1. Battle of Botcraft: Fighting Bots in Online Games withHuman Observational Proofs Steven Gianvecchio, Zhenyu Wu, Mengjun Xie, and Haining Wang The College of William and Mary, USA ACM CCS 2009

2. OUTLINE 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Related Work 4. Game Playing Characterization 5. HOP System 6. Experiments 7. Limitations 8. Conclusion

3. 1. Introduction  About online games :  $7.6 billion revenues in 2008.  Massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs).  Game bots.  The existing methods for combating bots.  Human interactive proofs (HIPs).  Warden, a process monitor.

4. 1. Introduction (cont.)  A game bot defense system based on human observational proofs (HOPs).  Behavioral biometric systems.  A client-side exporter and a server-side analyzer.  The purpose of the HOP system is to raise the bar against game bots.

5. 2. Background  Game bots :  Standalone custom game client.  Standard game client.  Game playing behaviors :  Human  Bots

6. 3. Related Work  Anti-Cheating :  Game cheating prevention  Game cheating detection  Behavioral Biometrics :  Keystroke dynamics and mouse dynamics  Identity matching

7. 4. Game playing characterization  The Glider Bot :  Requires system administrator privileges.  Profile — a set of configurations including several waypoints and options.

8. 4. Game playing characterization (cont.)  Input Data Collection :  RUI — input data collection program.  clock resolution close to 0.015625 second (approximate 64 times/sec).

9. 4. Game playing characterization (cont.) men women 18-24 25-34 35-44 >45

10. 4. Game playing characterization (cont.)  Game bot is runningwith 10 different profiles in 7 locations in the game world for 40 hours.  Profiles are half run with a warrior and half run with a mage.  Characters range from level 1 to over 30 in the traces.

11. 4. Game playing characterization (cont.)

12.  Game Playing Input Analysis :  keyboard and mouse input traces with respect to timing patterns (duration and inter-arrival time) and kinematics (distance, displacement, and velocity).

13. 4. Game playing characterization (cont.)

16. 5. HOP System  Client-side exporter  sends a stream of user-input actions taken at a game client to the game server.  Server-side analyzer  processes each input stream and decides whether the corresponding client is operated by a bot or a human player.

17. 5. HOP System (cont.)  Client-Side Exporter :  Derives input actions from raw user-input events.  A standalone external program

18. 5. HOP System (cont.)  Server-Side Analyzer :  User-input action classifier  Decision maker  Neural Network Classification :  Eight input values for each user-input action  action duration, mouse travel distance, displacement, efficiency, speed, angle of displacement, virtual key and bias value.  Output Neuron

19. 5. HOP System (cont.)  Decision Making :  A simple “voting” scheme  If the majority of the neural network output classifies the user-input actions as those of a bot, the decision will be that the game is operated by a bot, and vice versa.

20. 5. HOP System (cont.)  Performance Impact and Scalability :  Client side  16 bytes of data per user-input action.  additional bandwidth consumption induced by the client-side exporter is negligible.  Server side  The server-side analyzer is very efficient in terms of memory and CPU usage.

21. 6. Experiments  In terms of detection accuracy, detection speed, and system overhead  True positive rate and true negative rate

22. 6. Experiments (cont.)  Experimental Setup :  95 hours of traces, including 55 hours of human traces and 40 hours of game bot traces.  3,000,066 raw user-input events and 286,626 user-input actions, with 10 bot instances and 30 humans involved.

23. 6. Experiments (cont.)  Detection Results :  The HOP system has four configurable parameters :  # of actions per block, and # of nodes  The threshold, and # of outputs per output block.

24. 6. Experiments (cont.)  Configure # of actions per block and # of nodes.

25. 6. Experiments (cont.)  the threshold and # of outputs per block

26. 6. Experiments (cont.)  Fully configured system (40 nodes, 4-action input, the threshold of 0.75, and 9 outputs per block)  The true negative rates are 1.0 for all of the humans

27. 6. Experiments (cont.)  Detection of Other Game Bots :  Test with Diablo 2without retraining the neural network.  A true positive rate of 0.864 on the bot and a true negative rate of 1.0 on the human players.

28. 6. Experiments (cont.)  System Overhead :  To estimate the overhead of the analyzer for supporting 5,000 users.  The analyzer consumes only 37 KBytes of memory during operation.  The per-user memory requirement is approximately 66 bytes, this is only 330 KBytes in total.  The analyzer can process 95 hours of traces, over 286,626 user-input actions, in only 385 milliseconds on a Pentium 4 Xeon 3.0Ghz.

29. 7. Limitations  Experimental Limitations :  Player group, 30, is insufficient  Mainly conducted in a lab environment  There are a number of other bots  Is HOP system effective for broader applications?

30. 7. Limitations (cont.)  Potential Evasion :  Bots could either interfere with the user-input collection or manipulate the user-input stream at the client side.  Bots could mimic human behaviors to evade detection.

31. 8. Conclusion  A game bot defense system that utilizes HOPs to detect game bots.  Compared to conventional HIPs such as CAPTCHAs, HOPs are transparent to users and work in a continuous manner.  The system can detect over 99% of current game bots with no false positives within a minute.