Anti-cheat is software that detects, prevents and punishes cheating in online video games, such as aimbots, wallhacks, speed hacks and tampered game files. In PC gaming, anti-cheat is a standard part of competitive multiplayer titles because a personal computer is an open platform: players control the operating system, can inspect memory and can run arbitrary programs alongside the game.
Anti-cheat combines several layers: a client component that watches the game process and the system, server-side validation that checks whether reported actions are physically possible, and behavioral analysis that looks for patterns no human would produce. Its design is a constant trade-off between detection strength, performance, privacy and compatibility.
How anti-cheat detects cheating
Most cheats work by reading or writing game memory, injecting code into the game process, intercepting graphics calls to draw overlays, or sending forged input. Client-side anti-cheat counters this by scanning for known cheat signatures, verifying the integrity of game files, monitoring which modules load into the process and blocking unauthorized handles to its memory.
Server-side methods do not depend on the player’s machine at all. The server can validate movement speed, hit registration and line of sight, and statistical systems can flag improbable accuracy or reaction times. Many publishers also apply delayed ban waves, banning detected accounts in batches so that cheat developers cannot easily tell which change triggered detection.
| Technique | What it checks | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signature scanning | Known cheat code and files | Fast and precise | Misses new or private cheats |
| Integrity checks | Game files and loaded modules | Stops simple tampering | Bypassed by memory-only cheats |
| Server validation | Physically possible actions | Cannot be disabled by the client | Cannot see visual cheats such as wallhacks |
| Behavioral analysis | Statistical play patterns | Detects unknown cheats | Risk of false positives |
| Hardware attestation | Secure Boot, TPM, virtualization state | Raises the cost of evasion | Excludes some configurations |
User-mode and kernel-level anti-cheat
The most debated design choice is the privilege level of the client. User-mode anti-cheat runs with the same rights as the game and can be evaded by cheats that operate from the operating system kernel, which has full control over memory. Kernel-level anti-cheat installs a driver that runs with the highest privileges, so it can observe and block drivers and memory access that user-mode software cannot see.
Kernel access improves detection but raises serious concerns. A flaw in a kernel driver can crash the whole system or open a security hole, and some implementations start at boot rather than only when the game runs. Players must effectively trust the publisher with full system access, which is why disclosure of how and when the driver operates matters.
| Aspect | User-mode | Kernel-level |
|---|---|---|
| Detection of advanced cheats | Limited | Much stronger |
| System stability risk | Low | Higher, driver bugs can crash Windows |
| Security exposure | Confined to the game process | Vulnerabilities affect the whole system |
| Linux and Proton support | Often workable | Usually unsupported |
| Running time | Only with the game | Some start at boot |
Anti-cheat in the PC gaming ecosystem
Anti-cheat affects much more than cheaters. It determines whether a game runs on the Steam Deck and other Linux systems, because many kernel drivers have no Linux equivalent and developers must explicitly enable compatibility modes. It can also conflict with game mods, overlays, macro tools and virtual machines, which detection systems may treat as suspicious.
Anti-cheat should be distinguished from DRM such as Denuvo, which protects a game against piracy rather than enforcing fair play. Both modify how a game runs and both can raise performance or compatibility complaints, but they serve different purposes and are often confused in discussions.
| Technology | Main purpose | Typical interaction with anti-cheat |
|---|---|---|
| DRM | Prevents unauthorized copies | Separate system, sometimes bundled in the same game |
| Game overlay | In-game chat, capture and stats | Must be whitelisted to avoid flags |
| Game mod | Changes or extends content | Usually blocked in online modes |
| Game launcher | Installs and starts games | Often starts the anti-cheat service |
Practical guidance for players
Players can avoid most problems by keeping the system in a clean, supported state. Bans are usually issued to accounts, sometimes to hardware identifiers, and appeals are slow, so caution is worthwhile even with harmless tools.
- Avoid memory editors, trainers and injectors while any online game with anti-cheat is running.
- Check a game’s anti-cheat requirements before buying it for a Linux handheld or a virtual machine.
- Keep Secure Boot and TPM enabled where a game requires them, as some systems refuse to start otherwise.
- Uninstall unused anti-cheat services that remain after a game is removed, if the vendor allows it.
- Report suspected cheaters through in-game tools, which feed behavioral and manual review.
Limits of anti-cheat
No anti-cheat is perfect. Cheat developers increasingly use external hardware, such as a second computer that reads screen captures or a device that sends input through a fake USB controller. These DMA and hardware cheats operate outside the game machine’s software and are very hard to detect locally, which pushes developers toward server-side and behavioral methods.
There is also a cost to legitimate players: longer startup times, occasional performance overhead, crashes from driver conflicts and false positives from accessibility tools or unusual software. Good anti-cheat design therefore aims for layered defense, transparent communication and a working appeals process rather than maximal intrusion alone.
In simple terms
Anti-cheat is a security guard for online games. It watches for programs that give players unfair advantages, such as seeing through walls or aiming automatically, and bans the accounts that use them.
Some guards only watch the game itself, while others are given keys to the whole computer so they can catch better-hidden cheats. The key trade-off is fairness against trust: stronger anti-cheat catches more cheaters but asks players to accept deeper access to their system.
A practical example
A competitive shooter on PC notices a rise in players with near-perfect accuracy through smoke. The client anti-cheat detects a known cheat loader on some machines, but newer private cheats remain invisible. The developer adds server-side checks that limit what information each client receives, so enemies hidden behind walls are no longer sent to the player at all.
Combined with statistical review of reaction times, the change identifies a group of suspicious accounts, which are banned in a single delayed wave two weeks later. Reports of obvious cheating fall noticeably afterwards. The outcome shows that layered measures work better than client scanning alone, while players on Linux handhelds still cannot join ranked matches because the kernel component lacks support there.