FECURITY ISSUES

[chinxgotti]

Anyone have an issue with Fecurity where they literally can’t play due to the lag caused by the hack?
10% packet loss, packet burst, extrapolation, etc.

It only happens with Fecurity.
If so, does anyone have a fix? Or am I the only one that has this issue?

Just adding that I’m 100% sure it is due to Fecurity, it was the first hack I used and it only happens when I use Fecurity.
It has nothing to do with this update either, it was like this in the beginning of S2.
I tried everything, tweaking VRAM settings.. lowering all graphic settings, ending all processes on my computer that I wasn’t using…

[GfuelInMyVeins]

Do you have an amd cpu?
If so that’s probably ur issue they work best on intel.

i’m on intel and its smooth af

[lukedorian]

For me it runs with no issues and my pc is old, GTX 1080 ti and i7 6700 k, smooth, i simply notice the cheat ain´t that good, i don´t like it one bit, it is more for like a rage cheating play style, maybe because i´m on controller maybe M/KB has better aimbot option on controller is only when firing the gun or when scoping or both.

[chinxgotti]

Originally Posted by GfuelInMyVeins

Do you have an amd cpu?
If so that’s probably ur issue they work best on intel.

i’m on intel and its smooth af

Yeah I got an AMD GPU . ****
I’m running a 4070 SUPER Ti w 32GB Ram .. **** so I’m ****** haha. Thanks

Originally Posted by lukedorian

For me it runs with no issues and my pc is old, GTX 1080 ti and i7 6700 k, smooth, i simply notice the cheat ain´t that good, i don´t like it one bit, it is more for like a rage cheating play style, maybe because i´m on controller maybe M/KB has better aimbot option on controller is only when firing the gun or when scoping or both.

Yeah the aimbot is way too obvious

[0x41^4]

Originally Posted by chinxgotti

Yeah I got an AMD GPU . ****
I’m running a 4070 SUPER Ti w 32GB Ram .. **** so I’m ****** haha. Thanks



Yeah the aimbot is way too obvious

Unfortunately, despite better gaming performance, AMD CPUs tend to be a disaster for many cheats.

[GfuelInMyVeins]

Originally Posted by chinxgotti

Yeah I got an AMD GPU . ****
I’m running a 4070 SUPER Ti w 32GB Ram .. **** so I’m ****** haha. Thanks



Yeah the aimbot is way too obvious

The aimbot is really solid for me, thats why i switched to it.

you can make it look really legit while being very effective.

only cheat i know that has a good system that adjusts smoothness based on target distance and the FOV etc.
easy to config as well since they have graphs for you to edit

Originally Posted by 0x41^4

Unfortunately, despite better gaming performance, AMD CPUs tend to be a disaster for many cheats.

from what i understand virtualisation on amd cpus is just significantly worse then intel cpus.

dev of fecurity says amd performs worse with the hypervisor due to amd cpus using up 2x the amount of tasks per instruction then an intel cpu does.
probably why u dont really see hypervisor cheats support amd

[lukedorian]

Graph for you to edit that is very clunky, like putting head in the 3rd place and still all the shots go to the head.
At this point mandatory features, aimbone = closest to crosshair is a must (it doesn’t have it) and a freaking 2nd aimbot key with an aimbone of its own, don’t know why so hard to comprehend, it has a 2nd key for M/KB.
Anyways i am speaking from controller player point of view, maybe m/kb players find it more suitable but on controller i don’t

[GfuelInMyVeins]

Originally Posted by lukedorian

Graph for you to edit that is very clunky, like putting head in the 3rd place and still all the shots go to the head.
At this point mandatory features, aimbone = closest to crosshair is a must (it doesn’t have it) and a freaking 2nd aimbot key with an aimbone of its own, don’t know why so hard to comprehend, it has a 2nd key for M/KB.
Anyways i am speaking from controller player point of view, maybe m/kb players find it more suitable but on controller i don’t

well the graph is in pro mode, you can always use basic mode that just has some sliders if u dont wanna use the graphs.

i have never had an issue with it going to the head? if u select all aimbones with the same priority it will go to whatever one ur closest aiming at and you can always just not select the head aimbone so it wont go to the head at all

[TransPrincess]

Originally Posted by 0x41^4

Unfortunately, despite better gaming performance, AMD CPUs tend to be a disaster for many cheats.

Really only an issue for cheats that are utilizing a hyper visor though, they work pretty well a part from that.

[0x41^4]

Originally Posted by TransPrincess

Really only an issue for cheats that are utilizing a hyper visor though, they work pretty well a part from that.

It's not quite that simple, but yes, cheats that rely on the hypervisor tend to perform significantly worse on AMD.

[GrawPoint]

Originally Posted by 0x41^4

It's not quite that simple, but yes, cheats that rely on the hypervisor tend to perform significantly worse on AMD.

What's the difference between cheats that utilize hypervisors compared to ones that don't, security wise? another thread you mentioned you prefer Fecurity's security over AA, is there any security benefits of hypervisor method compared to that of AA's kernel driver method?

I haven't tried Fecurity, but have used Ring-1 in the past, I'm assuming they use similar methods no?

[GfuelInMyVeins]

Originally Posted by GrawPoint

What's the difference between cheats that utilize hypervisors compared to ones that don't, security wise? another thread you mentioned you prefer Fecurity's security over AA, is there any security benefits of hypervisor method compared to that of AA's kernel driver method?

I haven't tried Fecurity, but have used Ring-1 in the past, I'm assuming they use similar methods no?

a hypervisor technically is running below the os between the cpu & the os, a lower level then a kernel driver.

they also then have full control over the system, example they can hook functions without actually changing any bytes and intercepting it via vmexit.

a hypervisor can introduce new detection vectors, but they can achieve other functionality way more stealthy then a normal cheat that uses a kernel driver.

ricochet i dont think has any detections for hypervisors currently (as far as i know) and cheats like ring-1 and fecurity will of already bypassed hypervisor checks put in place by other anticheats like EAC / BE, so they are pretty prepared already for if they ever do.

[0x41^4]

Originally Posted by GrawPoint

What's the difference between cheats that utilize hypervisors compared to ones that don't, security wise? another thread you mentioned you prefer Fecurity's security over AA, is there any security benefits of hypervisor method compared to that of AA's kernel driver method?

Using a hyper provider instead of a kernel provider has more security benefits, but it’s harder to do right, which is why many try and fail, ending up with more detections.

Without getting too deep into all the technical benefits, the main reason this matters is that anti-cheat developers know how challenging it is to create a reliable hypervisor cheat, so they focus on kernel cheats instead, which is especially true for Ricochet, which has fewer checks against hyper based cheats than EAC, BE, and Vanguard have.

Both AA and Fecurity offer excellent security, but Fecurity has been detected less than AA. However, it’s important to note that AA has been around much longer than Fecurity.

I haven't tried Fecurity, but have used Ring-1 in the past, I'm assuming they use similar methods no?

Fecurity is more polished than Ring-1, with much less bugs and performance issues.

[GrawPoint]

Originally Posted by GfuelInMyVeins

a hypervisor technically is running below the os between the cpu & the os, a lower level then a kernel driver.

they also then have full control over the system, example they can hook functions without actually changing any bytes and intercepting it via vmexit.

a hypervisor can introduce new detection vectors, but they can achieve other functionality way more stealthy then a normal cheat that uses a kernel driver.

ricochet i dont think has any detections for hypervisors currently (as far as i know) and cheats like ring-1 and fecurity will of already bypassed hypervisor checks put in place by other anticheats like EAC / BE, so they are pretty prepared already for if they ever do.

Thank you for the in depth explanation.

Originally Posted by 0x41^4

Using a hyper provider instead of a kernel provider has more security benefits, but it’s harder to do right, which is why many try and fail, ending up with more detections.

Without getting too deep into all the technical benefits, the main reason this matters is that anti-cheat developers know how challenging it is to create a reliable hypervisor cheat, so they focus on kernel cheats instead, which is especially true for Ricochet, which has fewer checks against hyper based cheats than EAC, BE, and Vanguard have.

Both AA and Fecurity offer excellent security, but Fecurity has been detected less than AA. However, it’s important to note that AA has been around much longer than Fecurity.



Fecurity is more polished than Ring-1, with much less bugs and performance issues.

Thank you as well, this is very interesting, I always thought of cheating programs as internal and external and didn't imagine things could be this deep untill I learned about DMA. At the end of the day, we should acknowledge that no matter how secure a cheat/provider is, there is always a chance of detection and ban. As ACs evolve no doubt we'll see more providers to innovative ways to bypass them, besides cheating I think it's really interesting from technical perspective.

[Cjm96]

Originally Posted by GfuelInMyVeins

The aimbot is really solid for me, thats why i switched to it.

you can make it look really legit while being very effective.

only cheat i know that has a good system that adjusts smoothness based on target distance and the FOV etc.
easy to config as well since they have graphs for you to edit


from what i understand virtualisation on amd cpus is just significantly worse then intel cpus.

dev of fecurity says amd performs worse with the hypervisor due to amd cpus using up 2x the amount of tasks per instruction then an intel cpu does.
probably why u dont really see hypervisor cheats support amd

Do you mind sharing your aimbot config on here or a pm if possible, I like the aimbot but struggling to stop it from snapping on controller