Sandbox mode? I was just wondering because every scanned player has received values of 0%. I'm just testing the plugin on 1 of our 5 servers at the moment. Just wondering if this is normal?

 

Thanks & keep up the good work!

thank you :-)

 

if truebalancer works. this plugin will work too. because they access the same sites (battlelog)

i think it is required anyway. so every procon layer should be able to access battlelog (i could be wrong)

 

0% means: nothing suspicious detected

this also indicates that the plugin is working

 

if you are interested i can sent you instructions about how to test with known cheaters by pm

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by EBassie*:

 

Hey grizzlybeer,

 

just wondering if you are going to update the plugin to use the new Battlelog Cache plugin / DB which is now available.

 

Happy new year,

 

EB

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Hey grizzlybeer,

 

just wondering if you are going to update the plugin to use the new Battlelog Cache plugin / DB which is now available.

 

Happy new year,

 

EB

yes :-)

 

EDIT: maybe i was too fast with this "yes" :-) lets say maybe

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

after looking into it, i decided not to use the db for this plugin, since it requires setting up a mysql db.

i want this plugin to be as easy as possible.

 

maybe i add an option to use the db plugin in future versions

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by EBassie*:

 

after looking into it, i decided not to use the db for this plugin, since it requires setting up a mysql db.

i want this plugin to be as easy as possible.

 

maybe i add an option to use the db plugin in future versions

Well, you can do the same as InsaneLimits. It has to option to use it or not.

The less same requests to Battlelog the better

 

PS: you can also wait, because Morpheus & Co are making a centralized cached solution.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

i will wait i guess :-)

but its allways good to have a look at insane limits :-)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by IAF-SDS*:

 

grizzlybeer,

 

I wanted to buy you a beer via donation for your awesome plugin and help.

 

I don't see a donation button. Would you consider adding a donation button on your first page please?

 

 

 

This plugin tries to detect cheaters by their BF3 Battlelog Stats. This is done in the following way:

When a new player has joined (by detecting new entries in the playerlist. not by the playerjoined event, to prevent spamming) his stats are fetched from his Battlelog page (3 requests).

This is done for 1 player every 30 seconds, to not trigger any restrictions on the Battlelog side using a fifo-queue (first in, first out. or fcfs (first come, first served))

Then every weapons stat (with more than 130 kills) is checked against a collection of averages (many thx to i-stats.net :-) check out their website) to decide if its normal, suspicious or impossible.

Reading what you wrote about checking each player every 30 seconds, that means on a 64-slot server, it will take 32 minutes to check all the players correct?

 

Will it check the same ones again next round/map or will it know to only check new players regardless of a new round/map? In other words, the playerlist is not reset each round/map to trigger a re-check right?

 

At what point does CD check the same player again, let's say, if he's been playing with us for hours? Once per session until he disconnects and reconnects again?

 

How fast does it check istats for the weapons stats? Every 30 seconds each player or faster?

 

With high tickets the length of each map easily reaches about an hour or more, usually. But if the server has low tickets or shorter rounds, would there be enough time to check all the players or will it simply check the ones it didn't finish on the next round or map?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by MorpheusX(AUT)*:

 

i will wait i guess :-)

but its allways good to have a look at insane limits :-)

Not sure if the change will be made before the dedicated caching server, but Procon will include a check for direct Battlelog-Queries and will block plugins issuing those. You'd might want to try getting used with the system thus

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by BF3-FairPlay*:

 

Hi,

 

Seems to be a very nice plugin that is worthy to use! Thank you for your hard work and to everyone.

 

Talking about averages that i-stats has calculated they must have included cheater's profiles as well... bearing this in mind would it be worthy to decrease a bit the averages in this plugin?

 

Thanks and Happy New Year!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by HexaCanon*:

 

Grizzly why do i see no donation/support for your plugins.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

grizzlybeer,

 

I wanted to buy you a beer via donation for your awesome plugin and help.

 

I don't see a donation button. Would you consider adding a donation button on your first page please?

thank you :-) i will add a button to the first post now.

you can also find a donate button in the plugins details in procon.

 

 

Reading what you wrote about checking each player every 30 seconds, that means on a 64-slot server, it will take 32 minutes to check all the players correct?

yes. if you have 64 players online and you active (install) the plugin, it will initially take 32 minutes until all the players have been checked. new players joining will be added to the queue in the last position, if they leave before they are checked, they are removed from the queue.

so, if you start the plugin for the first time it will take some time to check all the players. but assuming that less than 1 player join every 30 seconds (lets say 1 new player every 5 minutes on average), the plugin will catch up

 

Will it check the same ones again next round/map or will it know to only check new players regardless of a new round/map? In other words, the playerlist is not reset each round/map to trigger a re-check right?

 

At what point does CD check the same player again, let's say, if he's been playing with us for hours? Once per session until he disconnects and reconnects again?

yes, new rounds have no effect on the playerlist and the queue.

the plugin has a playerlist (checked players) and a queue (players to check). when a new player joins (to be more specific: when he is detected as a new player. if you active the plugin after some players joined) he is added to the queue in the last position.

every 30 seconds the player in the first position in the queue is checked, removed from the queue and added to the playerlist. if an error (timeout, max requests) occurs, the player is again added to the queue and removed from the playerlist (so that the plugin tries to check him again)

 

How fast does it check istats for the weapons stats? Every 30 seconds each player or faster?

the plugin does not access istats. the only website needed for this plugin is bf3 battelog

 

With high tickets the length of each map easily reaches about an hour or more, usually. But if the server has low tickets or shorter rounds, would there be enough time to check all the players or will it simply check the ones it didn't finish on the next round or map?

same as above. new rounds have no effect on the queue or the playerlist.

it has the effect of cleaning the playerdict, used for infos like ea guid. so that this plugin does not consume all your memory if you run it for a very long time without any procon restarts

 

Not sure if the change will be made before the dedicated caching server, but Procon will include a check for direct Battlelog-Queries and will block plugins issuing those. You'd might want to try getting used with the system thus

looks like i will have to then :-)

 

Hi,

 

Seems to be a very nice plugin that is worthy to use! Thank you for your hard work and to everyone.

 

Talking about averages that i-stats has calculated they must have included cheater's profiles as well... bearing this in mind would it be worthy to decrease a bit the averages in this plugin?

 

Thanks and Happy New Year!

thank you. happy new year to you too :-)

i guess you are right. cheaters are most likely included in the averages.

but they are a very small number way below 1% so they dont really matter for the averages :-)

 

Grizzly why do i see no donation/support for your plugins.

there it is :-)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by BF3-FairPlay*:

 

thank you. happy new year to you too :-)

i guess you are right. cheaters are most likely included in the averages.

but they are a very small number way below 1% so they dont really matter for the averages :-)

It should be much more than 1% in my opinion since I've seen like hundreds of thousands views of some threads on private cheat forums. However, I found a bug (seems like a bug to me)... I was doing some tests right now and on the first try your plugin banned a player like a charm but when I did a second try it has detected impossible stat but didn't ban a cheater.. the message in the ProCon console was repeating and in the ingame chat as well but a cheater was able to play

 

Please see below what I had in my procon console while cheater was on the server:

 

[14:50:29 15] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:29 26] ------------------------

[14:50:58 94] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:58 98] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:58 98] ------------------------

[14:51:29 13] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:29 16] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:29 16] ------------------------

[14:51:58 38] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:58 43] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:58 43] ------------------------

[14:52:29 18] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:29 26] ------------------------

[14:52:58 63] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:58 73] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:58 74] ------------------------

 

I think it's happening cos your plugin sends a ban request just once without checking if player remain online. I have a feeling that procon takes much longer to obtain EA GUID from server rather than PB GUID and since it's set to ban/tban by using EA GUID it might cause problems like I have described.

 

I have similar issue with InsaneLimits when I'm creating a rule to ban someone by EA GUID evaluated ro OnJoin since I dont get guid in time...

 

Thanks.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

It should be much more than 1% in my opinion since I've seen like hundreds of thousands views of some threads on private cheat forums. However, I found a bug (seems like a bug to me)... I was doing some tests right now and on the first try your plugin banned a player like a charm but when I did a second try it has detected impossible stat but didn't ban a cheater.. the message in the ProCon console was repeating and in the ingame chat as well but a cheater was able to play

 

Please see below what I had in my procon console while cheater was on the server:

 

[14:50:29 15] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:29 26] ------------------------

[14:50:58 94] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:58 98] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:58 98] ------------------------

[14:51:29 13] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:29 16] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:29 16] ------------------------

[14:51:58 38] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:58 43] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:58 43] ------------------------

[14:52:29 18] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:29 26] ------------------------

[14:52:58 63] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:58 73] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:58 74] ------------------------

 

I think it's happening cos your plugin sends a ban request just once without checking if player remain online. I have a feeling that procon takes much longer to obtain EA GUID from server rather than PB GUID and since it's set to ban/tban by using EA GUID it might cause problems like I have described.

 

I have similar issue with InsaneLimits when I'm creating a rule to ban someone by EA GUID evaluated ro OnJoin since I dont get guid in time...

 

Thanks.

first make sure that kick/tban/ban is activated, otherwise the plugin will continue to notify (this is an issue. i will fix it in the next update)

 

given that kick, tban or ban is activated a reason why the player wasnt removed could be (like you mentioned):

the ea guid or pb guid was not available at the time of the kick (unlikely since the player is on your server for several minutes, you would see this type of error only with debug level 4)

 

i never had that kind of error. try setting the debug level to 4 and see if there are any errors

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by dyn*:

 

Regarding post #56* now know what you meant as I just found a user who has more than 100% headshots on a weapon:

 

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3.394257277/pc/

 

http://bf3stats.com/stats_pc/BlackBlazze

L85A2

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

given that kick, tban or ban is activated a reason why the player wasnt removed could be (like you mentioned):

the ea guid or pb guid was not available at the time of the kick

It's not the GUID. By the time the player gets on the player list (OnListPlayers), you have the GUID.

 

In your plugin code, make sure you do a admin.kickPlayer command before you do a banList.add. That insures that the player leaves the game.

 

There's a different problem with Insane Limits. There are a couple of bugs associated with OnJoin that need to be fixed.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

thx for the hint papa :-)

i will add that in the next update

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by HexaCanon*:

 

It should be much more than 1% in my opinion since I've seen like hundreds of thousands views of some threads on private cheat forums. However, I found a bug (seems like a bug to me)... I was doing some tests right now and on the first try your plugin banned a player like a charm but when I did a second try it has detected impossible stat but didn't ban a cheater.. the message in the ProCon console was repeating and in the ingame chat as well but a cheater was able to play

 

Please see below what I had in my procon console while cheater was on the server:

 

[14:50:29 15] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:29 26] ------------------------

[14:50:58 94] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:50:58 98] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:50:58 98] ------------------------

[14:51:29 13] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:29 16] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:29 16] ------------------------

[14:51:58 38] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:51:58 43] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:51:58 43] ------------------------

[14:52:29 18] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:29 26] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:29 26] ------------------------

[14:52:58 63] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: ******** F2000 k/h: 57.12% (3.36)

[14:52:58 73] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: ******** 99%

[14:52:58 74] ------------------------

 

I think it's happening cos your plugin sends a ban request just once without checking if player remain online. I have a feeling that procon takes much longer to obtain EA GUID from server rather than PB GUID and since it's set to ban/tban by using EA GUID it might cause problems like I have described.

 

I have similar issue with InsaneLimits when I'm creating a rule to ban someone by EA GUID evaluated ro OnJoin since I dont get guid in time...

 

Thanks.

are you from professional noobs servers ?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by IAF-SDS*:

 

the plugin does not access istats. the only website needed for this plugin is bf3 battelog

Ah right, you have included these averages from istats within the code. Great, thanks for answering my questions.

 

From what I understand, the plugin relies on averages of weapons and player stats which are accumulated over time.

 

If a player suddenly gets a new aimbot and decides to turn it on in our server when he thinks admins are not around to go on a rampage, would CD not detect him while in our server because 1) it already checked and cleared him before he turned on the aimbot, and 2) he would have to cheat enough over time to affect his battlelog stats enough to trigger a CD ban?

 

 

Ice cold beer donation is on it's way.

 

(Please consider adding a description/note field to donations to allow us to include a quick note letting you know who is making the donation since the forum name usually won't match the donation name.)

 

Confirmation number: 3AD83663AJ769164X

 

 

 

 

Update:

 

Tonight, I encountered what all server owners fear with a hacker, and that is one who is blatantly open about his hacking while running rampant without an admin on to stop him. Neither Cheat Detector nor VoteBan stopped him.

 

I have to post this in both the Cheat Detector and the VoteBan threads to try to figure out why he got away with this until a player used @admin to notify an admin to stop him (happened to be me who saw it first).

 

Aimbotter entered the server at 23:09:11 and I banned him at 23:31:17, which was within a minute of receiving the @admin notification in ProCon because I happened to be working in ProCon at the time. Had I not been there to see this, Im confident this hacker would have emptied out a full 64-slot server (had 62/64 players at the time).

 

VoteBan didn't work with so many people starting votes and even more voting yes. My start Vote Ban number is 10, and my Vote Ban Pass Percentage is 70% which means 10 people are needed to start the vote, but once it starts, only 7 need to vote yes to ban him.

 

Cheat Detector didn't ban him, although I saw Cheat Detector ban three others today in two of our servers (two CD bans in this server and one CD ban in the other server today). Looking thru the logs, including the plugin log, I see that Cheat Detector only came back with this for him 40 seconds after he entered:

 

[23:09:51] CD - Suspicious stats: xXDeadlystrikeXx spm: 1413.29

 

He's a 95.5% CONFIRMED CHEATER per Cheat-O-Meter here:

http://www.team-des-fra.fr/CoM/bf3.p...DeadlystrikeXx

 

In just 20 minutes on the server, he reached 114-5. Had he stayed the whole map at this rate, he would have hit 345-15 theoretically, assuming he wouldn't have cleared out the server before reaching such an absurd score.

 

 

Why do you think Cheat Detector didn't ban him?

 

Im posting this in hopes that we might see something you could tweak to stop this kind of threat in the future.

 

Your thoughts GrizzlyBeer?

 

 

 

I can provide you with any logs you need, of course. But here's what I isolated for you from the plugin log as well as the chat log about aimbotter xXDeadlystrikeXx:

 

Code:

Aimbot Cheater:  xXDeadlystrikeXx
EA GUID:  EA_DFF2063396651B0AF4728001B48698A3
Battlelog Profile:  http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/xXDeadlystrikeXx/  



EA_DFF2063396651B0AF4728001B48698A3 Guid Permanent xXDeadlystrikeXx BAN for Hacks (95.5% on CoM) by SD

95.5% CONFIRMED CHEATER per Cheat-O-Meter
http://www.team-des-fra.fr/CoM/bf3.php_p=xXDeadlystrikeXx

Score was 114-5 after only 20 minutes in the server:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/52190062/1/796862659/



20130101_plugin.log

[23:08:41] [Insane Balancer] Queueing xXDeadlystrikeXx for stats fetching
[23:08:41] [Insane Limits] Queueing xXDeadlystrikeXx for stats fetching

[23:08:41] [Insane Balancer] Queueing xXDeadlystrikeXx for stats fetching
[23:08:41] [Insane Limits] Queueing xXDeadlystrikeXx for stats fetching
[23:08:41] [Insane Balancer] Stats fetching thread is now awake!
[23:08:41] [Insane Balancer] Getting battlelog stats for xXDeadlystrikeXx, no more players in queue
[23:08:41] [Insane Limits] Thread(fetch): Battlelog Cache plugin is disabled; installing/updating and enabling the plugin is recommended for Insane Limits!
[23:08:41] [Insane Limits] Thread(fetch): WARNING: (StatsException) Unable to fetch stats for xXDeadlystrikeXx, cache is disabled and direct fetching is disabled!
[23:08:43] [Insane Balancer] xXDeadlystrikeXx, fetched, score(4100547), rank(55), skill(1097.69), kills(9309), deaths(1738) kdr(5.9), spm(1404.03), kpm(3.19), quits(46.46), acc(19.44)
[23:08:43] [Insane Balancer] Done fetching stats, 1 player in new batch, waiting for players list now
[23:08:43] [Insane Limits] Thread(fetch): Unable to fetch stats for xXDeadlystrikeXx
[23:08:43] AdaptiveServerSize: IDLE -> 62 players online. 1 players joining. Server size set to 64. Round started at 64.


[19:40:04] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Haddek AS-VAL k/h: 70.7% (4.42)
[19:40:04] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: Haddek 99%

[b][23:09:51] CD - Suspicious stats: xXDeadlystrikeXx spm: 1413.29[/b]

[23:48:33] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Nox163RUS SCAR k/h: 83.45% (4.21)
[23:48:33] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Nox163RUS UMP k/h: 65.05% (4.06)
[23:48:33] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Nox163RUS F2000 k/h: 59.84% (3.52)
[23:48:33] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Nox163RUS XP1 L85A2 k/h: 100% (6.06)
[23:48:33] CD - IMPOSSIBLE STATS: Nox163RUS XP2 MTAR-21 k/h: 91.46% (5.39)
[23:48:33] CD - SUSPECTED CHEATING: Nox163RUS 99%




Players Witnessed his Hacks per 20130101_chat.log


[b]ENTERED at [23:09:11] ADMININ_AND_SPAWNMSG - XXDEADLYSTRIKEXX > WELCOME![/b]


[23:16:37] LankyFTW > Deadlystrike is 38 an 0 with a pistol...
[23:16:43] xXDeadlystrikeXx > im not using a pistol
[23:16:52] Vaughngoalie > any admins_ seriously
[23:17:01] Slug281 > Yes you are 
[23:17:09] xXDeadlystrikeXx > im using a fucking sniper
[23:17:11] LankyFTW > thats funny... because I have been shot out of a tank twice, by you, with a pistol...
[23:17:58] Slug281 > Oh look again you kill with a pistol
[23:18:01] LankyFTW > oh wow... look what happened... Deadlystrike with a pistol, again

[23:20:38] LankyFTW > @voteban <xXDeadlystrikexX><Hacker hacker hacker_
[23:20:42] Indy_303 > @yes
[23:20:45] ImpactedHorse > @yes
[23:20:47] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:20:47] LeHozay > yes
[23:20:53] LankyFTW > @yes

[b][23:20:56] xXDeadlystrikeXx > @hugeblackdick[/b]
[23:23:23] LankyFTW > Deadlystrikes... you are such a bitch

[23:23:26] Skullhumper229 > @voteban xXDeadlyStrikeXx aimbot
[23:23:33] ImpactedHorse > @yes
[23:23:37] Friznutz999 - Russian Army > @yes
[23:23:43] rascalea > @yes
[23:23:45] CrackOxidation > @yes
[23:23:48] hotdoggyurkeyam > @yes
[23:23:51] FourFingerFrank > @yes
[23:23:53] LeHozay - US Army > @voteban Strike <aimbot>
[23:23:54] -lSpAzl- > @voteban xXDeadlyStrikeXx
[23:23:56] FourFingerFrank > !yes
[23:24:04] -lSpAzl- > TK his ass
[23:24:05] LankyFTW > @yes
[23:24:09] Friznutz999 - Russian Army > Vote again please
[23:24:12] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:24:12] LeHozay > @yes
[23:24:15] ImpactedHorse > @yes
[23:24:16] SlowburnVv > @yes
[23:24:17] SS_Angelic > @ye
[23:24:17] LeHozay > wow
[23:24:19] -lSpAzl- > @yes
[23:24:21] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:24:21] mrench01 > @yes
[23:24:23] LeHozay > its not even fucking working
[23:24:27] Slickbaby > @yes
[23:24:31] Friznutz999 > @yes
[23:24:37] LeHozay > @yes
[23:24:38] Friznutz999 > peice of shi
[23:24:41] LeHozay > @YES
[23:24:49] elzod > @yes
[23:24:55] Skullhumper229 > @voteban <xXDeadlyStrikeXx> <aimbot>
[23:25:10] Slickbaby - Russian Army > @yes
[23:25:18] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:25:30] CrackOxidation > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx aim what_
[23:25:36] ImpactedHorse > @yes
[23:25:41] LeHozay > 2yes
[23:25:42] SlowburnVv > @yes
[23:25:42] LankyFTW > so no admins_
[23:25:43] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:25:45] LeHozay > @yes
[23:25:50] CrackOxidation > @yes
[23:25:52] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:25:53] LeHozay > yes
[23:25:57] Friznutz999 > @yes

[b][23:26:46] xXDeadlystrikeXx > @superomgmegahack-activate[/b]

[23:27:26] SandStalker2002 > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx hacks
[23:27:28] Friznutz999 > This is gay
[23:27:35] Slug281 > 89-3 
[23:27:38] CrackOxidation > @yes
[23:27:43] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:27:44] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:27:45] CrackOxidation > type @yes everyone
[23:27:48] Skullhumper229 > @voteban  xXDeadlyStrikeXx  Aimbot
[23:27:48] -lSpAzl- - US Army > TK that dickwad
[23:27:53] CaptBattlefield > @yes
[23:27:53] Iskaryotes > @yes
[23:27:55] Friznutz999 > @voteban 
[23:27:57] Slug281 > @yes
[23:27:59] DanTheMan1386 > @yes
[23:28:00] Friznutz999 > @yes
[23:28:03] ImpactedHorse > @yes
[23:28:09] FourFingerFrank > @yes
[23:28:10] DanTheMan1386 > how do u vote
[23:28:13] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:28:15] FourFingerFrank > !yes
[23:28:19] Davilizer > @yes
[23:28:19] CrackOxidation > type @yes dan
[23:28:19] LeHozay > @yes
[23:28:24] Friznutz999 > ban system doesnt work
[23:28:25] DanTheMan1386 > @yes
[23:28:36] Skullhumper229 > @yes

[23:28:49] Skullhumper229 > vote yes
[23:28:50] Slickbaby > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx douchehammer
[23:28:53] TomJoadsGhost70 > @voteban <xXDeadlystrikeXx> <nobodys that good>
[23:28:55] ImpactedHorse > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx hack
[23:28:56] SandStalker2002 > @voteban xxdeadlystrikesxx hacks
[23:28:57] Monkeeyoz > @yes
[23:28:58] DanTheMan1386 > @yes
[23:29:00] SlowburnVv > @yes
[23:29:03] Slug281 > @yes
[23:29:03] Friznutz999 > @yes
[23:29:05] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:29:05] SexyScoot - Russian Army > @yes
[23:29:06] Indy_303 > @yes
[23:29:08] rascalea > @yes
[23:29:12] -lSpAzl- - US Army > where is he_
[23:29:13] Skullhumper229 > vote @yes
[23:29:13] Slickbaby > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx cockfag
[23:29:15] -lSpAzl- - US Army > just keep TKing his ass
[23:29:15] Slickbaby > @yes
[23:29:17] SexyScoot > vote @yes
[23:29:20] Friznutz999 > Report him to admin because he wont get banned
[23:29:21] DanTheMan1386 > cunt
[23:29:21] -lSpAzl- > @YES
[23:29:25] -lSpAzl- > vote @yes
[23:29:25] LeHozay > @yes
[23:29:27] Friznutz999 > admin
[23:29:29] CrackOxidation > @yes
[23:29:34] SS_Angelic > @yes
[23:29:38] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:29:40] Slickbaby > EVERYONE TYPE @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx douche

[b][23:29:46] Notify Me!: ImpactedHorse requested an admin! (voteban not working.. xxdeadlystrikexx hack)[/b]
[23:29:49] ImpactedHorse > @admin voteban not working.. xxdeadlystrikexx hack

[23:29:49] Skullhumper229 > @yes
[23:29:49] LankyFTW > what admin...
[23:29:49] LeHozay > @voteban deadly
[23:29:53] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:29:54] CrackOxidation > @yes
[23:29:57] LeHozay > yes
[23:30:02] Friznutz999 > Just email an admin and he will be banned forever when he comes on
[23:30:03] SandStalker2002 > @yes
[23:30:03] Monkeeyoz > @yes
[23:30:08] Friznutz999 > @yes
[23:30:10] Slickbaby > @yes
[23:30:19] DirtyHarryPinga > this game will be over before that ban actually works lolololol

[b][23:30:22] xXDeadlystrikeXx > !votebank slick super hack[/b]

[23:30:22] SandStalker2002 > @voteban xxdeadlystrikesxx hacks
[23:30:28] LeHozay > three more people have to type the whole thing out
[23:30:32] Friznutz999 > Report him on ea website too
[23:30:32] Ooyah > all sight seeing and shit lol

[23:30:35] xXDeadlystrikeXx > @voteback friz

[23:30:36] Friznutz999 > @yes
[23:30:37] elzod > @no
[23:30:40] -lSpAzl- - US Army - Foxtrot > hey deadly
[23:30:45] -lSpAzl- - US Army - Foxtrot > why ruin the game for everyone else_
[23:30:53] DirtyHarryPinga > @yes
[23:30:53] SS_Angelic > @voteban 
[23:31:02] LeHozay > EVERYBODY TYPE @voteban xXDeadlyStrikerXx
[23:31:08] Skullhumper229 > @voteban  xXdeadlyStrikeXx  aimbot
[23:31:16] DanTheMan1386 > HE IS CHEATING im watching im right NOW
[23:31:16] SS_Angelic > @voteban xxx deadlystrike xxx hacker
[23:31:17] DanTheMan1386 > IM ON HIS TEAM


[b]BANNED at [23:31:17] AdminIn_and_SpawnMsg > xXDeadlystrikeXx REMOVED for: xXDeadlystrikeXx BAN for Hacks (95.5% on CoM) by SDS[/b]


[23:31:18] DanTheMan1386 > @yes
[23:31:19] LankyFTW > Deadlystrike... go fist yourself.
[23:31:20] Friznutz999 > @voteban xXdeadlyStrikerXX <faggot>
[23:31:26] Monkeeyoz > @vote ban 
[23:31:27] LeHozay > just say @voteban deadly
[23:31:30] SS_Angelic > @voteban xxdeadlystrikexx hacker
[23:31:30] Ooyah > wait wait,
[23:31:34] CrackOxidation > hes gone_
[23:31:34] Ooyah > it said removed_
[23:31:35] -lSpAzl- > he was banned
[23:31:38] Skullhumper229 > use 2 spaces 
[23:31:40] ImpactedHorse > it worked now___

[23:31:43] Admin > Admin: I got him.  Thanks for contacting me.  xXDeadlystrikeXx  BANNED by IAF SDS

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by OscarMike*:

 

@IAF SDS

 

That is a very unfortunate situation with the "domination hack" cheater slipping through your prevention mechanisms. I haven't encountered this problem yet on any of our 4x64 slot servers on which I have the CheatDetector plugin running. It has banned all suspicious players and they have been disconnected from the game pretty much instantly.

 

On topic of preventing cheaters connecting and emptying servers:

 

Our BF community runs 5 servers and on each server we have multiple cheater prevention mechanisms active. (Insane Limits, CheatDetector, Metabans, GGC-Stream, PBBans, Admin Notification) We also have Rconnet Premium (Hall of Shame plugin, synchronized ban lists on all servers) & Procon Layers for each server, making sure that if one fails, theres still another mechanism to keep domination hackers at bay while admins try and resolve the issue.

 

Sounds a bit much but all these mechanisms have ensured that we haven't seen a single domination hacker for months.

 

Theoretically, if you have the Metabans plugin running on your layer, as soon as the CheatDetector plugin issues a ban command, it should be sent to Metabans automatically. That would make sure the ban is enforced whether or not CheatDetector actually ends up kicking the player, as Metabans will do additional enforcing of bans for you. All CheatDetector issued bans have been automatically added to our Metabans account and enforced. - Correct me if wrong!

 

In any case, Metabans is very useful if you follow the accounts of both the French and German Cheatometer sites and other trustworthy admins. Most blatant cheaters have been banned in the past by those accounts (xXdeadlyStrikerXX has been previously banned on the 9th of December 2012 by the French cheatometer site).