Process Lasso can't remember rules for game .exe [GAME PROTECTED, UNRESOLVABLE]

[CH911]

Hey I have the following problem.

yesterday was a big patch for one of my games ever since process lasso can't remember the rules for it.

When applying the rules (choosing "always") there is no indicator in the rules column and next time I start the game it start with default values.
Here a screenshot, the "Regeln" column is rules as you can see it is empty but it works perfectly fine for chrome (and all other processes I have rules for):


Could the problem be this one point in the changelog?:

Added: BattlEye full protection enabled - the game is protected during its entire lifetime, not only when connected to a BE-protected server

Battleye is an Anti-Cheat I know it probably isn't the cause (since I can change the priorities manually everytime) but this seems the only change to the game engine which could affect it?

Prior to yesterdays patch it always worked flawlessly with the game.
I already tried reinstalling ProcessLasso also temporarily removing the registry entries and all other left over folders.

[edkiefer]

are the settings not sticking ?
You can look in menu's on that process in always x and see if there values other than normal .
You can also open PL.ini file and see if the processes are listed (towards the bottom for priority, I/O , affinity ) .
You can access ini from files>manual edit configuration ini file option .

Could it be the game exe changed name after patch (sometimes there a 32bit and 64bit versions) , so now you need to reapply rules , is it only one game or others ?

[CH911]

The values are set to what I want them when checking with right click yet they're not being applied.

For example I usually allocate the arma3.exe core 2-4; so when right clicking and checking cpu-affinity -> always -> only CPU1 to CPU3 are selected but the game actually uses core 1 as well (I can tell froam the core's load) when reapplying the rule by allocate core 1 again then uncheck CPU0 again it jumpes to the other cores.

It is listed in the ini with correct vlaues but still this problem occours.

The exe didn't change it's display name its always been "arma3.exe" there is no 64bit version of this game (sadly).
It's working with other games the shortcuts for the rules are being thisplayed in the rules("Regeln") column but since the game update they're not being dispalyed for arma3.exe anymore.

[edkiefer]

The values are set to what I want them when checking with right click yet they're not being applied.

For example I usually allocate the arma3.exe core 2-4; so when right clicking and checking cpu-affinity -> always -> only CPU1 to CPU3 are selected but the game actually uses core 1 as well (I can tell froam the core's load) when reapplying the rule by allocate core 1 again then uncheck CPU0 again it jumpes to the other cores.

It is listed in the ini with correct vlaues but still this problem occours.

The exe didn't change it's display name its always been "arma3.exe" there is no 64bit version of this game (sadly).
It's working with other games the shortcuts for the rules are being thisplayed in the rules("Regeln") column but since the game update they're not being dispalyed for arma3.exe anymore.

Ok, then at first glance I say it could be that anti-cheat launcher is preventing anything altered with processes it launches .

Can you run ARMa3 w/o the anti-cheat launcher , then we would know if its that .
make sure that app (BattlEye ) and any linked services  is not running to for the test .

[CH911]

Ok yup, when deactivating BattlEye the rules are shown and applied as well!

Unfortunately I can't join my own server without having BattlEye activated b/c it's BE-protected.

Is there a way you guys can look into it or would it be too much effort just to work around this one anti-cheat?

[edkiefer]

I don't know what can be done on our side as that anti-cheat is the launcher .
When Developer comes online he would know better .

I would though send email to that app support, asking why they lock affinities, priority etc .
None of them change exe actions .

[Jeremy Collake]

After reading your post more carefully, I have to conclude that the BattleEye protection is aware of Process Lasso and removing itself from the configuration. That seems to be the only really feasible answer here, given that it works with all other processes. Unless you have any wildcard rules that may over-ride your BattleEye process settings, but in that case, you'd have seen such in the Rules column.

I'll investigate closer and see if I can figure out what is going on!

[edkiefer]

What I was thinking is they somehow lock all system files and states that are linked to the game exe , kind of sandboxing it in a fixed state they launch game .

then while game is running nothing can be alter to that game .

[CH911]

After reading your post more carefully, I have to conclude that the BattleEye protection is aware of Process Lasso and removing itself from the configuration. That seems to be the only really feasible answer here, given that it works with all other processes. Unless you have any wildcard rules that may over-ride your BattleEye process settings, but in that case, you'd have seen such in the Rules column.

I'll investigate closer and see if I can figure out what is going on!

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly but I'm not configuring BattlEye in any way (neither arma3battleye.exe nore BEService.exe) only the arma3.exe so BattlEye wont remove itself from the config but the game's .exe or blocking changes to it?

any how it's greatly appreciated that you're gonna have a look at it!

[Jeremy Collake]

The game could certainly block access to itself and prevent those changes, or revert those changes. The 'Forced Mode' option in Lasso (bottom of Options menu) might help if it only reverted the changes, but then it might get in a 'battle' with Lasso.

However, you should still see the rules show up in the GUI, which is why I guessed that maybe the protections are aware of Process Lasso, and adjusting it's config, as unlikely as it seems.

I need to slow down and evaluate this in more detail, perhaps set up a test bed. I don't have a conclusion that seems likely at this time, given the data I've gathered through my cursory glimpse/thoughts of this thread.

[CH911]

alright, as I said greatly appreciated that you take a look at it.

Btw. you can download the BattlEye Service for clients right here without the need to own a BE-protected game:
http://www.battleye.com/downloads/ I guess the ArmA 3 version is what you need maybe that will help you out in some point!

[Jeremy Collake]

Thanks . Yes, saves me time searching around. I'll let you know what I find ... or perhaps just later conclude, after the data from this report has time to settle in. Either way, expect a resolution!

[CH911]

any news?

[Jeremy Collake]

Today we'll work on getting a test bed set up for this game to see what in the world it's doing. That should quickly lead to identification of the cause of the anomaly you see.

[Jeremy Collake]

Questions:

1. After you create the rule, does it get applied to the game initially? Despite not showing in the rules column?
2. If you open the INI file manually (see File menu), do you see the process listed (do a search)?
3. What rules are you setting?

Testers are having some troubles getting an environment set up for this game, while I'm working on some other issues here myself and checking the latest Win10 build's compatibility again.

Thanks!

[CH911]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Priority Class - Always - High
    CPU Affinity - Always - CPU1, CPU2, CPU3 (checked)
    I/O Priority - Always - High
    Application Power Profile - Bitsum Highest Performance

I am using Windows 7 64bit I don't know if there is any official Win10 compatibility yet.

[CH911]

Bad news,
so I also sent a ticket to BattlEye about this problem here are the results:

Am 16.06.2015 um 00:19 schrieb Bastian Suter:

Hi,

It appears this tool needs direct access to the game process then, which I'm afraid is no longer possible. Please let the developers know about this.

Regards,
Bastian Suter
BattlEye Innovations


On 16.06.2015 00:04, Christian Hardt wrote:
Hello,

this problem is definitely not fixed, sadly.

No changes to the affinity, priority or other properties are made.

regards
Chris

Am 15.06.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Bastian Suter:
Hi,

We are sorry for these problems, they should be resolved with the latest Arma 3 update.

Regards,
Bastian Suter
BattlEye Innovations


On 09.06.2015 23:08, Chris wrote:
To:
User support

Name:
Chris

Email:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX@gmx.de

Subject:
BattlEye blocking ProcessLasso

Message:
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since the ArmA 3 Patch 1.46.131127 on June 8th 2015 I have a problem
with BattlEye in combination with ProcessLasso.

I'll shortly describe what ProcessLasso is and after that I'll
elaborate my problem:
ProcessLasso is an app which allows you to set rules for processes,
e.g. you can mae rules for core affinity, process priority, I/O
priority, memory priority and so on.
Every time you start an app ProcessLasso will automaticly set the core
affinity, process priority, I/O priority, memory priority according to
the rules.

Since the ArmA 3 Patch 1.46.131127 on June 8th 2015 this doesn't work
anymore, you have to manually set the rules each time you start ArmA 3.
It is defenitely BattlEye blocking something since the update since
when starting ArmA 3 with BattlEye disabled the rules are getting
applied like prior to the patch.

I already posted in the ProcessLasso support forum and the dev will
have a look at it but maybe you can do something as well to stop these
"false blocks".

 regards
Chris

[edkiefer]

Yes, there blocking any access to the process , no matter the change .

AFAIK, only they can make a change on this , not much PL can do .

One question, if you use task manager to adjust manually  affinity before running it does it then stick or it gets reverted there too ?

[Jeremy Collake]

Ah, yes, Ed is correct. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about this. We can not 'hack' their process protection. Well, I mean, I could, but it would be extreme effort, and they'd likely change it again, so it's not something I'd like to even begin to get into . Very sorry.

[DeadHead]

If more and more developers are going this route, that would spell bad news for programs like PL, right?

[Jeremy Collake]

Not necessarily, no. I don't expect many developers to go this route, and - in fact - drum roll please.... Bitsum may be the company that helps to protect executables from inappropriate external adjustments. We saw this problem start to emerge as crapware snake-oil PC optimization companies started to try to copy our technology, but failed miserably at it. So, if we're the ones protecting, we are also the ones who can still take action.

Letting a secret out of the bag here, but so be it.

However, I don't expect wide-spread use of self-protecting applications maybe ever.. they will probably always be the minority. Games are doing so because of cheats and such, other applications (excepting security suites) have no need, and it causes a lot of complications, so will not go this route.

[edkiefer]

Also this affects the focused app (Game) which PL doesn't affect anyway and restraints back ground processes .
So IMO while it sad they chose this type of block everything, it really doesn't affect PL .
At least in game way .

Edit: If you want to micro manage your affinities for all processes, well yeh it would hamper the game one, but other than that type of use I don't see it .
I can never see doing that with a positive out come being better than windows scheduler , but that just me. there so many variables when you try fixed affinity .
I can see using it on a specific troubling app, but other than that I don't IMO .

[Jeremy Collake]

That's absolutely right Ed, many of Lasso's newer features don't even require access to specific processes.