top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 92 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Kernel anticheat is a virus. There are zero reasons a video fame should have full access of your system.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • load more comments (19 replies)
    [–] 63 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    Anti-cheat should be server side. Cheats are done on external hardware now as kernel AC chased them into the undetectable zone, well played.

    No game is worth sacrificing your entire PC to play.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    There's so many cheats that are only possible because the game's net code is just weirdly implemented.

    Like wall hacks, why can I see this other player on the other side of the map, why you sending me their position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    it's for speed. if I tell you they're out of sight now, but will be visible in 50ms, it'll be faster than waiting 50ms to recv their new position that's visible and waiting on network latency which could be another 50ms in addition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Right but we're talking about 100s of ms of human reaction time (faster reaction time is around 200ms for ultra pros). Wall hacks where you only get 100ms of warning aren't much good. So they absolutely could do something with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    100ms more is absolutely enough to be massive because it just subtracts from however long you need to recognize the other player after they become visible. Not to mention that in slower paced shooters, people might just remain stationary near a corner for very long, and you can't magically know when they start to move. Also in games where you can die with one well placed shot it could be 10ms and still be a significant advantage because you just need to be faster than your opponent.

    Afaik valorant does try to not send any info that won't be needed, that doesn't mean it's immune to wallhacks, it just limits their effectiveness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    They can see each other though, which means one player may get information about the enemy 100ms ahead of another. That would be quite an advantage in a lot of games, especially in Rainbow 6 Siege where TTK is super short.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    I've been working on a PvP game for the last few months.

    Visibility checks aren't needed in all cases. Most RTS/2D/2.5D games don't have this problem, or it is minimal.

    For games that do need them, they tend to be AAA FPS, which have the budget to make simple changes like lag compensation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    We're really going to kill this planet running algorithms against algorithms and it's the stupidest way to go.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you for the list of games to avoid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    To understand why the requirements keep escalating, follow the arms race. Cheats started in user space, so anti-cheat moved into the kernel to see them. Cheats followed into the kernel, and then below it into hypervisors - so anti-cheat added hypervisor detection and began demanding a verified boot chain. Every time the cheat drops a layer deeper, the anti-cheat has to demand more privilege and more hardware trust to keep watching. That is what TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, remote attestation, IOMMU enforcement, and now forced firmware updates actually are: anti-cheat chasing cheats further down the stack.

    Source

    ---

    Wonderful day!

    I've been into the subject a few times already, and just in case, if interested, in short, the TPM is a specific module with its own API in modern motherboards that has inside a key pair known as Endorsement Key (EK) which is a permanent unique identifier burned into the hardware. It's used to create signed EK certificates.

    To clarify, similar to the asynchronous cryptographic we may see in the general TLS certificates in HTTP traffic ( "green" lock), the TPM , as mentioned, has API to create public keys from its private key inside.

    The private key is burned-in by the manufacturer inside the module, which is also normally protected from physical damage to be self-destruct, by its standard requirements.

    Systems like Denuvo may create and encrypt their own data using the public key, and send it to the TPM to decrypt, verify, and therefore identify the hardware on their servers as an identity.

    The Endorsement Key (EK) is an asymmetric key pair consisting of a public and private key stored in a Shielded Location on the TPM.
    The public part of the EK can be read from the TPM while the private part MUST never be exposed.
    The public key of the EK is included in the EK certificate...
    However, the EK provided by the manufacturer MUST be defined as a non-duplicable key.

    Source: Credential_Profile_EK_V2.0_R14_published.pdf

    Though, I believe, the TPM specifications were actually designed by Trusted Computing Group with privacy in mind to prevent the EK from being used as a "global tracking ID", some vendors or organizations may use it for undefined reason, and hence please do consider the opportunities your operating system and motherboard provide.

    Also, if interested in experimenting, and haven't yet, in Linux, TPM is accessed via character devices (created by the Kernel module), and normally support different operations to read/write to, and located at /dev/tpm*, though these devices' permissions are set to root only in all the Kernels I've seen yet. There are CLI software packages as tpm2-tools for the protocol.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    So I actually disabled TPM the other week because as it turns out it was preventing my pc from entering sleep a significant portion of the time, I think the GPU wasn't being allowed to save the framebuffer anywhere because the drivers weren't proprietary Nvidia ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    I don’t understand why games don’t just boot off an image if they need kernel access. Just provide and boot up their own kernel and isolate their spyware.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Allow private servers so you can control who plays.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I have a good middle ground: no monetary gain = no kernel level anticheat. Tournaments with monetary gain = kernel level anticheat. Pretty neat right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Lemmy community loves to suggest server side anti-cheat as the solution but I have yet to hear 1 pvp game that has it implemented properly. What's more insane is someone unironically suggested Cs 2 as an example. Absurdly disconnected from reality.

    Edit: I'm not supporting kernel lvl anti cheats. I'm merely pointing out how this community has somehow "solved" the problem and the developers are just too dumb to figure it out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    This but also they love to act like having no anti-cheat is fun.

    I've played pvp games without it. Dealing with someone blatantly cheating isn't fun. It's wasting your time.

    I've also played other games without it and things got really out of hand. The one social game I play just had a 3rd party stalking tool released.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    More enshittification, pvp gaming is going in a direction I won't go. Maybe if I had a dedicated computer for it, but there are no games that are worth it to me right now.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Absolutely! It‘s completely insane already but apparently you can still get around it sometimes by starting the game offline, then going online once you‘re inside and play online matches like normal without anti-cheat. Like, all these risks they burden their customers with just to be sloppy with the execution and rendering it useless. That‘s not malpractice anymore that‘s malicious.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›