JustGotRipped is a professional troll and sango is just delusional thinking someones gonna edit their pcs memory to bypass a anticheat on a lego game
1 Like
when someone says the truth, they’re called a troll.
look what happened to Kanye, the same is happening in this thread right now. #stopSilencingTruth #stopskidsfromreplying #unbanmefromcitadel
1 Like
4/10 ragebait
tell claude ai to cook you some ragebait about anticheats before
1 Like
You’re either secure or you’re not Citadel…
1 Like
Fallacy detector went off my bad gangie
Since people keep getting mad and reporting my posts and getting them taken down, use your intelligence to name one ROBLOX anticheat in production that blocks the ability of cheating.
This question was asked for the sole purpose of trying to consume knowledge within the aspect of Roblox.
1 Like
There are zero client acs on roblox that can detect an exploit that doesnt inject
1 Like
GRH (synz owner) literally calls it ultra detected
thats how my code obfuscates itself
Heyyyy, You copied my code style
Im sending him citadel source rn so he can paste it for skidionary
Another “hyperion will do the job for you”…
You do realize banwaves happen every ~3 months? And that exploiters just go exploit on alt with 0 risk? This is why anti-cheats are still needed, especially considering all ios and some android executors are undetected.
1 Like
i hope you know pretty much every exploit modifies memory…
All undetectable exploits dont modify process memory
You seem to completely miss the point of what i am saying
Ur anti-cheat is garbage. it just spammed my output then kicked me instead of preventing any “cheating.” if anything this resource is a virus than an anti-cheat:
1 Like
Man, it’s right infront of your face did you even try to read the console?
More than one Cloud instance in workspace
1 Like
Its a very sensitive anti cheat. I recommend just using a server side one like knightmare anti cheat. The developer is updating it consistently. If you want a client side then your better of making your own.
2 Likes
It appears that the issue may extend beyond mere sensitivity, as there are numerous errors and a considerable volume of console messages being generated. This indicates a potential malfunction rather than solely strict detection parameters. When releasing resources of this nature, it is crucial to consider compatibility with a diverse array of game environments, as many developers depend on such tools for various applications.
Based on my observations, the anti-cheat system appears to be ineffective in a standard gaming environment. This suggests that it may have been optimized for a particular game rather than being designed for broader applicability. If this is indeed the case, enhancing the documentation or adapting the resource for greater compatibility could potentially improve its adoption and effectiveness in public releases.
1 Like
It has come to my attention that the anti-cheat system does not appear to permit the destruction of components, even in instances where such components are being eliminated due to circumstances such as falling off the map.
For instance, while using my character, I jumped off the map and received warnings indicating that “protected parts are being deleted.” Upon my character’s respawn, I was subsequently removed from the game for alleged hacking.
The sole method to mitigate these types of behaviors is by disabling the anti_part_tamper feature; however, this action compromises numerous essential functionalities, including but not limited to anti-fly and anti-teleport mechanisms.
I recommend revising the anti-part-tamper mechanisms and separating the various detection methods, rather than depending on property changes initiated by the client. For instance, analyzing patterns of flight based on server-side player movement would be a more effective approach.
I conducted an analysis and observed that the anti-cheat system appears to restrict certain behaviors associated with server-side activities. For instance, when I repositioned components, altered their properties, or removed them from the server, these actions were flagged as cheating by the client.
I am beginning to consider the idea that client-based anti-exploit measures may not be fundamentally comprehensive in their design. Instead of directly identifying specific modifications, such as those associated with Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), it may be more effective to assess the manifestations of such cheating through a detailed analysis of player behavior. For instance, one could identify instances of cheating by observing situations in which players demonstrate knowledge of enemy locations that they should not have access to.
In order to implement an effective client-side anti-exploit mechanism, it is essential to validate each action by cross-referencing it with the server. For instance, when an object is moved or destroyed, it is critical to confirm that the corresponding action has been executed on the server. However, it is anticipated that this approach may introduce latency and adversely affect performance.
1 Like