Author Topic: question regarding cheat recognition and telemtriy anomalies  (Read 2102 times)

CarstenSchulze

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
question regarding cheat recognition and telemtriy anomalies
« on: February 10, 2016, 11:49:04 pm »
Dear SimRacingTools admins and admins of subscribed leagues!

In these days I am having a first look at SimRacingTools itself and the amount and kind of information I can get as an admin of a league.
I used myself for first tests with the client program, registered our league (maybe better: community) and started to use the admin panel and reviewed the reports.

At the moment I've got a very positive impression.
But a few questions have not been answered, yet.
  • Comparable to purchasing an anti-virus program I have to rely on your reports in order to identify especially cheaters. So there is following question in my mind: Did you, SimRacingTools admins or admins of subscribed leagues, test, if cheat tools (like "grip  cheat" or "fuel hack") can be identified thrustworthy? I am ask that because some of those mean tolls adverd themselves with "cannot be identified by rf-scan" and sth. like that.
  • Of course, I also tried the button "telemetry anomalies". As I expected, there none of these in my own log. But is my expectation correct, that telemetry anomalies are always caused by cheats? Further question regarding that: May I kindly ask you to provide a screenshot of telemetry abnomalies.

If I can convince my admin colleagues to implement SRT in the championship, I'd like to be sure
(a) not to blame anybody for cheating who did not and
(b) to identify all "common" cheats and even rare / exceptional cheat tools.


Thank you in advance for your support
Kind regards,
Carsten

sequel

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
    • SimRacingTools
Re: question regarding cheat recognition and telemtriy anomalies
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 12:15:16 pm »
Quote
1) SimRacingTools admins or admins of subscribed leagues, test, if cheat tools (like "grip  cheat" or "fuel hack") can be identified thrustworthy? I am ask that because some of those mean tolls adverd themselves with "cannot be identified by rf-scan" and sth. like that.
the dynamic scan of SimRacingTools (which performs the scan in real time processes) detects the active processes. To do this requires a cheat database. At this time they are counted many cheat for all supported simulators but just because of this characteristic there is a button at the bottom of the portal to report the cheats to the staff. Once notified (much information as possible and maybe giving a link to download it) the cheat will be entered in the DB and from that moment you can detect it.
Want to clarify that many cheat (especially those for ISI simulators) are always based on a generic cheat (of which I will not name) and so even if not in the DB, however, identified thanks to this feature.
The detection of the cheat of course is successful even if some smart user attempts to change its name because to be recognized is the software mark and not banally the name.

Quote
Of course, I also tried the button "telemetry anomalies". As I expected, there none of these in my own log. But is my expectation correct, that telemetry anomalies are always caused by cheats? Further question regarding that: May I kindly ask you to provide a screenshot of telemetry abnomalies.
to get an anomaly it is necessary that one of the telemetry values (fuel level, water temperature, fuel consumption tires etc.) remains unchanged for a sufficient period of time (no precise as to not give any advantage). And 'likely that in your experiment you have not kept your test cheat sufficiently active. I'll give you as soon as a screen to show you what to expect in the presence of an anomaly.

Quote
If I can convince my admin colleagues to implement SRT in the championship, I'd like to be sure
(a) not to blame anybody for cheating who did not and
(b) to identify all "common" cheats and even rare / exceptional cheat tools.

the SimRacingTools analysis approach is dictated by the need to establish with good certainty the use of a cheat. To see if an active process belongs to a cheat many points of contact are searched. Many features must fit together and affinity must be high.
In Release 2.0 also introduced the static scan or a scan of all files continuously to detect cheats before they are used. Also in this case a strong affinity is required before establishing a file that belongs to a cheat. The result of the static scan never determines a public report but will act as support when the user is found to use the cheat.

regards
Mauro Musella