Anticheat Methods

[HexadecimalLiker (Liker)]

I think i clearly said Namecall, not Function.

Perhaps you should read the topic again

[Bakonowychlopak123]

@HexadecimalLiker

coroutine.wrap returns a wrapper function that resumes a coroutine from a given function. When calling it over and over (in this case 198 times), it will not error. But 1 more call will result in a C Stack overflow. A good detour function will normally NOT replace the function address, meaning you cannot do if currFunc ~= Func, so calling a function itself again and again will eventually result in a C stack overflow. If it errors, it means they obviously hooked the function, as “old” was used.

An example of a detectable hook with that method would be:

@Unlimited_Objects hookfunction detection method just got leaked

[HexadecimalLiker (Liker)]

he doesn’t care, he already replied on the topic

[mhmdsndb3 (Printer)]

why is bro trying to disable a server script?

[Developer_Aero (Aero)]

um but you can just disable it

[mhmdsndb3 (Printer)]

Client Anti Cheats: Aren't as bad as you think!

Client Anti Cheats They aren’t as bad as you think! If you’ve been on the devforum for a while, you’ve probably already seen the saying, “Never Trust the Client”, alongside multiple reasons why you shouldn’t develop a client-sided anti-cheat. Now, I am not going to say that this claim is 100% false; the client should indeed be considered as a secondary defense, with the server being the main focus for security. However, it is worth noting that some individuals on the DevForums may make such s…

read the first code

[HexadecimalLiker (Liker)]

He is being sarcastic, considering the writing style.

[FrostNovazz (Nova)]

scripts can have their runcontext set to client

[HexadecimalLiker (Liker)]

How is that remotely related to what I just said?

[FrostNovazz (Nova)]

i replied to the wrong thing smh

[Sinkl0z (sinkZ)]

okay. this is a great bypass. rip juice wrld

i like kai cenat and ishowspeed

Make me mad an i will probably have to fanum tax you.

[Unlimited_Objects (Unlimited)]

This post is insanewy innapropwiate pwease refwain fwom making deez posts or I may have to repwort you to higher authworities

[MrJake092209 (Europa)]

I don’t know how to quote the getnamecallmethod() line in this message but this is inaccurate information because it will just change the __index metamethod’s 2nd argument, namecall does not utilize null-bytes

[HexadecimalLiker (Liker)]

Yes right I forgot to edit this out

[Gegecito]

@HexadecimalLiker

I think i clearly said Namecall, not Function.

Perhaps you should read the topic again

Well you clearly don’t understand how metamethods works, that fakenamecall function will always return the same function regardless if you add \0 at the end or not, you’re not magically getting some other function so game.GetFullName and game[“GetFullName\0”] would be exactly the same as they return the same function. So this is really pointless as it serves no protection against exploiters

SafeCFakeNamecall = function(self, Method, ...) --> Does not invoke __namecall, but will invoke __index instead.
        return self[ProtectMethodString(Method)](self, ...)
    end

before namecall is called internally setnamecallmethod() is called, after that it calls namecall so whatever method is set before will be used. You cannot obtain that function and spoof your own namecall methods from a non exploit environment.

[TheRealWayMan]

Interesting, so how do you stop exploiters? I know about metamethods, and I know that you can negate some exploiters with certain methods like renaming serverscriptservice etc. But you might have a solution? Because if your posting to tell someone is wrong, I don’t mind that, but where is the solution ? Because us arguing about exploiter protection and working together to solve the problem is two different things.

[Gegecito]

I am just stating that namecall one is pointless, sure other methods like SafeCNewIndex, SafeCIndex you’ve posted here are effective and help in combating cheaters while the namecall one may just mislead other users researching this kind of topic

[TheRealWayMan]

So no constructive feed back to help the problem? Got it… I see so many people fight about exploiters and how to “Stop” them but no one ever post a solution lol.

[Gegecito]

I wonder if you even read what I have wrote before, there are no similar solutions for namecall as there are for index and newindex.

As for constructive feedback I’ve already explained on how that is misleading certain people on this forum who want to research this topic as that method regarding namecall serves no protection not to mention your misleading explanation on how it works because thats not how it works, and it doesn’t even call namecall in the first place.

Because getnamecallmethod() will instead return something along the lines of GetChildren\000\000\0004154565.1561216 (\000 being null bytes, which are string terminators in C++, meaning the rest will be ignored) which is NOT equal to GetChildren.

And you should really tone down your ego.

[TheRealWayMan]

I have zero ego, because I know that there is always someone out there that is way better at scripting vs exploiters than me. The point of this place is to learn and have teamwork, I don’t really see anything like that in your post. When I go to my boss with a problem I normally get asked the same question, “Where is the solution.” I don’t think you get that concept yet so I will let it go at that. Thank you for your post in attempts to belittle the OP. But I don’t anyone is learning anything from you.