this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
231 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

88390 readers
4148 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo@lemmy.today -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sounds like FUD... I want to see it confirmed by someone reputable with an explanation before believing it.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] echo@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they are banning on a single piece of hardware such as a single CPU, then they are morons.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

I mean, they are morons.

[–] Nora@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

not op but surely Riot isn't only looking at CPUs for hardware bans? That leads to all kinda of funky stuff like... well, this. Usually fingerprinting via hardware is a more complete package no?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What about this story to you is in any way implausible?

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They've been hardware finger printing for years now. They one hundred percent know if you're a piss drinking titty fucker just from your chipset.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Pfft, like they need my chipset for that

[–] echo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their fingerprinting is flawed if this story is true. If I take someone else's CPU and drop it into what is otherwise different hardware then the fingerprint should absolutely change. If it doesn't then their fingerprinting is broken and this is going to happen whether any particular CPU has been banned or not.

It seems far more plausible that someone got themselves banned and they're lying to try to get out of it.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Fingerprinting that is that hyperspecific is the one that's actually flawed. If you could circumvent a hardware ban by rearranging your RAM sticks, it wouldn't be much good.

As it is, the CPU is the one most stable, expensive, and difficult piece to replace, so it makes sense to ban on that alone.

But, I do agree that cheaters are really slimy fuckers, so what you're saying is certainly possible. I remember a kid that had his grandmother bring his computer into the shop to see we could evade his hw ban, talked his grandmother into agrreing to buy him a new GPU right in front of us before we turned him down flat.

[–] echo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In this case they even had a completely different install of Windows. There is simply no way at all that the fingerprint should match. If it did match, then their implementation sucks. Fuck them if they made it that bad intentionally. Better to have to catch and ban the same person 10 times than ban an innocent person even once.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I can't verify that each CPU has a unique id, the way a network card does (MAC address), but it might be a trade secret, who knows.

As far as banning innocent people, if the math is that one cheater drives away 100 honest players, it's better to ban up to 99 honest players to get to that 1 cheater.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

A CPU serial number or other ID is more unique than a MAC address, as those can be spoofed, and are not guaranteed to be unique, either. I heard one case of someone tearing their hair out over a mystery network issue, eventually discovering two NICs with the same MAC. And also the case of someone buying a whole pallet of NICs, which turned out to all have the same MAC address.

But I don't think that math checks out. A player driven away might return, but a banned player can't.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

That pallet of NIC's: oof! I thought there were complicated methods in place to assure that didn't happen.

As for the math, cheating is a problem because it drives players away. Whatever the math is, there is a number of innocent players that could get swept up in a ban that would be acceptable if enough cheaters were also kicked out. I'm not talking morally, just the viability of an online game.