r1ch.net forums
* Home Help Search Login Register
r1ch.net  |  r1ch.net stuff  |  Anticheat  |  Topic: Anticheat and Linux i386
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
Print
Author Topic: Anticheat and Linux i386  (Read 76591 times)
R3Z3T
Guest
« on: October 28, 2006, 01:04:30 pm »

Hello Smiley

First of all, I want to congratulate R1CH for his great work in the anticheat module.
Second: When a anticheat module for Linux platform? (Currently I'm @ SuSe Linux, and the most Linux-Quakers uses Suse Tongue).

Thanks in advance
Signed,
5Qr.R3Z3T
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2006, 01:06:23 pm »

Unfortunately there will not be an anticheat module for Linux.
Logged
R3Z3T
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2006, 03:15:37 pm »

Unfortunately there will not be an anticheat module for Linux.

Argh, why not? :>
Logged
R3Z3T
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2006, 03:18:33 pm »

Ops, sorry double-posting Tongue

It's so simple as ./configure && make && sudo make install ... But since you don't want to release the source-code you can distribute the binaries to each distro. In this case you would do it to the most used Unix distros, such as SuSe, Fedora, Ubuntu...

Cheers,
5Qr.R3Z3T
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2006, 03:43:37 pm »

I don't think there is a rolleyes big enough...
Logged
WHO
Member

Posts: 26


« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2006, 03:04:55 pm »

Unfortunately there will not be an anticheat module for Linux.

Nooooooooo ... been waiting  n waiting ... /me cries for the dozen or so q2 servers we have running.

PLease feel free to reconsider wont you R1CH Smiley
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2006, 03:05:47 pm »

The module is only required for clients, not servers.
Logged
WHO
Member

Posts: 26


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2006, 03:32:19 pm »

soo .. you're saying what?

a linux server can be in the anticheat network then?

i had/have it in my head that it's only been available for win servers :/ .. would dearly love to get our linux box involved, mmmm donuts Cheesy
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2006, 04:11:38 pm »

Yes, if you look for anticheat servers in ASE you'll see almost all of them are Linux based.
Logged
TgT
Member

Posts: 103


« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2006, 04:56:40 pm »

A man discovered a water...
Logged
R3Z3T
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2006, 08:05:58 am »

I think you should port the anticheat.dll from windows to linux..Lot of quakers uses Linux and that would be a shame if we couldn't enter in some servers because we are 'cheaters'...You don't need to release the source-code..It's just a matter of compiling and host it Wink...
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2006, 09:48:54 am »

Maybe you don't get it. You cannot simply compile something and expect it to work on another OS when the other OS does not have 90% of the APIs or structures or other functions and things you use and has a completely different executable and DLL structure. That's not even mentioning the huge differences between every install of Linux, making binary compatibility a nightmare. It simply isn't going to happen.

For example, try compiling WinMerge on Linux yourself and see what kind of problems you run into.
Logged
R3Z3T
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2006, 04:43:54 pm »

Well...I compiled Action Quake 2 and it works perfectly Cheesy
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2006, 04:56:29 pm »

Probably because Action Quake 2 was designed to be cross platform compatible and requires no platform specific API calls.
Logged
QwazyWabbit
Member

Posts: 402


« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2006, 06:47:38 pm »

Designing for cross-platform is a tough job. Just take a look at some of the Linux/*nix/BSD/OS-X code or especially some of the older Unix to Linux ports and you will see all kinds of strange and wonderful and not so wonderful kinks to make it all work. There are some pretty goofy things done in the Q2 code to make it portable and you can even see some problems people are having getting the Q2 code to compile on BSD using the Linux code. AQ2 "works perfectly" because somebody knew the target environment and spent a great deal of time making it work right. Linux debugging is not fun, GDB is not a fun debugger to play with compared to what can be done in Visual Studio. Religious zealots will no doubt come out of the woodwork here but I can tell you from working with VC/VS and GDB and a host of other debuggers on many other platforms that VS is almost nirvana compared to most command line debuggers. R1ch's specialty is not *nix so unless he designed the whole DLL from the ground up without depending on special Windows API's then it will be very hard to port the code to *nix. I know what his design goals were so I can tell you the job of porting it will not be trivial and will require intimate knowledge of the guts of the *nix platforms.
Logged
dk_sn1p3r
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2006, 03:49:42 am »

I would love to see a linux flavor  for clients but I could completly understand never seing one for linux clients I love the fact that the anticheat module is able to run on linux servers I might end up hosting a linux server eventually but not atm...
Logged
undercouves
Member

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2006, 03:37:05 pm »

They cant release the source code. That would provide coders the necessary information to crack the anticheat. Notice that there is no opensource anticheat due to that problem.

And about portability, you don't need several binaries for different distros, since every distro is a slightly modified linux, mostly the X desktop and its utilities. Almost every distro uses the same kernel version (2.6) with minor changes. What they would need is a version for the most used archs (x86, x86_64, ppc, etc), but then again, only a few users have non-x86 computer.

The code... probably, the anticheat's DLL is based on some language that is not supported in linux (IE: vb). What linux users can do is, to install something like CEDEGA to run win32 based apps. Most linux gamers use it to run unsupported games.

Anyway... as i always say: if you like linux, use it. But if it doesn't fit your needs, you can always use something else.

Btw, suse IS NOT the most used distro, not even by gamers.
Logged
dk_sn1p3r
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2006, 06:57:12 am »

Personally I use fedora but sence I dual boot and if i'm going to be using linux for quake i'd rather use linux client because why emulate and use crappier libraries when I can reboot to windows 2k for better performance... I'm kinda disapointed that linux doesn't match up and that everything has to be open source but on the contrary I don't think you'd have to provide the source for anticheat.dll because thats something rich concocted all to him self i'm sure the code thats in r1q2 for the dll would be shown but isn't there a way to clean that up as to not show anything important for the anti.dll besides thats how the windows code is released isn't the latest version of r1q2 source available and not the .dll? couldn't you do the same on linux so long as there is an linux coder on the team or rich has the time to code for linux...

Oh and lastly what do you guys use for a client on linux do you guys emulate or use a native linux client?
Logged
wision
Member

Posts: 237



« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2006, 12:25:26 pm »

afaik there won't be any linux anticheat because of win api..

i tried sdlq2, q2pro and aprq2... with sdlq2 i had to change some variable declarations (removed static declarations of some mouse variables) so i could compile it... but ingame i had bad feeling about sensitivity etc... with q2pro i had bad feeling about sensitivity too so i tried aprq2 and aprq2 works nice (still had to remove some xmms and other useless functions to make it compileable <changes in Makefile didn't work>)... i'm used to 120fps but glue step appears quite often with 120 so i had to decrease it to 110...
anybody knows how to get rid of glue step for whatever maxfps i use?
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2006, 01:24:12 pm »

sv_strafejump_hack needs to be enabled on the server you play on.
Logged
dk_sn1p3r
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2006, 09:11:00 pm »

when your all done messing around with that can I have a copy of the code I'd like to get a relitivly decant anticheat enabled client running for linux just for kicks....
Logged
TgT
Member

Posts: 103


« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2007, 09:43:44 pm »

So there is no chance of anticheat variant for linux at all?  I mean AT ALL! I bet there is a sollution but you dont have time/motivation right?
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2007, 02:42:52 am »

No, since Linux is fundamentally impossible to verify as a trusted environment. You have many hundreds of distributions, each with different binaries depending on CPU type and then of course the thousands of users who build things themselves from source. When you can't even trust that the kernel is legit, trying to create an anticheat solution off such a shaky foundation is pointless. Not to mention binary incompatibility that still plagues Linux.
Logged
zorg
Member

Posts: 49


« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2007, 03:40:52 am »

Just an idea.

What about a versoin of anticheat for linux, which only has some limited functionality? For example, the filechecking.  In this case, linux players could at least verify that they are not using any modified models/skins/whatever.

Still, I don't have any idea, how "deep" each anticheat codepart of all the different functions has to be implemented into the OS. But maybe some "simple" parts are possible.
Logged
TgT
Member

Posts: 103


« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2007, 08:41:14 am »

Hundreds of distros but only few used. Gentoo,Suse,Ubuntu mostly... and I still think that some sort of anticheat like zorg said CAN be done. I wonder how Warsow works then?
Logged
QwazyWabbit
Member

Posts: 402


« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2007, 09:03:09 am »

Just an idea.

What about a versoin of anticheat for linux, which only has some limited functionality? For example, the filechecking.  In this case, linux players could at least verify that they are not using any modified models/skins/whatever.

Still, I don't have any idea, how "deep" each anticheat codepart of all the different functions has to be implemented into the OS. But maybe some "simple" parts are possible.

But this is the heart of the A/C problem. If you can't trust the OS you can't trust results reported from an application. The core problem of any A/C solution is that it can't be hacked and the platform must not be subverted. If you can compile your own kernel you can make it report anything you want to an anti-cheat module. The problem still exists in Windows but the task is more difficult. A filesystem shim might work there but writing that kind of driver is not trivial.

As for simple parts; this was tried and failed with NoCheat.
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2007, 09:40:50 am »

I wonder how Warsow works then?
No offense to whoever made it, but Warsow's anticheat is pretty much worthless. It can be subverted in just a few bytes of patches and makes no effort to really stop cheats, last time I looked at it at least all it seemed to do was essentially a checksum of the executable and game data.

A simple version, as QwazyWabbit points out, NoCheat was just that - an attempt at least to verify the executable and DLL and a select number of models. It was easily hacked, in fact, the NoCheat 'code' generation code was all completely open in the Linux binary to anyone with a disassembler. With the Windows DLL there was at least the possibility of using a PE protector, such things in Linux are difficult to implement (see UPX for example) and hard to come by, especially given the wide array of distributions and kernels it must support. Having a Linux version do anything without protecting the code against casual disassembly just hurts the overall security of the entire system.
Logged
darkstalker
Guest
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2007, 04:07:57 pm »

is it possible to patch anticheat.dll so that it works with wine under linux?
i tried and it didn't work (maybe because some missing api calls in the wine implementation)
Logged
Xtyfe
Guest
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2007, 06:49:58 am »

this whole discussion is moot, there are no cheats that work under linux or any other non-windows system (correct me if im wrong)
with the exception of anything added to pak files, which shouldnt be a problem either since there are no pak editors for linux (same goes here, i know nothing about this)

the best way to go about this is to exclude people using linux and these other OSs so they are not branded as cheaters
Logged
QwazyWabbit
Member

Posts: 402


« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2007, 03:10:30 pm »

PAK files are portable from Windows to Linux so a pak file that was spiked for Windows will work in Linux clients too. A modified client (if modified and recompiled from source) would work in Linux and Windows so exempting Linux clients is not a solution to the cheating problem. The A/C module is problematic on Linux for many reasons and some of them may simply not be fixable. The WINE solution may be viable but it would take some testing and I am sure there will be people complaining about that restriction too.
Logged
dioxine
Guest
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2007, 05:03:11 pm »

Quote from: R1CH
No, since Linux is fundamentally impossible to verify as a trusted environment. You have many hundreds of distributions, each with different binaries depending on CPU type and then of course the thousands of users who build things themselves from source. When you can't even trust that the kernel is legit, trying to create an anticheat solution off such a shaky foundation is pointless. Not to mention binary incompatibility that still plagues Linux.

So how come Punkbuster runs on Linux?

What I don't understand is that potential players are locked out although there are already very few players. Don't you think it would be beneficial not to lock out players on non-windows platforms?
And yes, I know that anticheat isn't mandatory but, for example, the regularly populated Gloom servers have it enabled. I used to play lots of Gloom on Linux but now I can't anymore. cry
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2007, 05:09:55 pm »

Because they are being paid millions of dollars by games developers and can afford to hire people with expertise in that kind of thing. I'm making nothing and don't have any expertise with Linux from an anticheat standpoint.

If you want to play Gloom on Linux, most servers don't force anticheat and even if they do you can arrange to set up an exception with the admin.
Logged
dioxine
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2007, 05:32:43 pm »

Wow, very quick reply!
Well thanks for the hint. I'll try that.
Logged
looker
Guest
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2007, 02:24:49 pm »

... can i arrange with any of you, so i could play ctf on acmectf? i'm useing slackware linux, 2.6.19, x86...
i can provide any info you need : rolleyes

so many linux users, and all must be disappointed... btw... we run deathmatch and duel servers (with good enought connection), however no ctf servers. if anyone can help me to get into acmeftp, without anticheat (since i get kick off, just couse it doesn't work), contact me at mclooker@yahoo.com

or if you know any other ctf servers, that doesn't require stuff, notice me pleace smiley cya
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2007, 04:53:32 pm »

Try contacting an admin on www.wormlair.com for AcmeCTF.
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2007, 11:02:39 pm »

Longer version for those who keep on asking:

The main problem is that there is no inherent security on Linux like there is with Windows. With Windows, I can assume with some relatively high degree of probability that if I ask the kernel to do x, it does x. With Linux, since the kernel is all open source, it's impossible to make this assertion as a cheater can simply edit the kernel in a few lines of code to ignore certain things or prevent things (cheats) showing up to certain API calls.

Checking for cheats becomes nearly impossible too as there are hundreds or thousands of different distributions out there, each with their own libGL.so (or whatever), not to mention the thousands or millions of users who build their own stuff from source code (Gentoo and other such distributions), making binary authenticity impossible.

Granted, on Linux there probably aren't nearly as many cheats as there are for Windows, but the ones that are out there or that are made will be nigh impossible to detect reliably. Hell, even verifying the user is running a legitimate client becomes hard as many users can't use pre-compiled binaries and require a binary built from source which will be different on every users machine. Even video drivers change from one tiny kernel revision to another, and are often open source, so any kind of white-listing is again impossible.

Overcoming all of these problems, not to mention creating an ELF code packer / protector from scratch to actually protect a theoretical anticheat.so, is simply far too much work for me as an individual. I've only been able to do anticheat for Windows because I've been working with Windows for many years and know how all the internals work regarding the PE format, memory protection, kernel, Win32 API, etc. I don't even know the basic knowledge of Linux specific platform APIs, let alone the kernel or executable formats. It just isn't something I can feasibly see happening.
Logged
Ratti
Guest
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2007, 02:18:41 pm »

You say anticheat for linux would be more insecure but as I see it, that's quite the opposite.  The privacy disclaimer on anticheat pretty much tells you it has unrestricted access to any specific files on your computer/processes/window names etc.  Since linux has an actual WORKING chmod permissions system, the user can make it impossible for anticheat to access or alter sensitive/personal data.  All versions of windows have NO such system.  Restricting anticheat to your quake2 folder would not keep it from working properly. It would simply allow a user to block programs from accessing data they have no business looking at.  R1Q2, dedicated, etc are all linux compatable.  I find it very convienent that anticheat forces a user to use a win32 platform. 

If it were available for linux, then of course it would put my privacy concerns to rest.  Is that going to happen?
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2007, 03:28:52 pm »

I'm not referring to file permissions at all, I'm referring to the ability of a player to cheat undetectably since the OpenGL system, kernel, drivers, etc are all open source and are ripe places for hacks, and given how wildly varied every Linux distribution is and the fact a lot of users build from source, it is impossible to have a checksum of known valid versions. Since there is no trust that the kernel isn't lying about certain things, the entire system becomes untrusted.
Logged
diehard
Guest
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2007, 10:51:43 am »

im running linux too and have been that for past 6 years, and i know at least 3-4 people running linux and quake (if not q2 then q3).. im also frustrated that there is no anticheat for linux!
Logged
Triar
Member

Posts: 2


« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2007, 06:19:49 am »

Being a Windhose-user myself with a growing interest in Linux (ignore me if I'm talking ****); Would it be possible to provide a basic Linux kernel with AC build in, so it could check it for hacks? If you want to play Q2+AC you have to use this kernel on a Virtual Machine or boot from your Q2AC-partition? Is this making sense? : )
Just my 2 cents (actually just 1 cent since we're using euro's)
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2007, 02:50:55 pm »

No, since the kernel is licensed under the GPL, any code I add to it would also have to be GPLed. I could use modules, but then I would have to get into system call hooking and stuff and that's way beyond the scope of what I know about Linux.
Logged
Bad Sector
Guest
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2007, 07:58:01 pm »

Since you say that you know PE and Windows internals, you understand that it's possible to make a custom PE loader under Windows and replace all calls to KERNEL32.DLL with calls to a custom "FAKEKERNEL32.DLL" which then sniffs and modifies everything you ask, making the so-reliable Windows Kernel being not so reliable any more.

Of course knowing how to do this and doing it is almost as practical and probable as random cheaters knowing how to modify their Linux kernel and doing it.
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2007, 08:10:05 pm »

The windows kernel is ntoskrnl.exe, not kernel32.dll. It's significantly harder to mess with ntoskrnl than it is to write a modify a few lines of code in /usr/src/linux and type make.
Logged
Bad Sector
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2007, 11:48:19 am »

Well, the thing is, Windows programs never use the API that the NT kernel exposes. Instead, for compatibility reasons, they use a "wrapper" API (what we call the Win32 API) which in turn uses the NT kernel API (which in most cases is used only by drivers). This API is not defined in ntoskrnl.exe, but in the several DLLs that are placed in System32 and existed in non-NT windows. In fact, all Windows programs dynamically link to these DLLs, not ntoskrnl.exe.

I will agree that is easier to *mess* with /usr/src/linux than write a loader that redirects calls, but messing with the kernel code is almost always a good way to drive your system unusable. Remember that not only that single application that the cheater wants to mess with exist in the userspace, but a myriad of other applications with some of them depending on the same functionality. If one is not careful, he won't go far. And except carefulnes, he also needs knowledge.

And personally i think that it's much easier for a novice programmer to figure out how to load PE files (i've found this page as the first entry just by writing PE loader in Google) than to figure out how the Linux kernel works and what they need to modify in order to do what they want. Of course they can also do an ELF loader and do the same thing in Linux, but then the "easyness" part is almost the same.

While i like open source software, i can't stand the misconception of "since the code is there, anyone can modify it". As many programmers know, this isn't true especially for large programs, like the Linux kernel. A programmer has to understand how the program (or the subsystem he wants to modify) work and figure out his way in the source code, which alone is a big task. Then he has to know what to modify and how to do it - and in the case of the kernel, this isn't an easy job, since we're talking about the most important piece of software in an operating system here (if something goes wrong, he may not only be unable to run the program he wants to mess with, but the whole operating system).

When i found a bug in the Mozillla codebase, i decided to try and fix it. Now, we're talking about more than 200MB of source code. It took me some time to figure out what to do and this with the help of other programmers from the Mozilla IRC servers. What i saw, however, is more important than this: almost nobody in there (where major Mozilla programers hang out) knew the whole codebase inside out. Which is pretty normal, i think. It's a huge amount of code smiley.

But if the actual developers of a big project cannot know exactly their source code (and this is true for the Linux kernel too), how an "outsider" can learn the code fast enough in order to make modifications like those you suggest? And even without breaking the whole thing?

So, my point is that the availability of the code doesn't automatically make a project secure or insecure because anyone can modify it. Take Firefox for example. There are much more programmers who use Firefox than the bugs in BugZilla: if each one of those programmers was able to fix a bug, then Firefox wouldn't have bugs. The reality though, is that a very small minority of them mess with the Firefox code and try to fix some bugs. The rest simply doesn't know (or doesn't care).


I'm not writing these to make you create an AntiCheat for Linux. If i would do something like that, i would also go outside and ask random people to give me food, drinks and other stuff. It doesn't work this way and i know it.

My whole reaction was on the kernel security part and only that. As for the rest, i think you've done a great contribution to the Quake2 scene by fixing bugs and providing a stable client and server.
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2007, 02:39:27 pm »

Sure, Mozilla and the kernel are huge projects with many developers. Anticheat is not that big and has a single developer. It only takes one tiny change to cause undesired effects, maybe even == to != somewhere would be enough to throw off the detection. You're almost advocating that security through obscurity works because the project is so huge, when it can also work when the source is not available.
Logged
Bad Sector
Guest
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2007, 06:40:58 pm »

First of all, i'm not talking about Anticheat's source, the Mozilla source or the kernel source specifically, but about security not being always equal to having or not the source code. It does matter in some cases but in others it does not.

Also i'm not advocating such a thing, i'm merely saying that modifying a big project is not an easy task so few can do it.

In the case of Anticheat, this applies to that it isn't easy to write a custom PE loader that sends invalid stuff to Anticheat but it also isn't easy to understand the kernel code and where to modify it to have similar results.

In both cases, doing it is hard, but for different reasons.
Logged
Angry user
Guest
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2009, 02:09:35 pm »

This is just ridiculous!

Is there at least one man on the earth that have an interest to write cheats to game that released in 1997 and played by small amount of people? Even if he/she exists, what the probability of that he/she is 1337 linux kernel haXor?

I have relatively good connection to very few servers and know what? They forcing me to use anticheat, and since I'm not using windows, i equated to the cheaters. That's absolutely sucks. And only person I can blame is you, because admins just enable it as they thinks ohh, that great anticheat module, of course it should be enabled at once, but you not provided anticheat module for all platforms. Okay if you have no skill/knowledge/desire/whatever to write anticheat by your own you must to make it work with wine, but noes, you just doing it wrong, again. Why I can play counter-strike:source on VAC (valve anti-cheat) secured servers under wine and cant with q2pro+anticheated server?

Post a help message that you are looking for skilled *nix coder who can write better anticheat for you or just get rid of that silly anti-cheat project that claims all non-windowsers as cheaters. Its just unfair. Its like allow everyone to shoot any person in red jacket because you doesn't know what they thinking about you.

PS:
I understand that  you did great amount of work for q2 community, but anticheat module is just EPIC FAIL. Sorry for offensive message, but i cant write it in other way. And, yeah, sorry for my weak english.
Logged
R1CH
Administrator
Member

Posts: 2625



« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2009, 03:43:46 pm »

Contact the server admin and explain your situation to try to get an exemption from anticheat. Forcing anticheat on some servers is unfortunately the only way to prevent a significant amount of hacks that would otherwise be undetectable, and yes, in 2009 there are a good number of people who still try to cheat a 12 year old game. I develop the tool for the server admins, it is up to them if they choose to force it and accept the consequences (Win32 only) that go with it. I realise this is a less than ideal situation but at this time it is the only way to ensure cheat-free experience for the majority of the users.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
Print
r1ch.net  |  r1ch.net stuff  |  Anticheat  |  Topic: Anticheat and Linux i386
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines