Talk:Valve Anti-Cheat/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valve Anti-Cheat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050204190327/http://www.csnation.net:80/comments.php?id=7083 to http://www.csnation.net/comments.php?id=7083

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External link

Isn't the external link kinda stupid since it references Wikipedia? 86.142.104.176 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. I've removed it. --Tom Edwards 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Polymorphism Removal

This is simply incorrect information. Especially without citation - polymorphism is a common technique in computer science in regards to development within a single assembly (dll file, etc). Overloading this method beyond this is more commonly known as dll injection - where a malicious program could replace pre-loaded module method bytecode with their own without the host program knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.82.176 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Polymorphism is the practice of writing code that changes its memory foot- and finger-print with each execution. It's not hooking, which is the main thing VAC (and other anti-cheats) work to prevent. I've reverted your removal until this is sorted out, as per Wiki etiquette. --Tom Edwards 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, I do very much doubt that this is happening, and without a source, I tentatively remove it. Feel free to restore it again, when you have a proper source. Martijn Hoekstra 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. Bear in mind there will most likely never be a source, as getting one would involve linking to dodgy websites that can't be trusted even if they hold positions of authority within their...culture. --Tom Edwards 09:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

November Bannings 2006

Do you think that it may be a good idea to have a link to where Valve stated that 10,000 accounts had been flagged i.e the 18th Of Nov 2006 weekly news update?

As with this, you're missing the footnotes that provide that exact information you want. --Tom Edwards 12:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Is Valve Banning Innocent Steam User Accounts?"

What do people make of this? I've seen more than enough falsified crap on the VAC forums to dismiss it, but their claims that the accounts are unbanned a few days after the alleged infraction make me uncertain. The post is from a year ago, but the comments go up to 2006-11-11. --Tom Edwards 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a large disparity between actual Valve staff and the people that run their support system and forums (generally, it appears that some of the people writing FAQ questions for the support system are also forum moderators). The moderators/support workers don't really understand too much about what's going on but they're very vocal and will defend Valve to the point of locking threads, deleting posts, and posting outright lies. If you actually get to talk to someone within Valve, they're usually a lot more understanding and reasonable because they're smart enough to know that mistakes can and do happen, and no system is perfect. They also have enough technical knowledge to give decent advice rather than the completely misleading stuff given out in the FAQ/on the forums (eg. "VAC only bans for modifications to game DLL/EXE files"). I don't think anyone can really claim that false positive bans are impossible at this point (though the Steam forum moderators/support staff continue to do so) since there have been several separate occurrences of them throughout VAC's history. I don't remember anyone on Valve's staff ever claiming false positives were impossible -- just that their new scanning methods made them more unlikely than before (before meaning the time when they banned for every hook or memory corruption, before the HLAmp bans). I would give Valve the benefit of the doubt and simply discount claims made in their FAQ/by their forum moderators.

In this instance, while the story isn't verifiable there doesn't really seem as if there'd be any reason for an actual cheater to claim that he was banned and subsequently unbanned at a later date. I remember reading a few threads to this effect on the Steam forums as well so I think it's pretty likely to have happened and been relatively widespread, though whether the exact cause was a problem with VAC's cheat detection or a problem with the banning system I'm not sure. Deaf-mute 09:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there a specific time when these ban reversals were taking place? --Tom Edwards 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the time, or whether the problem was with the VAC system itself or just the Steam client. It seemed that different people claimed to be affected over a period of a few months. Valve haven't talked about it at all and I don't think any technical information or reliable data is available. Deaf-mute 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disadvantages section

"While most cheat systems ban offenders immediately upon detection, VAC cheaters can simply replace banned accounts by repurchasing the game once on a new account and again after being caught for hacking again, cheating indefinitely without ever being removed from the game environment." Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see how this is any different from any other anticheat solutions, barring any requiring personally identifying information and then banning that. Since repurchasing the game and getting a new account works for the vast majority of games out there, the exceptions being the aforementioned banning of the identified account owner, not the game account, I don't see how this can be called a VAC disadvantage since it's hardly exclusive to VAC.

Edit: Forgot to login and sign this entry. Zeraliten 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: "Legitimate players endure a month of uninhibited cheating from each and every individual cheater." Reference #4 cites "that value is too large" when 3 weeks is being mentioned, meaning we can assume at -most- a 3 week ban delay. For all we know the delayed ban could be anything from a few hours/days and up to 3 weeks and even on a randomized timer, making "a month" misleading. I'd suggest changing "a month" to "potentially up to three weeks", removal of the sentence as a whole or asking a valve employee for a reasonable "up to X", though that might be going a bit far just to keep the "Legitimate players endure....." Zeraliten 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've ditched all of it. The guy's edit summary ("I'm sorry. I love and respect wikipedia and won't do this again, but I'm angry.") should be a good enough explanation of why! --Tom Edwards 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You can ban computer by calculated hardware id (e.g. future CPU built-in unique serial number) , and new account don't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.220.13 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

citation needed for "no fail safe hash detection method"

a citation for this can be found on the hash collision article. i personally like http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/ as it isn't overly technical and could be understood by most people.

i can't seem to get the citation to add properly here (i really need to find some time and learn how to work this) so i would ask that someone else add it in. 204.83.242.189 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks! --Tom Edwards 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a tweaking

I've just added a couple of points to the disadvantages section, and I've given the Criticism section a big overhaul. While I'm still getting used to the referencing situation, I know that a couple of the things I've put in there will probably need a reference to be substantiated. I didn't add any {{cite}} tags cause I'd probably add too many, or to incorrect points, etc.

Now, I'm 100% certain without a doubt that everything I've written is correct... I may have crossed the neutrality line at some point (but that's why wikipedia is a collaborative process!) but I have personally enjoyed all of the aspects I mentioned, so they do exist. As for the issue of references, well, once again, that's why it's a community project. I'm going to do my best to find some decent sources, but something like the issues concerning 'Steam User Forum moderation' will be very difficult to source. I would even go so far as to suggest that the Steam User Forums are ineligible as a source because of the moderation issues (they uphold the lore of Valve to the letter, with an iron fist :p).

As for the other stuff, most of it's either tautology or things that can be drawn from basic inference anyway, but I will still endeavour to find some good sites. Obviously in the mean time everyone should go mental rectifying my errors or exacerbating my eloquence. :) - ^You've been _taught FluckED 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many claims that can be substantiated without linking to dodgy sites here, or that can't be proven without statistics that aren't available to the public. If the claims were all logical things might be different, but asking me to believe that "the number of active cheaters remains constant" - meaning that new cheaters buy the game at the same rate as old cheaters are banned (cheaters not being deterred by bans is something else) - flies in the face of reason.

The "number of available working public cheats/ effective cheats only ever increas[ing]" is POV, as it depends on your interpretation of 'working' and 'effective': by VAC's definition none of them work, and criticism of that philosophy belongs under the Delayed Ban heading. If old cheats aren't moved into an instant ban category, then that's definitely worth mention - but it should be in a much more direct manner. And sourced if at all possible, because it's an unbelievably stupid situation for VAC to be in.

When I e-mailed a friend at Valve about the length of VAC2 delays, he told me that my figure of three weeks was "too large". That might have changed since, but in the face of my source I'd want to see evidence of that.

"Non-cheating players may be inclined to start cheating to 'level the playing field'" is already mentioned in the disadvantages section. It isn't expanded upon so I don't see any reason to include it again. --Tom Edwards 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot one other thing: VAC discussions are locked, not deleted. Don't take any of this personally by the way. :-) --Tom Edwards 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had plenty of my posts and threads deleted from the VAC forum. Usually, it's when people discuss technical information on how VAC could be improved or how it currently works.

Yes, but I was replying to a claim that discussions of bans were. --Tom Edwards 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This may entice others to cheat, taking an "if they can do it so can I" attitude.

  Removed weasel words tag from this line, as I didn't feel it was relevant in this case--Topperfalkon (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This section needs attention. In light of the fact that Tom Edwards reverted my attempt to clean up this section, I will gradually edit it so that, to the dismay of Valve employees, the actual ISSUES discussed in the criticism section are discernible through the convoluted mess that has become this section.

Whether it has been the intention of the people maintaining this section to obfuscate the truth - and the obvious reason for the section existing - it is the case now that the main POINTS and ISSUES are obscured by a lot of useless information and weasel words.

If you have an objection to this, Mr Tom Edwards, please state why you object to the clarification of these issues here, so that we can establish the best course for the overhaul of this section, and possibly the entire article.

While I am still operating under the assumption of good faith in your edits, Tom, I believe that you have inadvertently contributed to concealing the truth from the public, in much the same way as Valve Software deliberately does this for their own profit. - ^You've been _{taught by} FluckED 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My responses are under the heading above this one. --Tom Edwards 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Truthfulness of the article.

First off, if you look in the disadvantages section, it says that VAC works by blacklist bans. This claim is unreferenced, and Valve has never fully stated how VAC works.

Also, due to the ammount of unreferenced content on this page, I feel this page's truthfullness is to be verified. AbJ32 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Abj32, there are a lot of sections that need citations so the truthfulness of this article is highly questionable. G859 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't accuse text of being untruthful just because it's unsourced. The reference boilerplate is already there for that purpose - and it will likely stay there until the article is deleted, if it ever is, as there is very little in the way of official information on how VAC works. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of foolish logic

I've taken it upon myself to remove:

"Another criticism is that delayed bans increase the public's exposure to cheaters, and may drive otherwise innocent parties to install cheats of their own."

It contains no logic. You're not 'innocent' for cheating because a cheater is doing it in your presense any more than you're a 'virgin' for having sex with people because others are doing it in front of you.

Seriously now people. Anyhow, it was an unsourced claim anyhow. If someone wants to rephrase and source it to make more sense, then please go ahead and do so. 75.149.203.217 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It said "otherwise innocent", i.e. innocent apart from cheating. So it was fine. Equinox ◑ 20:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed]

There's far too many unsourced statements in this article that have been there for quite some time. The article is edited semi-frequently, so can someone familiar with the subject matter please find sources? I'm sure some of them can be found in Valve's policies, for example. - MK (^talk/_contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing official. Valve never discuss or publicise details on how VAC works, except for what you can and can't do if you're caught by it. The unsourced information in this article was almost all gathered from cheat producers and users, who aren't linked to for obvious reasons. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the innocent people?

ive see soo much topics on forums about being banned while the owner didnt hack or didnt do anny other illegable activity (that have set me on thinking ive read alot and i think vac isnt perfect however valve says it is how about the innocent people?) then i think does VAC/team care about there well playing gamers that pay and work hard for there games and get banned because they got hacked/or get in trouble with a hacked server that messed with the game files while they dont even know or do know but dont know what too do (call of duty modern warfare 2) it was pretty confusing too see this poor people and how the vac team handles ( ive seen people who where very upset crying and being angry very confused ) its unhuman since u cant just let the ban stay thats like putting some u find on the street in jail while he was just making a walk and doing nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VACisNOTRIGHT (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't care and you can't make them prove they're correct. "There are no innocent people" - Cardassian Central Command 73.181.82.26 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 banning wave

All of the false positive detections listed specify why they were false positives, but I have seen nothing like that in the case of MW2. The mere fact that people have been complaining does not qualify, even by the slightly unusual referencing standards this article has come to be edited by. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there have now been media reports, I've added a paragraph on the size of the wave to the History section - but still not the false positives one. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

could be but i guess steam has a problem now as the vac system never should make mistakes well this shows enought that vac makes mistakes too however steam claimed it never did what a bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.244.230 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Recently, your Steam account was erroneously banned from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

This was our mistake, and I apologize for any frustration or angst it may have caused you.

The problem was that Steam would fail a signature check between the disk version of a DLL and a latent memory version. This was caused by a combination of conditions occurring while Steam was updating the disk image of a game. This wasn't a game-specific mistake. Steam allows us to manage and reverse these erroneous bans (about 12,000 erroneous bans over two weeks).

We have reversed the ban, restoring your access to the game. In addition, we have given you a free copy of Left 4 Dead 2 to give as a gift on Steam, plus a free copy for yourself if you didn't already own the game.

To share your extra copy of Left 4 Dead 2 with a friend, you can 'Manage Gifts and Guest Passes' from the 'Games' Menu in Steam, or visit this article on the Steam Support site for detailed instructions: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4502-TPJL-2656.

To access your own copy of Left 4 Dead 2, visit your library of games in Steam. If you didn't already own the game, it will now be listed among your others there, and is available for download immediately.

Regards, Gabe Newell President, Valve —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaustyArchaeus (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Moved from User talk:Tom Edwards

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Valve Anti-Cheat, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. "Third-party" means "not by a Wikipedia editor"; primary sources are good, especially if unedited video evidence of an event taking place. (For observers and my own future reference, Vaypertrail is discussing this edit.) --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliable unless they are from an officially recognised source.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Officially recognised by whom? Is this officially recognised? Is this? The same footage packaged into a BBC News report would be better, but the absence of one does not make the originals any less reliable. I can't find any policy requiring primary sources to be from a recognised source either, only this:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Also, do I take it that you are now happy with the use of the victim's chatlog? --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Is what you are doing. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Not quite sure how you missed all those. Can't use victims chat log either as they are not reliable. You can't source it for the same reason you can't source a post saying "Tom Edwards hacked NASA". Same with videos. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources might help you.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Point out precisely where the text steps over from descriptive statements to interpretation and I'll ask a mediator to look at your claims. Or perhaps you could ask for one yourself, if it's not too much effort? --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are using unreliable sources, so you can't use them. You are analysing the primary source yourself, which is not straight forward information. In this case, there is no way to verify if the videos or chat logs are unedited as they are from unknown persons.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-28/Valve Anti-Cheat --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally have to agree with Vaypertrail's last post. Seems to be moot now, as a kotaku source appears to have been added to the article. ferret (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about the manual TF2 bans, not the Modern Warfare thing. --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, true. However, I still agree with Vayper. ferret (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A third-party source has covered the matter in detail. Hopefully it will be to Vaypertrail's liking. --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a request for mediation in this matter was made almost a month ago. Is the issue still unresolved?
--K10wnsta (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Content

DLLs are not generally considered "content". Content is considered to be resources such as maps, texture, sounds, models. When for example players talk about "content" in a game, they aren't referring to software features or bug fixes, they're referring to areas, places, environments. This is pretty widely held view. I am reverting this again, back to it's original form, until a consensus is made that it should be changed to Material. With two editors having reverted this change you've made to a long standing statement in this article, you should probably have gone to the talk page yourself to gather consensus for your change. ferret (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

dlls are content. Anything used in relation with the video game is content of it - feel free to disagree on this matter. Anyways, editing any of those other things you mention, such as maps, are not possible without using a memory bypasser (which would result in a VAC ban). The only thing edited in the screenshots are the materials. Users thinking all content can be freely edited in the Source Engine without needing to use VAC-detected methods such as memory editing would be infa100% false.
Not to make this reply seem like a personal attack, but have you ever developed anything on the Source engine or know the inner-workings of VAC? The only things allowed to be edited are the materials, models, and sounds folders. The effect shown in the image is a result of modifying only the materials folder; knowing this information, would it not be proper to call it a material hack?
In either case, why would technical terms be removed? This isn't the simple version of Wikipedia, so I am pretty sure proper technical terms are allowed, no? Harry (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes I have. I've done some mapping, and I've been involved in developing both AMXX and SourceMod (I'm the ferret listed in SourceMod's developer page). I've spent a fair amount of time using the SDK. The major point I was trying to make is that you changed a long standing statement in this article, and in the face of two editors reverting it, continued to change it. You've just stated that the folders can be edited are "materials, models and sounds." Two of those are outside of the materials folder, are they not? Definitions for "content" that I've looked up continuously speak of "experiences delivered through a media". We can argue on that, but the media in this case would seem to be the game and it's programs, while the content is the art resources and scripting. Not all content may be eligible for a hack like this, I'll give you that, but "material" isn't exactly right either. I'd prefer for at least one other editor to weigh in on this though.

As another example, Valve's developer site refers to Pure servers (I.e. sv_pure) as: "A pure server is one that forces all clients on the server to use content that matches what is on the server. This prevents cheating by modifying game content, e.g. increasing the size of models or volume of footsteps, or making wall materials transparent." Granted, this is the developer community and not official Valve statement, but it would suggest that this is the prevailing view held by that community. ferret (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't initially notice, but this entire section is cited with the Pure Server Valve developer site as the source, which defines "content hacks" as material, sound or model. Since the section provides this as the definition of a content hack and is sourced appropriately, the caption would appear correct as is. The source never calls it a "material hack" ferret (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your block above is a bit hard for me to reply to without moving some stuff around, so I'd like to reply with that the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mathack.jpg calls it a material hack in both the description and filename; this can "confirm" that the source is a screenshot of a material hack in action. Yes, there are other types of cheats you can use that are VAC undetected such as increasing the volume footsteps, but the related screenshot only shows a material hack in action, and is confirmed by the image description. This is the main point I am trying to say. It's much too vague to say it's a simple content hack. Harry (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we find a compromise. What do you think of this as a new caption? "A transparent material hack, a type of content hack that is undetectable by VAC2." This ties material hack as a subset of content hack, a connection that is otherwise missing from the article. It's also a little more descriptive of the screenshot itself. Or some variation that is similar. My concern is that the article and source only ever mention "content hack", so without something specific, a reader might be confused with the term "material hack" appearing in the screenshot without any context with the rest of the article. Yes, I know this isn't the "Simple English" wiki, but that doesn't mean we can't take less informed users into mind. :) ferret (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I suggest removing "transparent" from that sentence, as that's not all that material hacks can do, they include colored models and such. "A material hack, a type of content hack that is undetectable by VAC2." sounds perfect to me. Harry (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect VAC game listings

I've just noticed this with Saints Row: The Third, and it may apply to others. Some games are listed as VAC enabled even though they do not use VAC. See: THQ support. The Steam store page agrees with this, not listing it as Valve Anti-Cheat enabled. Steamworks != VAC. Daz (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Paranoia dispute

The Paranoia mod VAC triggers have been tested a few times and it has not caused a VAC ban for quite a large number of people, I believe it was in fact another OpenGL DLL that enabled HDR in the GoldSrc engine that triggered this ban and people pinned it on Paranoia.

Should the fact that this has been proven false be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.124.17 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Insofar as anything in this article is provable, Paranoia being to blame is the widely-accepted version of events. Since the moral of the bullet point is that harmless graphics mods designed for offline can trigger bans I don't think it's worth making this step even further away from verifiability. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

undid vandalism; warning IP address; article may need to be scrubbed for other vandalism .--RichardMills65 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that the section on Paranoia has been modified to say that the mod triggers a kick rather than a VAC ban. I've researched about this on the internet and am yet to find any evidence for this. The consensus that I'm seeing is that if you install one of those mods and put a modded opengl32.dll file in the Steam folder and then play on a VAC-enabled Half-Life 1 server, you may trigger a VAC ban, but if there is no modded opengl32.dll file there or you avoid HL1 multiplayer on VAC-enabled servers then you are OK. However I have seen that there are indeed many reports of people using Paranoia and mods that similarly use custom DLLs and never getting VAC bans, and also reports that Steam automatically deletes some custom DLL files before allowing you to play online multiplayer, hence "may" rather than "will" regarding the ban, but there is no evidence for the kick. Tws45 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Garrys mod

Garry's Mod Technically isn't "VAC" secured... it is a special kind and only hardcore beginning Gmod servers are actually Vac protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.46.50 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed

Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed is protected with VAC ban. Even though it's not on the store page, it's still good to put it on the list.

Discussion thread on the Game Community forums that has the VAC support message: http://steamcommunity.com/app/212480/discussions/0/828935361130122025/

Otherwise, you can see it here:

"2. VAC Support

We had a lot of requests for this and it's now in place. As with all VAC games, if you attempt to cheat using various memory hackers, trainers or altered executables - you run the risk of being VAC banned and this will prevent you playing the game online forever. If you aren't cheating, it should otherwise be transparent to you." ~Goldtex July 4th, 2013 7:00 PM PST

"clear out unsustainable list" (23:52, 12 July 2014‎)

Shouldn't that list of 300+ games be a separate article instead of just deleting it? 73.181.82.26 (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

false positives

I cleaned up the false positive section, mostly clearing up details of the obsolete VAC1 system, to make emphasis on the current VAC2 system.Bb7777777 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the source is old, it doesn't make the information invalid. I doubt you can provide a source which back up your claims. On that basis, edits reverted.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Valve Message Source Throws an Anti-Virus Warning?

On this article, in the references, a page that looks like from Valve. It's the reference for the 10,000 cheat attempts part in the lead of the article, but when I try to open it, my anti-virus says that there may be a virus on this page. Is this considered a problem? JumpiMaus (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the official Steam webpage so I don't know why you're getting a warning. I presume you're using Chrome? Chrome does this sometimes in error (Over pre-cautious) or because an advertisement was bad. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I tried it out on Firefox and it didn't happen again. JumpiMaus (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On TF2

Ferret All sources describe Valve as being utterly apathetic to the current situation, while yes you could state it's not NPOV, no source describes Valve as taking a active role in combating this, in fact all describe the apathy to this. How would you word it? Des Vallee (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Without all the superfluous "utterly" and "absolutely" and "useless" and "invade and ruin". None of this language is appropriate for Wikipedia and reporting the basic situation. See Team_Fortress_2#2020_bot_issues for an appropriate reporting of the issue. Report the facts without the spin. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ferret Ok. "invade and ruin" was a paraphrase of this source title: "Valve is still letting bots invade one of its longest-running games", however I do get the point that it is possibly unnecessary. So here is a version with little to no emotion and direct wording:

In Team Fortress 2 most recently in 2020 and 2021, VAC has been criticized as being inefficent, with nearly all servers containing automated computer operated accounts, often spamming chats with racist slurs despite Valve attempting to limit this. The game has often described as generally unplayable. Valve doing little to nothing to solve the issue, Valve has been described as generally apathetic the issue, with basic fixes to the issue not being implemented." Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I tried to rewrite this for you in good faith, only to discover that only one article cited mentions anti-cheat, and it’s a tiny reference. Most of these articles are about spam, which VAC doesn't really deal with. It’s anti-cheat software—it isn't anti-spam or anti-toxicity. Nowhere on this article does the word "spam" ever appear. I would revert this as bordering on original research. "Hotfixes" aren't brought up in any of these articles. This feels, to me, like your own frustration trying to make its way onto a page that it doesn't need to be on.

If you are dead-set on having it, then the only acceptable thing that might be included (citing to Engadget): A long-time Team Fortress 2 player expressed to Engadget that updating VAC may assist with bot-related cheating in that game. But you're going to get arguments against that because of due weight. They don't mention VAC by name. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I focused only on the NPOV issues, and didn't double check sources, but yes if the sources aren't discuss VAC or even anti-cheat specifically, it doesn't belong here. Some of it might be useful for a bit more expansion at Team Fortress 2 though. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)