Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Dodge Xbox Live Shutout
An Ars Technica post at their games column Opposable Thumbs points out that, despite Microsoft's best efforts, hacked Xbox 360s are once again playing on Xbox Live. "Steadfast in their pursuits, the hackers of the Xbox 360 scene have managed to best Microsoft's Xbox Live Banning protocol: a system of checks in place to identify hacked Xbox 360s and deny them access to the Xbox Live Network. The current method of hacking the 360 involves exploiting the firmware of the DVD drive (the preferable method), and this latest patch does just that. In fact, the creators are so confident in their breakthrough that the info file remarks that the new firmware 'defeats all current and some future Xbox Live detection attempts.'"
As far as I know, the mod in question only allows users to play "backups" of games - not to run arbitrary code (including cheats). So the concerns of people cheating are a little off the mark. As is the idea that the detection could really be moved to the server side - any detection regimen is going to have to look at the drive's firmware or some characteristic of the disk and this looking is going to be done at the client end.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
It's bad if they're on Xbox Live, which is a private, paid for network where the users are paying for reliability and consistency in a level playing field (ie no wall hacks). No one is going to go through the time or expense to look into the intended use of every hacked console. If a hacked console doesn't go on Xbox Live, then there is no issue.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
If you start modifying files on a rig provided to you by the competition(one on which you may not have administrative access), you're taking a much larger risk than by simply cheating on Internet games.
If you're caught by some automated detection system, you can always have plausible deniability, even if you're still banned: automated detection systems sometimes have false positives, viruses can install questionable software on your computer without your consent, etc. As far as reputation goes, this is strengthened by the fact that the makers of the anti-cheat systems will never reveal their methods(or, thus, results) exactly, for fear of giving themselves away to would-be hackers. This means that your reputation needn't be completely ruined, and certainly that legal charges against you(say, in a competition for money) probably wouldn't stick.
Playing on a "hostile" rig means that if you do cheat and someone does investigate, what you did can be pretty conclusively documented. Furthermore, in professional gaming competition where a lot of money is at stake, I find it hard to believe that neither one of the other three players, nor any among the audience, would suspect foul play and call for an investigation if someone cheated during the high-prestige, highly supervised game.
Actually, the hack in question only allows the use of copies. There is an exploit which allows the execution of unsigned code, but it only works on a specific version of the kernel. Connecting to Live would automatically update the kernel (dash console), which would patch the exploit. So any claims that they are protecting against bots and cheats is pure FUD, since bots and wall hacks *do not exist* on the 360 (at this time); at least none that would work on Live.
Eventually another unsigned code vulnerability may be found (which is what you would need to run a modfied client), but this will almost definately not be a result of modifying the DVD-ROM firmware.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
So the cheater didn't win, but he still got a free trip to Hawaii. Sounds to me like he did pretty well.
"Not necessarily true. Hacking can get you a long way, but eventually it usually breaks down."
Only for those who are later required to play on somebody else's hardware.
"But don't miss the fact that only 1 out of the 4 finalists was a cheater"
Oh, I don't miss it, I just wouldn't use the adjective "only." It suggests that at least 1/4 of the players in your game were cheaters, potentially as many as 100%-3. It also suggests that your security was so slipshod that you allowed a cheater to get so far as the finals, knocking out unknowable numbers of honest players in the process (potentially one that was better than the other three you had present). It sounds like this guy would have won if he simply had the foresight to sneak in a USB key drive. In fact, are you sure one of the other three didn't do just that?
I wouldn't be touting this as an accomplishment, rather this is a failure. This isn't a story of "Cheaters never win," but only "Don't get caught."