Legit Battlefield 3 gamers banned via PunkBuster exploit

By Robert Purchese Published 25 January, 2012

Hackers at ArtificialAiming proving a point.

Update: EA has responded to Eurogamer with a statement that has already been aired on the Battlelog forum.

In summary: this is only happening to a "small subset" of PC gamers, and not on console.

EA is on the case and is "confident" of having a "permanent solution" for you "shortly".

Until then, you're advised to avoid servers running PunkBuster.

Here's the full statement:

"We are aware that some Battlefield 3 players are experiencing connection issues with PunkBuster enabled servers," EA's statement read.

"This problem is limited to a small subset of players on PC and will not impact players on PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.

"We are actively looking into the specifics of this issue and we are confident that we will have a permanent solution in place shortly.

"In the meantime, if your connectivity has been affected, we recommend that in the interim you join servers that are not running PunkBuster. There is a filter setting for this in the multiplayer server browser.

"Thank you for your patience."

Original story: To prove how flawed Battlefield 3 anti-cheat and monitoring systems are, hackers have used a PunkBuster exploit to ban more than 150 law-abiding players.

Cheat and hack forum ArtificialAiming instigated the bans and provided proof of their coup in a post (via Battlefield 3 blog)

ArtificialAiming's argument is with GGC and PBBans. These are third-party services that run on Battlefield 3 servers and provide a host of anti-cheat tools - live ban lists among them. GGC and PBBans were working together, but broke off their partnership in October.

"We are bringing back the unerring of PunkBuster back for a third season," read the post on the ArtificialAiming forum. "We have selected GGC-stream as the target since they have the most streaming BF3 servers and makes it very easy to add fake bans.

"In 2011 we hit them with a mass ban-wave, and now we are banning real players from Battlelog while GGC-stream is totally unaware. We have framed 150-plus BF3 players alone."

GGC-stream apparently denied the appeal of players who were framed by saying the bans were "legit".

ArtificialAiming even created a host of fake nicknames on the banned accounts to signpost the problem. Examples of these are "No_one_is_safe", "You_will_never_find_all_the_fake_bans", "BF3_fake_ban_#111", "GGC_is_not_safe", "Many_more_fake_bans_are_coming" and "This_is_a_fake_ban". And that was just for one banned BF3 account.

ArtificialAiming claims to have banned eSports League admins as well - although these bans were "quickly removed" by GGC.

"Thx to the GGC-stream team for the lulz," the post concluded.

EA and DICE are yet to comment on the issue.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (35) Latest comment 4 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • goldbug #1 4 months ago

    What a bunch of self-important assholes.

  • jmcflash #2 4 months ago

    "EA and DICE are yet to comment on the issue."

    zh1nt0 on twitter has said they're aware and working to address the issue. There's also a notice on battlelog, as well as a news article.

    I love their solution, "we recommend that in the interim you join servers that are not running PunkBuster" - sounds fun

  • Sodding_Gamer #3 4 months ago

    What is the point really?!

  • MavSkipper #4 4 months ago

    So what was the point again?

  • shellyc #5 4 months ago

    Punkbuster has always been a contentious thing, when it was introduced into Quake3 it had its problems, I would have hoped after all these years the service might have matured, unfortunately...not.

  • ZizouFC #6 4 months ago

    Nerds.

  • Raptaur #7 4 months ago

    Man, PC gaming rocks!

  • ResidentKnievel #8 4 months ago

    I first read the title as including "Lego Battlefield 3"

    Then I was disheartened when I read it again. :(

  • robostac #9 4 months ago

    @shellyc It doesn't really have anything to do with punkbuster. PBBans / GGC offer a list of banned players that PB can load, so cheaters found on one server can be banned from lots of servers. These hackers have found a way to add accounts who haven't been caught cheating to the external lists.

  • Trigg3rHippie #10 4 months ago

    Ok, so PB sucks, now tell us sth we didn't know.

  • Toothball #11 4 months ago

    @Sodding_Gamer

    I think the point is that there's always someone out there ruining the fun for others. I've not had any experience with this PunkBuster thing, but if the intention is to stop people cheating then getting people banned isn't going to earn them any sympathy.

  • PlugMonkey #12 4 months ago

    So, their issue with the service is that it's vulnerable to being hacked by ass-hats like them?

    But they're the only people who are big enough ass-hats to do it, so if they stopped objecting to it, there would in fact be nothing for them to object to?

    My head hurts.

    Edit: Oh, I see. They're a community of online cheats. Their issue with the system is that it stops them cheating.

    So, not content with ruining the experience of the people they play against, they're now ruining the experience of the people they can't play against as well.

    What a truly excellent group of people. If only my life could be as rewarding and fulfilled.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 25/01/12 @ 11:43

  • DerpSalad #13 4 months ago

    lol.

    Frankly, between constant crashes and exploits, I'm glad I play on Xbox. There's no reason for EA not to use steam and VAC.

  • Eraser #14 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey Best comment ever.

  • kinky_mong #15 4 months ago

    PC gamers sure are a different class of people aren't they?

    And no that isn't a compliment.

  • Po1ymorph #16 4 months ago

    Punkbuster has always been terrible.

    Playing on pub servers is always bad in my experience. Best to find a few well run private servers with responsible, active admins.

  • Olemak #17 4 months ago

    How awfully nice of them.

  • FanBoysSuck #18 4 months ago

    What an absolute bunch of wankers.

  • carlitoswagon #19 4 months ago

    If only these people could be rounded up and made into sausages.

  • kangarootoo #20 4 months ago

    Oh come on people (some people, not everyone), show a little maturity here. There are clearly two separate issues going on.


    1. Some hackers have an inflated sense of their own self worth, and see themselves as heroes of the people and protectors of the american way, etc. No huge surprises there.

    2. An automatic anti-cheat system that is clearly unsecure is still in widespread use, and those that use it deny its clear failings.


    I'm not saying you have to like these guys, and anybody that knows my posts knows that if I have to pick a side I'll sign up for team "stupid hacker nerds, stop acting on my behalf and go get a life and get laid instead, etc" any day. But the point is you don't HAVE to pick a side here.

    By all means dislike the hackers, but don't also by association act like the elephant in the room that they have pointed out isn't there. Their motives might be full of self congratulatory shit, but you don't have to like their motives to see the issues they have raised.

  • dirtysteve #21 4 months ago

    Can these neck-beards ever make a point without harassing people who don't deserve it?

  • VibratingDonkey #22 4 months ago

    ArtificialAiming isn't trying to prove a point, they're trying to be assholes. They're griefers. Scummy people who derive pleasure from the misfortune of others. "For the lulz".

    But Punkbuster is indeed not very great. Server admins have to use this third party detection software and a monitoring website to efficiently get rid of all the cheaters floating around. And now Punkbuster has apparently managed to screw those measures up with its ineptness.

  • PlugMonkey #23 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    But I don't think they are trying to point out the elephant in the room, for the good of peace, freedom and the American way.

    They have nothing to gain from a more secure anti-cheat system. They're an organisation that sells software that allows people to cheat.

    This isn't a hacker group standing up for the rights of average consumers being inconvenienced by punkbuster being of unacceptable quality. This is a group of cheaters being inconvenienced by punkbuster doing what it's supposed to do, and so lashing out at it; antagonising random strangers for 'lulz'.

    Their motives and destructive and spiteful, and their actions are destructive and spiteful.

  • kangarootoo #24 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Dude, did you read my post?

    My point is that I don't care what they are trying to do, or what their motive is, or what they have to gain.

    My point is that the poor security of punkbuster is real, and their actions show that. A system that can auto-ban legitimate users needs to be able to resist attempts to mis-use it, and this one doesn't.


    There was a growing trend in the thread of "they are dickheads, so we will assume they are lying". The point is, they are dickheads, but the issue they highlight is not a lie because of it.

    What is it with this bloody celebrity laden modern world, where we based our opinions not on what is said, but on who says it? If punkbuster is insecure and can be hacked (as it clearly can be), we should view that fact coldly, and not give two hoots how we feel about those who brought it to our attention.

  • makeamazing #25 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo Ah but they could have created a fake account set to ban to prove their point, and not go around banning normal valid accounts (if i read that correctly).

    So if thats the case, then they are being unfair to the general public by banning normal players, rather than bringing this issue to the attention of the developers in a better way.

  • kangarootoo #26 4 months ago

    @makeamazing

    But but but.... so what?!?

    You are coming out with this stuff as if I am trying to defend their actions. I'm. Not.

    Dude, I totally agree they are dicks. I totally agree they are being unfair. I totally agree their motives are not altruistic. And I totally agree that they could have highlighted the issue more effectively.


    My only issue here is that the majority of the discussion seemed to be focussed on whether these guys were worthy of applause, and almost none of it was discussing whether punkbuster is a poor solution or not. The latter is the more interesting subject for discussion imo, as "arsey hackers do arsey things" is a subject much exhausted previously, and one on which we all agree (like I said, anyone who knows my posting history will know my feelings about guys like this).

    I was just making a little pedantic point about separating the issues within a discussion, and I seem to have become some ambassador for nobheads.

  • PlugMonkey #27 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    Yes, I read your post in some detail.

    Did you skim over mine at all? It attempted to point out some factual anomalies in your post, that I noticed when I read it. In great detail. ;)

    They are not "hackers with an overinflated sense of their own self worth". Nor, as far as I can tell, do they see themselves as "heroes of the people" or "defenders of the american way" or "acting on my behalf".

    The only disbelief I can see on this thread stems not from whether the security breach is real, but from why anyone what want to exploit it in such a spiteful and destructive way?

    If you look at their site, the obvious answer is because exploiting things in order to be spiteful and destructive is pretty much what they do.

    Surely you can see the difference between highlighting a security breach in an innapropriate manner, and actually sticking the boot in? You're describing the former, and I'm seeing the latter.

    When the looters smash up a shopping centre, I can consider the security failings that allowed it to happen, and yet still form an intense dislike for the destructive idiots who "brought those failngs to my attention".

  • TheGuvernor #28 4 months ago

    They messed me up & I'm not a cheat.

    Oh, how the internets makes nerds with small willies & no musculature feel powerful.
    Ass-hats indeed.

  • arcam #29 4 months ago

    It's just promotion for their website (did you really have to link to it EG?), which is pretty damn popular and costs $150 a year to subscribe too. After that people still pay for specific hacks.

    The sad thing is all this press they are getting is just getting them more subscribers, earning them more cash and making it more likely you'll come across hacks in game.

    Really we should just let Dice and Punkbuster quietly get on with sorting it out.
    Edited by arcam at 25/01/12 @ 16:39

  • PlugMonkey #30 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    My only issue here is that the majority of the discussion seemed to be focussed on whether these guys were worthy of applause, and almost none of it was discussing whether punkbuster is a poor solution or not

    Well, that's because there isn't really much to discuss there. It's allowed a group of ass-hats to breach their product and cause a lot of stress. When Sony got hacked, the discussion wasn't on whether their security measures were sufficient. They already, clearly weren't

    The interesting part in this is the bit you're glossing over: that this is NOT a right-on, "fight the power" action from a group out to prove a salient point.

    It's an act of bottom waving vandalism from a group of bottom waving vandals.

    It has nothing to do with celebrity worshipping society shooting the messenger. They're not sending a message, they're carrying out the actual attack, and causing a load of collateral damage with it.

  • kangarootoo #31 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "Surely you can see the difference between highlighting a security breach in an innapropriate manner, and actually sticking the boot in? You're describing the former, and I'm seeing the latter."

    I'm not really describing either. The level of appropriateness of their actions has never really been my point.


    "I can consider the security failings that allowed it to happen, and yet still form an intense dislike for the destructive idiots who "brought those failngs to my attention". "

    Exactly. Two separate and distinct issues. That is what I was trying to highlight in my very first post, but it all sort of went tits up after that (probably because I was a bit dickish and patronising in my approach, I admit - it is rather my default setting).

  • PlugMonkey #32 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    lol.

    I think where it went tits up was in you inaccurately describing one of the two separate and distinct issues, and it being the one that everyone was more keen to discuss with you than the other separate and distinct issue (or indeed the third issue of there being two issues that are both separate and distinct).

    I agree with you though. Punkbuster really should sort this out so these clowns can't keep hassling random strangers.

  • arcam #33 4 months ago

    The trouble is Punkbuster has virtually no competition (apart from VAC, which obviously isn't an option for BF3), so they really have very little incentive to improve.

  • TheGuvernor #34 4 months ago

    Could someone please hack these morons site itself?
    I'm not capable or I most definitely would.

  • cyber_nicco #35 4 months ago

    I don't think this is quite right. I don't blame Eurogamer, as everyone had the same story.

    I had the PB ban problem for a day and half when this broke, but I only had it on one of my machines (my desktop). My laptop worked fine both in public and on my home network. So, A, it doesn't seem to be account related; and, B, it wasn't IP related.

    That being said, I don't know the details regarding PB functionality, so I suppose it could have cached something on my desktop that was originally account related. It just doesn't seem so likely.
    Edited by cyber_nicco at 27/01/12 @ 15:02