Abstract:
In general, in one aspect, an add-in card includes inaccessible memory to store an identity key, wherein the identity key is to enable a secure communication link. The add-in card also includes an isolated execution environment and a machine-accessible medium comprising content. The content when executed by the isolated execution environment causes the isolated execution environment to route secure communications between an on-line application and a remote service provider through the isolated execution environment to provide a secure communication link therebetween, detect on-line application code modifications, detect on-line application process flow modifications, and notify, via the secure communication link, the remote service provider when a modification is detected.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
     The online video game market continues to grow. Online games may be played on personal computers (PCs) or gaming consoles (e.g., XBOX LIVE®). The online game communicates with a remote server to provide interaction with other users. PCs are open systems and therefore are susceptible to hacking. Hacking online games played on PCs may enable users to cheat while playing the game. 
     The cheating may include simulating (e.g., inserting) user commands, and/or deleting or modifying actual user commands (input data modification). An input modification program may be utilized to modify the input stream (user commands) received and processed by the game application. For example, certain games require a player to aim and shoot at various objects or other players. The input modification program may be able to determine the exact location of the target and automatically aim and shoot the player&#39;s gun with inhuman accuracy and speed. Some games require players to perform repetitious tasks in order to obtain certain items (game currency) and/or to advance to new levels. The input modification program may perform the repetitive tasks for the user without the user needing to play the game and perform the functions. This allows the user to accumulate wealth, skills or other game features faster and vastly easier than the rest of the players in the game. 
     The cheating may include intercepting communications between the game application run on the PC and the remote server for the game and deleting, modifying or delaying actual communications between the game application and the remote server (network communication modification). A communication modification program may be used to modify communications between the game application and the remote game server and/or to intercept communications from the game server and take appropriate action. For example, if during game play of an action game the player shots at another user the game application will provide communications to the remote server indicating that this event occurred. The communication modification program may intercept the update and replace the update with a different update (e.g., one that ensures the shot will hit the closest other user). By way of another example, the communication modification program may provide updates to the remote server that that certain repetitive tasks required to obtain items or advance play were performed even though they were not. 
     The cheating may include intercepting communications from the remote server and taking appropriate actions prior to the communications being processed by the on-line application (network communication intercept). A communication intercept program may be used to intercept the communications and take actions prior to the on-line game processing the communication. The actions may include instructing the on-line game to take certain actions or disconnecting communications between the on-line game and the remote server. For example, if the communication is that another user shot at the player the communication intercept program may provide commands to the on-line game to duck prior to the communications regarding the shot are processed. Alternatively, the communication intercept program may disconnect communications between the on-line game and the remote server so that the shot can not be processed. 
     The cheating may include modifying the on-line game application (software modification). The cheating may also include modifying pointers to external code utilized outside of the on-line game application&#39;s code (program control flow modification) to point to cheating code or skip certain code (e.g., anti cheat code). Modifying the on-line game application code or program control flow may enable the player to take actions or see things they would not normally be able to or to turn off cheat detecting software. For example, the modification may make walls in a game transparent so that the player can see what is on the other side. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The features and advantages of the various embodiments will become apparent from the following detailed description in which: 
         FIG. 1  illustrates an example on-line application configuration, according to one embodiment; 
         FIG. 2  illustrates an example on-line game configuration utilizing an add-in card to detect the various online application cheats, according to one embodiment; 
         FIG. 3  illustrates an example process flow for user command verification, according to one embodiment; 
         FIG. 4  illustrates an example integrity manifest for a client application, according to one embodiment; 
         FIG. 5  illustrates an example process flow for an integrity measurement module validating the identity and integrity of a client application, according to one embodiment; 
         FIG. 6  illustrates an example integrity chain table for a client application, according to one embodiment; and 
         FIG. 7  illustrates an example process flow for the integrity measurement module validating the integrity of the client application process flow, according to one embodiment. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       FIG. 1  illustrates an example on-line game configuration. A user plays a game on their computer  100  and interacts with other users via an application server  110  (remote service provider). A client version of the on-line game (client application)  120  is run on a central processing unit (CPU)  130  in the computer  100 . The user may utilize an input device  140  (e.g., mouse, keyboard, joystick) to enter commands (e.g., scroll mouse, press keys) in order to play the game. Data capturing the user commands (e.g., bit strings corresponding to the user command) is received by an input/output control hub (ICH)  150  (chipset). The ICH  150  forwards the data to an operating system (OS)  160  for processing. 
     The OS  160  utilizes appropriate drivers to convert the data (e.g., bit strings) to corresponding “human” commands (e.g., the ‘A’ key was pressed, the mouse was moved left) and forwards the “human” commands to the client application  120 . The client application  120  processes the “human” commands received in order to update/advance the game (modify the game state). Updates to the game are communicated from the client application  120  to the remote service provider (RSP)  110  over a communication network (e.g., Internet) via a network interface  170  (e.g., modem, wireless card, Ethernet cable port, coaxial cable port). The client application  120  may include anti-cheating software  125  to detect cheating software that may attempt to modify the game play in some fashion. 
     An input modification cheat application  180  may be run on the CPU  130  and provide commands to the client application  120 . The input modification  180  may monitor game play to determine the commands necessary to increase score (e.g., aim more accurately, fire faster) or to perform repetitive tasks (e.g., dig for gold). The input modification  180  may delete user commands (e.g., remove commands associated with an accidental shot), may modify user commands (e.g., aim a shot more accurately), and/or may add user commands (e.g., shoot more often). The input modification  180  need not receive any commands from the user and can simply play the game in place of the user by providing data associated with user commands directly to the OS  160  for processing and the user commands are then provided by the OS  160  to the client application  120 . The client application  120  is unaware that the commands received may not be from a user (e.g., have been inserted or modified) or that user commands may have been deleted. 
     A communication modification/intercept cheat application  185  may be run on the CPU  130  and monitor communications between the client application  120  and the remote service provider  110 . The communication modification/intercept  185  may also be located external to the computer  100 . The communication modification/intercept  185  may provide updates (insert communications) to the RSP  110  that certain activities have occurred in the client application  120  (e.g., redundant tasks have been completed) that have not. When the communication modification/intercept  185  detects game updates being communicated from the client application  120  to the RSP  110  that it does not want to be communicated it may delete the update (e.g., simulate a communications failure before the player is to be killed) or modify the update (e.g., adjust the trajectory of a shot from another player to ensure it does not hit the cheating player). 
     When the communication modification/intercept  185  detects commands from the RSP  110  that may adversely affect game play (e.g., bomb detonation) the communication modification/intercept  185  may provide commands to the client application  120  (e.g., leave house) or may discontinue/interrupt communications (e.g., disable NIC  170 , shut off client application  120 ) between the client application  120  and the RSP  110  so that the adverse effects do not occur. 
     The client application  120  may be modified  190  and/or the program control flow may be modified to point to code outside of the client application  120  that modifies and/or corrupts the on-line application in some fashion (cheating software  195 ). The modified client application  190  or the cheating software  195  pointed to by the modified program control flow may effect the way that the client application  120  is played and/or displayed to the user so that the user has an advantage over other players (e.g., display clear walls) or may disable the anti-cheating software  125 . 
       FIG. 2  illustrates an example on-line game configuration utilizing an add-in card (such as a PCI Express card) to detect the various online application cheats. The configuration is similar to the configuration discussed with respect to  FIG. 1  with the addition of the add-in card  290 . The add-in card  290  includes a processor  200  that is independent of and inaccessible to the operating systems and other applications running on the CPU  130  (the processor  200  is an isolated execution environment). The processor  200  may be programmed to detect and report various online cheats. For example, the processor  200  may be programmed to perform input verification (input verification module  210 ), to perform software integrity measurements (integrity measurement module  220 ), and to encrypt and decrypt communications (encrypt/decrypt module  230 ). 
     The add-in card  290  may include an interface  240  to receive data associated with commands entered by a user on the input devices  140 . The add-in card  290  may include filters  250  to filter the data received from the input devices  140 , and may have an identity key  260  stored therein that is inaccessible to the platform owner (e.g., stored in a fuse array on the add-in card  290 ). The identity key  260  can be used to attest to the identity of the add-in card  290  and can be used as the basis for an asymmetric cryptographic certificate, to establish a private connection to the RSP  110 . Once the add-in card&#39;s identity is attested to the RSP  110 , the add-in card  290  can then use a negotiated session key to encrypt communications prior to it being sent across the network. The converse is true for decryption. 
     The processor  200  (input verification module  210 ) may be utilized to detect input modification cheating by comparing the commands received from the filters  250  to the commands processed by the client application  120 . In order to do this the input devices will need to be connected to the add-in card  290  instead of the ICH  150 . If the comparison determines that the commands received and commands processed are not the same then the commands must have been derived from a non-human source, such as the input modification cheat  180 . 
     The client application  120  may provide configuration data to the processor  200  (the input verification  210 ). The configuration data may include identification of acceptable type of input devices  140  (e.g., mouse and keyboard may be used, track ball can not), and any allowable input translations (e.g., convert one keystroke to multiple keystrokes) permitted by the game. The configuration data may also include information about the RSP  110  (e.g., IP address) so that the processor  200  can communicate directly therewith. 
     The input verification module  210  may use the configuration data to configure the filters  250  to look for data (e.g., bit strings associated with a command or action) from the accepted input devices  140 . The interfaces  240  receive data from the input devices  140  and pass the data through the filters  250 . When game play is active, the filters  250  monitor the data received to determine if the origin is from an accepted input device  140 . If the filters  250  determine the data is not from an accepted input device, the data is simply forwarded to the OS  160 . If the filters  250  determine the data is from an accepted input device, the filters  250  make a copy of the data for the input verification module  210  and also forward the data to the OS  160 . 
     The client application  120  receives and processes application commands in order to update/advance the game (modify the game state). In normal operation the application commands would be based on data from the input devices. However, the application commands may be modified in some fashion by an input modification cheat application as discussed above with respect to  FIG. 1 . The client application  120  captures the application commands received and processed to update the game and forwards them to the input verification module  210 . 
     The input verification module  210  may convert the data received from the filters  250  into user commands (e.g., change bit strings to mouse presses). The conversion includes use of any allowable input translations. The input verification module  210  may then compare the user commands generated by the input verification module  210  to the application commands received from the client application  120 . If the commands do not match the input verification module  210  may provide the RSP  110  and the client application  120  with notification of non-matching commands. The input verification module  210  may provide the notification based on a single instance of non-matching commands or some algorithm (e.g., 5 consecutive commands, 50% of commands over a defined interval). The notification may simply indicate non-matching has occurred or may provide details regarding the level of non-matching. 
     In order to ensure that the non-matching notification is not intercepted and discarded the notification may be encrypted using the encrypt/decrypt module  230 . The encrypt/decrypt module  230  may utilize the identity key  260  to attest to the identity of the add-in card  290  to the RSP  110  and to establish a private connection to the RSP  110 . Once the connection is established the encrypt/decrypt module  230  can use a negotiated session key to encrypt the notification prior to it being sent across the network. 
     The RSP  110  receives the encrypted notification from the processor  200  and decrypts the notification. The RSP  110  (e.g., the cheat policy module  115 ) makes a determination if cheating is occurring based on the notification. The cheat policy module  115  may determine cheating is occurring after receipt of a single notification from the processor  200  or may base the decision on some algorithm (e.g., reach threshold level of notifications/mismatches in a defined period). If the cheat policy module  115  determines that cheating is occurring (e.g., utilizing input modification cheats) the cheat policy module  115  may take appropriate action (e.g., provide warning, discontinue play, ban user, ban game play from that machine, notify other players). The action taken by the cheat policy module  115  may depend on, for example, the level of cheating determined, if cheating has previously been detected for the user or from the machine, and/or if previous action has been taken against the user/machine. 
       FIG. 3  illustrates an example process flow for user command verification. The user enters commands on their input device during game play  300 . The filters receive data associated with the user commands from the input device  305 . The filters determine if the data received is from a defined (allowed for game play) input device  310 . If the data received is not from a defined input device  310  No, the data is passed to the OS for processing  315 . If the data received is from a defined input device  310  Yes, the filters duplicate the data and send the duplicate data to the processor  320  and pass the original data to the OS  315 . 
     The processor (the input verification module) translates the data received from the filters into corresponding user commands  325 . The processor receives application commands from the client application  330 . The application commands are the commands that the client application processed to update the game state. The processor (the input verification module) compares the user commands and the application commands received from the client application  335 . If the commands match  340  Yes, no action is taken. If the commands do not match  340  No, the processor (the input verification module) notifies the RSP regarding the mismatch  345 . The notification is encrypted using the encrypt/decrypt module. The cheat policy module of the RSP determines the appropriate action to be taken based on the notification  350 . 
     Referring back to  FIG. 2 , communications between the client application  120  and the RSP  120  may be routed through the processor  200  to prevent communication modification/intercept cheating as use of the identity key  260  and the encrypt/decrypt module  230  provides a secure communication link between the processor  200  and the RSP  110 . The identity key  260  and the encrypt/decrypt module  230  may also be used to establish a secure communication link between the client application  120  and the processor  200 . The secure communication links between the client application  120  and the processor  200  and the processor  200  and the RSP  110  establish a secure link between the client application  120  and the RSP  110  via the processor  200 . The secure communication link may prevent the communication modification/intercept cheats from detecting communication between the client application  120  and the RSP  110  as the cheats will not be able to decrypt the messages. Additionally, since the cheats will not have established their identity they may not be able to insert communications. 
     In addition to the secure connection between the client application  120  and the RSP  110  via the processor  200 , an insecure connection may to be established directly between the client application  120  and the RSP  110 . The direct insecure connection may be used by the client application  120  to communicate data that does not need to be protected against cheating. This could include data not related directly to game play such as system configuration information. 
     In order to verify the identity and integrity of the client application  120  the client application  120  may be identified by a cryptographic signature that is generated based on the code and a public private key pair. A signature that is based on the code results in the signature of the client application changing if the code is changed. A signature using a public private key pair means that any one with the public key may verify a signature but only those with the private key can generate a valid signature. The processor  200  (integrity measurement module  220 ) may verify the identity and integrity of the client application  120  by computing a signature for client application  120  using the public key and comparing it to the expected (valid cryptographic) signature. If the signatures do not match a software modification cheat may have been detected. 
     Rather than having a single signature, the client application  120  may have a cryptographic signature generated for various segments of the code (segment signatures) based on the code segments and a public private key pair. If segment signatures are utilized the integrity measurement module  220  will need to know which segments of the client application  120  to generate the signatures for. The client application may provide an integrity manifest that identifies the appropriate segments of the code as well as the expected signatures for those segments to the processor  200 . 
     In order for the integrity measurement module  220  to compute the signatures for the client application  120  it needs to have access to the code (needs to be able to have direct memory access (DMA) to the code). The code for the client application  120  will not be stored contiguously in physical memory. Accordingly, the code for the client application  120  will need to be modified to allow the program to execute in the physical memory locations in which it is stored. The change to code to reflect the physical locations is known as relocation fix-ups. Since the code that the integrity measurement module  220  will generate signatures for is based on the relocation fix ups the generated signature will not match the expected signature. Accordingly, when the code is loaded into memory the client application will record the relocation fix-ups and will include the relocation fix-ups in the integrity manifest. The integrity measurement module  220  will back out the relocation fix-ups when computing the signatures. 
     The integrity manifest may be identified by a cryptographic signature that is generated based on the integrity manifest and a public private key pair. The integrity measurement module  220  may generate a signature for the integrity manifest using the public key and compare the computed signature to the expected signature in order to verify the identity and integrity of the integrity manifest. By verifying the integrity of the integrity manifest the data contained within the integrity manifest including the signature for the client application or the signatures for the segments is assumed valid. Validating the integrity manifest prevents cheaters from modifying the code and inserting an appropriate expected signature for the modified code in the integrity manifest. 
       FIG. 4  illustrates an example integrity manifest  400  for a client application. The integrity manifest includes a cryptographic manifest signature  410  that is based on the integrity manifest  400  and a public private key pair. The integrity manifest  400  also includes details for measured segments of code  420  such as start data  430 , end data  440  and expected signature  450 . The integrity manifest  400  also includes relocation fix-up data  460  for the various segments. The integrity manifest may also include an integrity chain table  470  (to be discussed in more detail with regard to validating the process flow of the client application). 
       FIG. 5  illustrates an example process flow for the integrity measurement module validating the identity and integrity of the client application. The integrity manifest for the application is read  500 . The signature for the integrity manifest is computed  505 . The computed signature is compared to the expected signature  510 . If the signatures do not match  515  No, the integrity manifest is not valid as it may have been modified  517 . If the integrity manifest is not validated then the identity of the client application can not be verified. The integrity measurement module may take appropriate action including notifying the RSP. 
     If the signatures match  515  Yes, the identity of the client application is validated and the application code store is read from the host memory  520 . The inverse of the relocation fix-ups is applied to the code  525 . A signature is computed for the code  530 . The computed signature is compared to the expected signature  530 . If the signatures do not match  540  No, the client application is not valid as the code may have been modified  550 . The integrity measurement module may take appropriate action including notifying the RSP regarding the modification. The cheat policy module of the RSP determines the appropriate action to be taken with regard to game play at this computer based on the modification notification. If the signatures match  535  Yes, the client application is validated and game play can continue  545 . 
     If the client application included multiple segments defined in the integrity manifest a determination may be made as to whether additional segments remain to be verified and if additional segments remain the process may return to  520 . Once all the segments have been validated the client application is deemed to be valid. 
     After the initial verification of the client application, the integrity measurement module may compute the signature for the code segments based on the location of the code in memory (without backing out fix-ups) and these signatures may be stored in the processor for future comparisons. This enables the integrity measurement module to compute and compare signatures in the future without needing to back-out the fix-ups ( 525 ). It should be noted that since the signature generated by the processor is not based on the private key that it can only be used for comparisons within the processor and not as the signature for the client application that needs to be generated by the application developer using the private key. 
     After the initial verification the client application may be validated periodically (e.g., once a day/week, every four hours of use), and/or in an event-driven manner (e.g., transmission of certain data to the remote server). These verifications may be performed on the overall client application or may be performed on selected segments. For example, in event driven verification the verification may be limited to the segment of code for performing that function. 
     It should also be noted that the validity of the integrity manifest ( 500 - 515 ) need not be performed each time the client application or segments of code for the client application is validated. In fact, the validity of the manifest could be independent of the validation of the client application or segments thereof. The validity of the integrity manifest may be validated periodically (e.g., once a week, every 10 times the client application or portions thereof are validated). 
     When the client application is running it may reference other programs and/or libraries that are not part of the code for the client application (external code). The external code may be defined, for example, within the executable code in an import address table (IAT), or in an interrupt dispatch table (IDT) that points to the appropriate external code. In order to ensure that the pointers to the external code have not been not modified to point to cheating software or to skip certain code, the various program control flows defined in the code may be included in the integrity manifest. The program control flows may be defined in an integrity chain table (e.g.,  460  of  FIG. 4 ) within the integrity manifest. 
       FIG. 6  illustrates an example integrity chain table  600  for a client application. The integrity chain table  600  may include details for various process flows (integrity chains)  610 . The integrity chains  610  may include multiple linked elements  620 , where an element is a program referenced in the chain. For each element  620  within a chain  610 , the element  620  may define an element indirection level  630 , a reference location  640 , and an identifier  650 . The element indirection level  630  specifies the level of indirection (e.g., number of function pointers that must be traversed) needed to reach this element of the chain. For example, a value of 1 could represent a direct call into a function in a program&#39;s address space and a value of 2 could be used to traverse into an unrelated program. The reference location  640  specifies the location of the reference to this element (e.g., the location in memory where the pointer is located). The identifier  650  specifies the manifest corresponding to this element of the chain. The manifest for the element (external code) may include a cryptographic signature for the code and may include links to any external code utilized thereby, if any. The manifest and the links may be protected by cryptographic signatures. 
     The integrity measurement module may validate the process flow by computing a signature for the code referenced in the defined reference location  640  and comparing the calculated signature to the expected signature. If the pointer pointed to the defined code in the process flow and the code has not been modified then the signatures should be the same. If the pointer points to different code than expected (e.g., points to cheating code, skips anti-cheating code) or the code has been modified the signatures will not match. It should be noted that if the referenced code includes links to additional code that the additional code should be validated as well (signature generated and compared to expected signature in manifest). The manifest for the referenced code should identify the location of the additional code and identify the manifest for the additional code. 
       FIG. 7  illustrates an example process flow for the integrity measurement module validating the integrity of the client application process flow. Initially, the manifest for the client application will be verified  700 . The first element in an integrity chain will be read from the integrity chain table in the integrity manifest  705 . The first element will be verified to make sure it is correct  710 . For example, if the first element is an IDT register a determination will be made that the first element is indeed the IDT register. If the first element is not valid  715  No, then a determination may be made that the process flow has been modified in some fashion and the execution path (process flow) is invalid  720 . The integrity measurement module may take appropriate action including notifying the RSP regarding the modification. The cheat policy module of the RSP determines the appropriate action to be taken with regard to game play at this computer based on the modification notification. 
     If the first element is valid  715  Yes, the code called out in the reference location of the first element is read  725 . A signature for the reference code is calculated  730  and the calculated signature is compared to the expected signature defined in the integrity chain table in the integrity manifest  735 . If the signatures do not match  740  No, then a determination may be made that the process flow has been modified in some fashion and the execution path (process flow) is invalid  720 . If the signatures match  740  Yes, a determination is made as to whether the chain is complete  745 . If the chain is not complete (there are more elements in the chain)  745  No, then the process returns to  725 . If the chain is complete (no more elements in the chain)  745  Yes, then the execution path is valid. 
     If the client application included multiple integrity chains defined in the integrity chain table a determination may be made as to whether additional chains remain to be verified and if additional chains remain the process may return to  705 . Once all the chains have been validated the client application process flow is deemed to be valid. 
     After the initial verification the client application process flow may be validated periodically (e.g., once a day/week, every four hours of use), and/or in an event-driven manner (e.g., transmission of certain data to the remote server). These verifications may be performed on the overall client application process flow or may be performed on selected portions. For example, in an event driven verification the verification may be limited to the process flow (integrity chain) for performing that function. 
     It should also be noted that the validity of the integrity manifest ( 700 ) need not be performed each time the client application process flow or certain integrity chains are validated. In fact the validity of the manifest could be independent of the validation of the client application process flow. The validity of the process flow ( FIG. 7 ) is illustrated as being independent of the validity of the client application ( FIG. 5 ) but is not limited thereto. The processes may be performed at the same time or as part of one process. 
     The operation of the client application  120  may be modified by utilizing exception handlers of the CPU  130 . Exception handlers take control of the CPU  130  away from the currently executing application (e.g., client application  120 ) if certain events occur. For example, a debug handler may take control of the CPU  130  from the client application  120  if a certain area of memory is accessed. A hacker could enable the debug handler by modifying a certain debug register (e.g., to define break points). The hacker could then utilize the debug handler to analyze and hack the client application  120  without having to modify the client application code, registers, or process flow. 
     The processor  290  is unable to access the debug registers of the CPU  130 . However, the client application  120  generates system management reports including interrupt reports for the system manager of the CPU. The client application  120  can have the reports generated during the course of normal execution of the program, or it can be done at random intervals from a dedicated thread within the client application  120 . The system manager may decode the interrupt reports as a debug register verification requests and read the values of the debug registers. The system manager may provide the reports (e.g., debug register values) to the integrity measurement module  220 . The integrity measurement module  220  can analyze the report to determine if break points have been defined in the registers (a debugger has been activated). If a debugger has been activated the integrity measurement module  220  can determine if the client application  120  is being debugged (e.g., if the break points are in the linear address space of the client application  120 ). The integrity measurement module  220  may also determine what debugger has been activated (e.g., whether it is the standard OS debugger or some other debugger). 
     When activation of an exception handler is detected the integrity measurement module  220  may take the appropriate action including notifying the RSP  110 . The cheat policy module  115  of the RSP determines the appropriate action to be taken with regard to game play at this computer based on the notification. The cheat policy for the application may not allow the debugger to ever be active during game play, may only enable the OS debugger to be used, or may not allow the debugger to be active if it is analyzing the client application. 
     The system of  FIG. 2  utilized an add-in card having an embedded isolated execution environment processor to perform the various cheat detection and reporting methods. The various embodiments are not intended to be limited thereto. Rather, a graphics card having a graphics processing unit (GPU) could also be used if the GPU was an embedded isolated execution environment processor that could run the various cheat detection programs. The necessary inputs and filters would also need to be added to the graphics card. The input devices would need to be plugged into the graphics card in order for the user command verification to work. 
     Rather, than utilizing add-in cards or modifying the graphics card which require that the input devices be plugged in different slots, an ICH that included an embedded isolated execution environment processor could be utilized. For example, Intel® chipsets with Active Management Technology utilize a manageability engine (ME) processor. The ME could run the various cheat detection programs. The ICH would need to have the filters added. 
     The cheat platform could utilize some combination of a chipset having an isolated execution environment processor, additional cards having an isolated execution environment processor, or graphics card having an isolated execution environment processor, with the various isolated execution environment processors performing different functions. 
     It should be noted that the system of  FIG. 2  was discussed with respect to a computer  100  having a single processor (CPU)  120  but is not limited thereto. Rather, the computer  100  could include multiple CPUs or a single multi-core CPU. The client application  120  could be run on one or more of the CPUs. 
     The various cheat detection and reporting modules were discussed with respect to the cheating occurring at the computer. It is possible that the cheating actually occurs at the RSP  110 . That is, a hacker may modify the code or program flow of the software running on the RSP  110 . Accordingly, the RSP may also utilize an isolated execution environment processor to validate the software and program control flow of the application running thereon and to provide secure communications between an on-line application running on a users computer and the RSP. The isolated execution environment processor may be included in a chipset, an add-in card, or a modified graphics card. 
     It should be noted that the cheat detection and reporting platforms have been described with specific reference to on line games but is not limited thereto. Rather, the cheat detection and reporting platform could be utilized with any client application that communicates with a remote server. 
     Although the disclosure has been illustrated by reference to specific embodiments, it will be apparent that the disclosure is not limited thereto as various changes and modifications may be made thereto without departing from the scope. Reference to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure or characteristic described therein is included in at least one embodiment. Thus, the appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” appearing in various places throughout the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. 
     The various embodiments are intended to be protected broadly within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.