Are they as good as they say they are?
I developed a cheat more than a year ago for csgo. Obviously will never disclose my methods but the methods I am using is out of the box and not your typical bypass. For me to bypass these so called "FBI" anti-cheats was actually no sweat and I achieved this with no dma or kernel drivers.
I honestly believe that these anti-cheats detect cheats more from manual demo analysis rather than the cheat itself. I also believe most cheat developers are so paranoid with these anti-cheats cause they go above and beyond with dma and kernel drivers. It really doesn't have to be so complicated.
I do not believe faceit has an FBI system and reading that on their website made me laugh and the same can be said for other anti-cheats. I think its in their best interest to make people paranoid to make them afraid of using cheats or developing cheats.
I have a few people including me using my cheat on faceit, esea and others for a about a year now.
In opinion I reversed faceit and esea anti-cheat and I have to admit they do have clever ways of detecting cheats especially kernel drivers but there is so many loop holes for cheat developers.
Jun 9, 2022 10:09 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 9, 2022 10:10 AM by Notacheater.)
(Jun 9, 2022 06:18 AM)blaqk Wrote: Are they as good as they say they are?
I developed a cheat more than a year ago for csgo. Obviously will never disclose my methods but the methods I am using is out of the box and not your typical bypass. For me to bypass these so called "FBI" anti-cheats was actually no sweat and I achieved this with no dma or kernel drivers.
I honestly believe that these anti-cheats detect cheats more from manual demo analysis rather than the cheat itself. I also believe most cheat developers are so paranoid with these anti-cheats cause they go above and beyond with dma and kernel drivers. It really doesn't have to be so complicated.
I do not believe faceit has an FBI system and reading that on their website made me laugh and the same can be said for other anti-cheats. I think its in their best interest to make people paranoid to make them afraid of using cheats or developing cheats.
I have a few people including me using my cheat on faceit, esea and others for a about a year now.
In opinion I reversed faceit and esea anti-cheat and I have to admit they do have clever ways of detecting cheats especially kernel drivers but there is so many loop holes for cheat developers.
You're asking ''Are they as good as they say they are?'' while claiming to have a cheat that has been working for 1+year.
Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound?
(Jun 9, 2022 10:09 AM)Notacheater Wrote: You're asking ''Are they as good as they say they are?'' while claiming to have a cheat that has been working for 1+year.
Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound?
I have proof and people who will vouch for me :) what I said is not dumb. I'm trying to let people know that the crap people say about these anti-cheats is rubbish and that bypassing them is not as difficult as people claim
(Jun 9, 2022 06:18 AM)blaqk Wrote: For me to bypass these so called "FBI" anti-cheats was actually no sweat and I achieved this with no dma or kernel drivers.
I honestly believe that these anti-cheats detect cheats more from manual demo analysis rather than the cheat itself. I also believe most cheat developers are so paranoid with these anti-cheats cause they go above and beyond with dma and kernel drivers. It really doesn't have to be so complicated.
The developer of esea is literally a member of unknowncheats. Collectively the smartest and stupidest group of people doing things in kernel and memory. You probably are not getting by esea. The way you write this post leads me to believe you are young and or ignorant with no idea what you are talking about. I haven't seen a thread even trying in close to a year.
They do have a fair degree of manual detection, however, the anticheats themselves are incredibly intrusive and more than likely impossible to bypass without using kernel drivers. DMA is off the table because faceit detects it regardless. If you did this successfully, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass about it on a forum comprised of mostly people who aren't here to discuss memory hacking. You have no clue what you are talking about. Trying to bypass a kernel level ac in what im assuming your claim is ring3 cannot be done as its like drinking soup with a fork.
(Jun 9, 2022 07:01 PM)SIM-5049184 Wrote: The developer of esea is literally a member of unknowncheats. Collectively the smartest and stupidest group of people doing things in kernel and memory. You probably are not getting by esea. The way you write this post leads me to believe you are young and or ignorant with no idea what you are talking about. I haven't seen a thread even trying in close to a year.
They do have a fair degree of manual detection, however, the anticheats themselves are incredibly intrusive and more than likely impossible to bypass without using kernel drivers. DMA is off the table because faceit detects it regardless. If you did this successfully, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass about it on a forum comprised of mostly people who aren't here to discuss memory hacking. You have no clue what you are talking about. Trying to bypass a kernel level ac in what im assuming your claim is ring3 cannot be done as its like drinking soup with a fork.
Yes I am young but far from ignorant. I have been programming for more than 13 years and highly skilled in reverse engineering. I have reversed both esea and faceit. I did say they have clever ways of detecting cheats especially kernel drivers which does make them intrusive I agree but in my missions with these anti-cheats. I did find a few loop holes and people saying it is impossible to bypass these anti-cheats from ring3 is ridiculous. I was only trying to start a conversation with like minded and open minded people to explore these possibilities. As I for many years believed it was only possible to bypass these anti-cheats with a kernel driver and I have developed one but got hit with the ban hammer many time. I found a loop hole in their anti-cheat that allows mine to work in ring3 and I confidently achieved this and yes it is obviously an exploit unknown. My cheat is ring3 and undetected to this day with more than 5 people including me using it. If this is the wrong forum to discuss these things may you direct me to one where I can discuss it?
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Go to bed Rizla, no one cares.
(Jun 10, 2022 03:01 AM)N3xtSolutions Wrote: Go to bed Rizla, no one cares.
Rizla? Really now?
Prove it with a video then
(Jun 10, 2022 08:42 AM)Riveryes Wrote: Prove it with a video then
Why show a video when I give all my potential clients a day trial for the cheat free of charge? I literally give them the cheat for the day and they test it on faceit or esea :) videos prove nothing.
(Jun 10, 2022 01:06 AM)blaqk Wrote: Yes I am young but far from ignorant. I have been programming for more than 13 years and highly skilled in reverse engineering. I have reversed both esea and faceit. I did say they have clever ways of detecting cheats especially kernel drivers which does make them intrusive I agree but in my missions with these anti-cheats. I did find a few loop holes and people saying it is impossible to bypass these anti-cheats from ring3 is ridiculous. I was only trying to start a conversation with like minded and open minded people to explore these possibilities. As I for many years believed it was only possible to bypass these anti-cheats with a kernel driver and I have developed one but got hit with the ban hammer many time. I found a loop hole in their anti-cheat that allows mine to work in ring3 and I confidently achieved this and yes it is obviously an exploit unknown. My cheat is ring3 and undetected to this day with more than 5 people including me using it. If this is the wrong forum to discuss these things may you direct me to one where I can discuss it?
UC might be great for you, I'd love to see sitnspinlock shit in your mouth. If you figured out a ring3 bypass start applying to esea kiddo you'll make more money working for them than selling a cheat.
You sound slow af. You didn't reverse shit. How tf you gon claim you reversed their shit then say later you believe most is done by analyzing demos? How are you so stupid you can't understand their FBI system aka FaceIt Behavior Index is just a rating of how your teammates feel about u?
(Jun 10, 2022 01:06 AM)blaqk Wrote: Yes I am young but far from ignorant.
We all thought that when we were teenagers, though.
aint my sig design skills sick?
I am not responding to anymore hate comments. If you're too closed minded to believe that possibilities I've discussed is possible and constantly bullying cause you feel entitled then please build a bridge and get over yourself. If you don't believe my cheat works and bypasses these anti-cheats then trial my cheat :) all my potential clients use my cheat for the day for FREE to test it on FACEIT and ESEA :)
(Jun 10, 2022 04:16 PM)blaqk Wrote: I am not responding to anymore hate comments. If you're too closed minded to believe that possibilities I've discussed is possible and constantly bullying cause you feel entitled then please build a bridge and get over yourself. If you don't believe my cheat works and bypasses these anti-cheats then trial my cheat :) all my potential clients use my cheat for the day for FREE to test it on FACEIT and ESEA :)
Can you tell me the difference between loading a dll with LoadLibraryA and ManualMapping a dll?
(Jun 10, 2022 05:20 PM)SIM-5049184 Wrote: Can you tell me the difference between loading a dll with LoadLibraryA and ManualMapping a dll?
LoadLibraryA maps a dll and then it will call the entry point.
Manual mapping initializes the dll into a target processes in memory.
My lan version utilizes a specific and undisclosed RunPE method. I'm a big fan of RunPE :)
|
