It's OK little fella I wouldn't expect people who know NOTHING about, "Hacking" to know what is and what isn't.
The reason you'd use a "Checksum" and to verify the integrity, of the games SIZE
The minute ANYTHING is injected into a application the file size is altered, a simple check of any kinda injection into game memory would then terminate the game.
Who exactly would perform this "simple check" and "terminate the game"?
The client itself, which has already been tampered with and is running under the control of a malicious program?
Or the server, who cannot see into the user's computer and can only ask "what's your checksum" and have to believe whatever answer it gets, even if it came from a malicious program pretending to be the client?
It's OK little fella I wouldn't expect people who know NOTHING about, "Hacking" to know what is and what isn't.
The reason you'd use a "Checksum" and to verify the integrity, of the games SIZE
The minute ANYTHING is injected into a application the file size is altered, a simple check of any kinda injection into game memory would then terminate the game.
That is not how packets and servers work. It's also not really how applications work in general, but we can ignore that.
Packets do not alter file size, they're communication between the client and the server. Packet "injection" refers to sending falsified packets to the server to obtain the results you want. Sending more packets doesn't cause the program to become larger (not the least because the program is already compiled by the time packets are being sent).
A checksum would not provide any defense against packet injection, because the file size remains same.
Now, there is a form of checksum on packets for smaller amounts of information, usually a parity bit, but again, this doesn't verify data authenticity, it verifies data integrity; it might be able to detect a corrupted packet, but a corrupt packet doesn't necessarily indicate hacking (as corruption can occur in any part of the network).
Again, I assure you, checksum is useful for detecting data corruption, not verifying data authenticity.
Comments
Who exactly would perform this "simple check" and "terminate the game"?
The client itself, which has already been tampered with and is running under the control of a malicious program?
Or the server, who cannot see into the user's computer and can only ask "what's your checksum" and have to believe whatever answer it gets, even if it came from a malicious program pretending to be the client?
That is not how packets and servers work. It's also not really how applications work in general, but we can ignore that.
Packets do not alter file size, they're communication between the client and the server. Packet "injection" refers to sending falsified packets to the server to obtain the results you want. Sending more packets doesn't cause the program to become larger (not the least because the program is already compiled by the time packets are being sent).
A checksum would not provide any defense against packet injection, because the file size remains same.
Now, there is a form of checksum on packets for smaller amounts of information, usually a parity bit, but again, this doesn't verify data authenticity, it verifies data integrity; it might be able to detect a corrupted packet, but a corrupt packet doesn't necessarily indicate hacking (as corruption can occur in any part of the network).
Again, I assure you, checksum is useful for detecting data corruption, not verifying data authenticity.