"Theft of Game Content Using saveinstance()"

At the moment, the only thing you can really do is make it more tedious to save a full map by only replicating part of it to a client at any time, so the exploiter would have to save each part individually then merge them, which would waste their time.

This. Agreed. If we were dealing with code, the strategy would be obfuscation, which is not perfect, but the idea here is to increase the workload of someone who is trying to cut corners on time.

I think for securing models the only available strategy is to fragment the asset such that you have a bunch of parts, and then assemble the final asset at runtime. Not sure this would be worth doing unless you have something really amazing. I think unless they can steal server scripts, a thief really just has a bunch of parts and no game.

1 Like

The entire script becomes useless if a player joins the game then uses their own exploits to kick them out. Leaving them with your entire game as you can still download games even if you’re kicked

Your logic on this is terrible, and how many times do I need to explain that even once kicked, you remain in the game’s memory and your client is still being fed the network data, which means ALL scripts still work, because they are ALL executed in that memory. Therefore, even if you kick yourself to try and avoid detection, you would still be detected, and also crashed.

I’ve tried the script earlier, once you’re kicked, the script no longer detects anything.

It 100% would still detect you, are you sure you set it up correctly? Place the code in a LocalScript in ReplicatedFirst. Also use this:

task.spawn(function()
	while true do
		if game:FindService("UGCValidationService") then
			print("detected")
		end
		task.wait(1.5)
	end
end)

Can you DM me? My script successfully crashes the player when they’re in the game but once they’re kicked it’s not detecting it.

Yep, of course shoot me a message

1 Like

Alright, I sent you the message.

This is 100% incorrect. SaveInstance Injection Detection (Exploit Detection) [REPOST]

2 Likes

The best solution is to make a game not worth saving

1 Like

Get your “facts” straight :rofl: , I never mentioned you “should” use memory checks to detect saveinstance, all I did was give an example of finding unintended side effects.

Yeah they do, have you seen Valve Anti Cheat? Works every time dude!

“so on client just detect those leaks and freely assume your game is being saveinstanced (assuming ur game is optimized and doesn’t have own spikes)”

:thinking::thinking::thinking:

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not

1 Like

Yes cut the part of the beginning of my example and leave the following idea of assumption on top of like a leech, you might be the guy to wrongly check for memory leaks, cause I even said that some saveinstances might cause freezes. You also sound like you would flag your players on first leak :rofl: .
Wouldn’t be even surprised if your game is coded so horribly it lives on memory leaks.

Oh yeah I’m 100% percent serious, Valve Anti Cheat is so good, in Counter-Strike 2, you can’t tell the difference between a cheater and a really good player

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

“For example most saveinstances freeze for a second causing your client to have memory leak for a second, so on client just detect those leaks and freely assume your game is being saveinstanced (assuming ur game is optimized and doesn’t have own spikes)”

Always was? You have some serious reading comprehension issues.

more of those detections will be false positives than they won’t


Are you saying this is not you cutting the beginning of my example to make me look like I said “you should” ?

If you do it incorrectly, any detection can be false positive, you don’t flag person once to instantly assume they are cheating / exploiting.
I’m passing the same question I asked the mr.ai_mzz genius to you, since he was silent on that.
Do you ban your players instantly after they get their mouse on enemies head for “aimbot”?

1 Like