Anti-Tamper system

Resources Community Resources
, ,
#22

no it doesnt detect infinite yielding

I can use hookfunction on your FireServer like this

local old
old=hookfunction(Instance.new("RemoteEvent").FireServer,newcclosure(function(...)
     local args={...}
     if typeof(args[1])=="Instance" and args[1]:IsA("RemoteEvent") and args[1].Name=="AntiTamperRemote" then
          return coroutine.yield()
     end
     return old(...)
end))
1 Like
#23

Like I said I know it can be bypassed, also the infinite yield thing was wrong ( I can’t explain further) but it’s mainly just ment to catch errors in the console and I think I gave it some basic anti-hooks for walkspeed I forgot but ¯_(ツ)_/¯ if you wanna bypass it you can it’s not hard it’s just ment for people who are trying to learn I’m obviously not gonna put any valuable detections in it although I might make something with some good detections soon

1 Like
#24

Poop resource, yet another pointless client sided anti cheat that will get bypassed in 2 seconds and become useless, yeah sure it makes it harder to exploit but once the protection is penetrated then it doesn’t makes it any harder does it?, And it is also open source meaning exploiters can look at how it works!

#25

This is where gate-keeping comes in. “You must be a member of the Developer Forum in order to view this post”.

#26

“Oh no an user criticized my resource, we shouldn’t allow people who have different perspectives to comment!”

I am aware you stated that it can be bypassed, but what is the point of this anti cheat if you already told us it can be bypassed.

A client anti cheat is only usefull when it’s constantly patched and up to date, but this anti cheat is not usefull because you are posting the source code for it for exploiters to also see, and just bypass it again even if you commit to updating it.

#27

You replied to the wrong guy, my…Guy.

#28

my apologies you are right i responded to the wrong guy, but my point still stands this resource is just not usefull.

#29

would you rather post all my valuable methods for exploiters to see, would you be happier if it became even harder to detect exploits?

#30

How to make exploiter life miserable:

Step 1. Make a entirely client-sided game (if you make multiplayer, why don’t you secure the server instead?)
Step 2. Make sure there is 1 game loop and all important logic is ran in that loop. (This so in-case they disable the update loop, it will disable all other loop functions from being ran, thus messing up the game)
Step 3. Squeeze in your anti-cheat in that loop, maybe hide a few booby traps in other parts of your game. Have certain events not trigger for a cheated player?
Step 4. If it gets bypassed, you can always patch it in the next update and make it bit more difficult so they have to update their code again.

Anyway, stop relying on client-sided anticheat or atleast don’t put your anticheat on 1 single LocalScript that can be easily be deleted, hooked or whatever. If you want do somewhat secure client-side only game, make your game run off a single script that loads bunch of modules, and booby trap your game that a normal player wouldn’t be able to trigger, but an clueless exploiter will.
Also, do NOT kick the client aswell, just secretly do nothing but slowly trigger functions that will mess up the exploiters game and have them figure out what’s causing it.

1 Like
#31

your methods are not valuable, everyone already told you 30 million bypasses on this thread, people please stop with the client sided anti cheats, they dont do anything unless your game is paid, thank you very much!

#32

I got an even better method.

Step 1, dont have a game

Done, since there is no game they cant exploit anymore, rate my epic idea

4 Likes
#33

Oh I’m not talking about the ones in this anti-cheat don’t worry I’m talking about the rare kind.

#34

That can still be bypassed by reading about them on other sites like V3rmillon…

#35

I don’t know how they’re gonna bypass injection detection and execution detection but they can give it a shot

#36

Anything running on an user’s machine can be bypassed as they have full control of it, period.

#37

They’d have to know how to make an executor and then how to get a separate lua state because it’d be under an actor and then figure out how to getnilinstances I think it’d be alot of effort

#38

Only paid executors have actor support, and all of them are down rn.

#39

Executors only execute luau code, It doesn’t execute anything else, the exploit devs have to support functions and stuff in their dll