Cyber Mounties Academy's New 2026 Course

Hello everyone,

As you know, when I first created Cyber Mounties and its academy, I had plans to release one free course every year. The first course was on Cyber Threat Intelligence, but the second course gets interesting, it's about: Game Hacking. 

The course will be available in the following languages:

1. English
2. Spanish
3. Chinese
4. Russian
5. Arabic 

I have seen countless tutorials and courses on Game Hacking, but they're usually unnecessarily complicated, buried in jargon without proper explanation for how things actually work. The game hacking industry, aside from established sites like Engine Owning, is mostly made up of teenagers who don't exactly know what they are doing and are simply copying cheats from sites like Unknown Cheats, then passing them off as their own work like they just invented the wheel.

I haven't found a single tutorial out there that's truly comprehensive and covers everything there is to game hacking. There is of course a lot to cover, but I think the majority of people are just copy-pasting guides and regurgitating the same information without understanding the fundamentals themselves. 

For example, I had signed up on GuidedHacking to learn game hacking, it's a very well-known resource for this sort of stuff but they only focus on the most basic games, and everyone else who learned from them teaches others just by showing them how to hack the exact same game. It's the blind leading the blind, recycling the same tired examples ad nauseam. 

I've seen the same damn Assault Cube tutorial seventeen times from seventeen different "instructors" who all act like they're breaking new ground. Congratulations, you can hack a game from 2006 that has the security of a screen door on a submarine.

Another problem is that most guides are videos, and it's extremely difficult for me to understand or read code from a video format. I'd rather have the code written down so I can study it properly and understand it better, because most of these code files shown in video tutorials are 200-300 lines long, and when they scroll up and down at breakneck speed, I lose track of how everything comes together. 

It's as if they're intentionally trying to make it harder to follow or more likely, they're just showing off their terrible coding practices while their webcam captures them in their dimly lit basement, complete with energy drink cans stacked like a monument to poor life choices.

What makes these resources even more frustrating is that they dive straight into C++ or assembly without any consideration for beginners. They throw around terms like "pointer chains," "offsets," and "memory addresses" as if everyone should already know what these mean, and then they act surprised when students get lost. 

The reality is that most of these so-called instructors don't actually understand the underlying concepts well enough to explain them in simpler terms. If they did, they'd be able to teach the fundamentals using something accessible like Python first, allowing students to grasp the core logic before diving into the deep end with lower-level languages. But no, instead, they'd rather gatekeep knowledge behind unnecessary complexity, making themselves feel superior while their students struggle to keep up. It's like watching someone try to teach swimming by throwing you into the ocean during a hurricane and then calling you an idiot for drowning.

The problem extends beyond just the choice of programming language. These resources are fundamentally broken in their approach to pedagogy, assuming they even know what pedagogy means, which I seriously doubt. They jump from topic to topic with no logical progression, assuming you already have context that was never provided. 

One moment they're talking about finding base addresses, the next they're injecting DLLs, and then suddenly they're debugging with Cheat Engine, all without explaining why any of this matters or how these pieces fit together. It's like trying to learn carpentry from someone who shows you how to use a nail gun without ever explaining what wood is or why you're building anything in the first place. "Just memorize these steps, bro"; yeah, brilliant teaching strategy there, Einstein.

And let's talk about the documentation or rather, the complete lack thereof. Most tutorials consist of some guy mumbling into a low-quality microphone while clicking through menus faster than you can process what's happening. Half the time you can't even understand what they're saying because they're either eating chips, their little brother is screaming in the background, or they decided that recording audio through their 2005 laptop microphone was totally acceptable. 

There's no written guide to reference later, no commented code to study, no structured curriculum to follow. You're expected to pause the video every three seconds, rewind constantly, and somehow piece together a coherent understanding from fragmented information. When you do find written tutorials, they're often outdated, riddled with errors, or written by people whose grasp of English is about as solid as their grasp of teaching methodology. I've seen more coherent instructions on furniture from IKEA, and that's saying something.

Like every other industry, there are countless people who claim to be subject matter experts but can't actually explain what they do. They might be skilled at what they do (and sometimes they are), but they lack the ability to teach it effectively, even when you pay them, which gets incredibly frustrating. 

GuidedHacking charges money and brings nothing of substantial value because everything they teach already exists out there for free. It's almost impressive how some of these so-called experts can make simple concepts sound like rocket science while providing zero additional insight. Saying something dismissive like "You don't need to know how this works for now" is lazy, condescending, and very misleading, it's the hallmark of someone who either doesn't understand the material deeply enough themselves or simply can't be bothered to teach properly. It's the educational equivalent of "trust me, bro".

The worst offenders are those who seem to actively enjoy confusing their audience. They'll use obscure tools without explaining why those tools are necessary, reference documentation that doesn't exist or is impossible to find, and casually mention "dependencies" or "prerequisites" without listing what they are. When students inevitably get stuck, the response from these "experts" is usually some variation of "just Google it" or "read the docs", as if that's helpful when the docs are either non-existent, written for people who already know everything, or scattered across fifteen different forum posts from 2009. Oh, you need help? Well, here's a link to a dead thread from a forum that got shut down in 2012. You're welcome, peasant.

Then there's the community aspect, which is somehow even worse. Forums dedicated to game hacking are toxic wastelands where asking a genuine question gets you ridiculed for "not doing your research," even though the research materials are intentionally obscure or purposely incomplete. 

It's a community that simultaneously complains about the lack of new talent while doing everything possible to prevent anyone new from actually learning. "Why doesn't anyone want to learn anymore?" they cry, while treating every beginner question like it's a personal insult to their intelligence. Maybe, just maybe, it's because you're all insufferable and your idea of "helping" is posting a condescending "use the search function" for the thousandth time.

What's particularly infuriating is that game hacking, at its core, isn't that complicated. Memory manipulation, pattern scanning, function hooking, these are all concepts that can be taught clearly and systematically if the instructor actually understands them and cares about teaching. You start teaching with Cheat Engine because it's fun, and then create CT tables and go from there; you don't jump straight into C++ out of all languages.

But instead, we get resources created by people who stumbled into one successful hack, never bothered to understand why it worked, and then decided they were qualified to teach others. The result is an endless cycle of mediocrity where each generation of learners is slightly worse than the last because they're learning from people who barely understood the material themselves. It's like a game of telephone, except everyone's deaf and also kind of stupid.

And don't even get me started on the YouTube "tutorials" where some kid with 47 subscribers promises to teach you "INSANE HACKS" and then proceeds to show you how to download someone else's cheat table while dubstep blares in the background at ear-splitting volume. Bonus points if the description is just "LINK IN DESCRIPTION" repeated fifteen times, and the link goes to a sketchy website that probably installs more malware than cheats. These are the people claiming to be educators, folks. This is the bar we're working with.

I intend to teach game hacking on a game that's considered modern by my standards (released after 2013+). It will be focused on a single-player game because I don't want to give unfair advantages to multiplayer gamers, so we won't be hacking Warzone or any competitive titles anytime soon. We won't be covering kernel-level anti-cheat bypass either, because the game I want to teach with doesn't have anti-cheat at all, this allows us to focus purely on the fundamentals and techniques without getting bogged down in cat-and-mouse evasion tactics right from the start.

More importantly, I'll be starting with Python to teach the fundamental concepts in a language that's actually readable and beginner-friendly. Once students understand what they're doing and why, we can transition to more performance-oriented languages like C++ where appropriate. 

This is how teaching should work, building a solid foundation before adding complexity, not throwing people into the deep end and watching them drown while pretending it's somehow character-building. Revolutionary concept, I know, actually explaining things in a way that makes sense. Someone should patent it.