From both a technical perspective and if the maintainers of these anti-cheat will consider porting or re-writing kernel level anti-cheat to work on linux, is it possible? Do you think that the maintainers of kernel level anti-cheat will be adamant in not doing it, or that the kernel even supports it or will support it. I think that if it ever happens, there will be a influx of people moving to linux, or abandoning their duelboots, and that alot of people will hate that such a thing is available on linux.
I sure hope not. Play on someone else’s pc if you want them to have control.
I feel like bpf would be a decent solution for anticheat. I believe you can limit what an ebpf program can look at quite effectively.
Meanwhile in indie land, I just tried to cheat my way through a Chapter 3 minigame in Deltarune, and Toby Fox himself showed up in his dogsona to blow up the game and make me start the minigame over.
This is the extent to which anti-cheat measures should go.
What does it even mean? People can recompile the kernel to turn the crap off.
You don’t even need to do that. You could just blacklist or delete the module.
The game wouldnt work, but you could do it.
And then the game wouldn’t work.
Sure hope not. If I wanted to run rookits I’d just use Windows. Why bother with Linux?
This is why I don’t want more Linux adoption and don’t understand people cheering every new user. We’re in a sweet spot where a lot of games enable userland anticheat while we don’t get kernel level ports (however they may be shipped doesn’t matter). The only thing that’ll come out of more adoption is kernel level anticheat ports that’ll probably work with a few corporate backed distros only and we’ll actually lose the games we have today. Because those will switch over the kernel level alternatives too.
The only way I’d like Linux to be a generic multiplayer platform is server side anticheats. It is very obviously the way to go and we are seeing extremely slow adoption (e.g. Marvel Rivals).
On one side, I’m one of those glad for people coming to Linux because Linux is truly fantastic and it can make your life easier on many things, I’m happy for them.
On the other side, I share your concerns, because everything that gets adopted by the masses is inevitably subject to enshittification, I would never want that to happen to Linux.
We should find a sweet middle-point tho I have no idea what that would be.
TBH I’m not sure wider adoption would worsen things ? Gaming distros would probably ship bullshit anticheat modules by default while the others would not, or at most provide some documentation on how to opt in.
I think it’s quite similar to the situation with NVIDIA proprietary drivers? (I don’t own a graphics card so I’m not super aware on this topic)
My point is you would either have to run those modules on Linux or not play the games. Which is the same as running them on Windows or not play the games with the exception that you’d lose the games that run on Linux with userland anticheat now.
I think the more people who aren’t using corporate operating systems, the better.
I’m firmly against Microsoft, Red Hat, and Ubuntu.
@SpiderUnderUrBed The true cheating is what is doing microsoft and closed source companies
Short answer: no
Long answer: only the most important things should even have such low-level access to the system. A fucking game is not in that category. Nooooooo
Obligatory Fuck Denuvo. If I had virtually infinite money, I’d do a hostile takeover of Denuvo and burn it to the ground.
I think its less a question of the technical feasibility, and more of an issue that we, as users, don’t want more closed-source blobs in our kernels. Meanwhile, the publishers insist that they can’t open-source their anti-cheat code; Their idea being that if we know what’s in it, it will be easier to bypass.
Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.
They could go the rought of kernel modules, I would think, but for whatever reason, we’re still having this conversation.
@MachineFab812 @SpiderUnderUrBed even if you have steamOS, what keeps you from downloading kernels from kernel.org and building?
If you want it to still be steam OS and compatible with games then you couldn’t use kernel.org kernels that’s the point.
Fundamentally it becomes a console not a PC. That’s WHAT steamOS would be in this hypothetical.
Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.
Valve also has server side anticheat in his games (Counter Strike or Deadlock). They are also against it.
Kernel-level anticheats can be bypassed anyways, but they are the easy solution for the corps that want to sell their multiplayer game.
Shite is still shite, even if it’s open source shite.
The game developers could if they wanted to, but I hope they won’t. I will not willingly install a rootkit on any of my computers. I wouldn’t buy or pirate a game that requires one even if it could run on Linux. I don’t even like running user level anti cheat, but at least that can be run in a sandbox.
Every IT-literate person fights kernel-lvl malware disguising as games with everything they got.
Since Linux has a high percentage of those, I hope those “solutions” will never spread
Absolutely nothing prevents somebody from writing a kernel level anticheat on Linux.
Users would throw a fit, and it would be way easier to bypass, but it certainly could be made.
It would need to be open source, distributing proprietary kernel modules is a nightmare that can cause the OS to fail to boot after every kernel update. An open source anticheat kernel module would probably be useless and easy to bypass.
It doesn’t “need” to be anything. It could be a DKMS module that is mandatory for playing a game.
Whether people would like it and use it is a completely different story.
I’m not a programmer or cheater or anything, but I think the answer is yes and no. Yes it could technically be done and even work as intended as long as the device is locked down to prevent the user from replacing the shipped kernel (which would be a bad thing for users). However, savvy people could (in theory) make custom kernels that lie to the kernel module, causing the module to report there is no cheating when there is. It’s my understanding that it’s close to the current situation with Windows and virtual machines and anticheat: you can cheat by running your game in a VM and then have that virtual hardware extract secret information or flip bits in the right spots. Most competitive games will refuse to run in a VM for this reason.
This is where TPMs, measured boot, and remote attestation come in.
You can run whatever kernel you want, but if it is not an approved kernel, you wouldn’t be able to attest to running an approved kernel; allowing whatever DRM scheme the developer put in to active.
I believe this is how the higher levels of Android’s Play Integrity system work.
When Microsoft first proposed something like that a couple decades ago, it was widely seen as the nightmarish corporate power grab it was. Even mainstream, non-techy publications were critical.
I believe this is how the higher levels of Android’s Play Integrity system work.
It is.
How the fuck did this become acceptable?
Kernel level anti cheats require secure boot. You can’t just “lie” and load an unsigned kernel.
Linux secure boot was a little weird last I checked. The kernel and modules don’t need to be secure boot signed. Most distros can use shim to pass secure boot and then take over the secure boot process.
There are dkms kernel modules that are user compiled. These are signed using a machine owner key. So the machine owner could for sure compile their own malicious version and still be in a secure boot context.
You can add your own signing keys to the UEFI and boot an modified bootloader and Kernel that you have signed yourself. So yes, it is possible to “lie”
And then your keys will be rejected by the anticheat. Just because you can sign your kernel and load it does not mean a kernel module can’t verify who signed it.
Yes, but with a modified Kernel you can fake what the anticheat reads when it checks the key, so you just feed it the key it wants to see instead of your own. The anticheat module would need run on a higher level then the Kernel itself to prevent that, for example alongside the CPU (like the Intel Management Engine).
I am not an expert on secure boot so I can’t tell whether that’s possible or not. But if it is, what stops people from doing that with Windows now?
You can’t really change the code of the windows Kernel and boot your own, that’s one of the things stopping people now
Another technique that helps is to limit the amount of information shared with clients to need to know info. This can be computationally intensive server-side and hard to get right … but it can help in many cases. There are evolving techniques to do this.
In FPS games, there can also be streaming input validation. eg. Accurate fire requires the right sequence of events and/or is used for cheat detection. At the point where cheats have to emulate human behaviour, with human-like reaction times, the value of cheating drops.
That’s the advanced stuff. Many games don’t even check whether people are running around out of bounds, flying through the air etc. Known bugs and map exploits don’t get fixed for years.
I hope to fuck not.
It’s relatively trivial, you just need to write a kernel module. You’d just need/want to make it gpl so everything it does is fully audited and transparent. That’s not a problem, is it? Right?
From a technical standpoint, you could argue that someone could create a fork of the kernel that spoofs the interface that the anticheat uses to make it ignore things. You can, of course, also do something similar in Windows, but security theatre never let practicality get in the way.
It is probably actually easier to create on linux as it is foss and there are also good projects like eBPF which can maybe even simplify and make it more secure.
