Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thank You, Valve

kinduff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 458 posts

Re: Thank You, Valve

#71

Post by capableweb »

corpdronejuly wrote: post #42
1_player wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm neutral about kernel level anticheat. I won't play any of those games, but this doesn't mean we should make porting games that make use of these technologies any harder.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

I think it's a choice with lots of positives and negatives tradeoffs on both sides (in-kernel anti-cheat vs userland anti-cheat), where any choice is not gonna make everyone happy.

How much data a in-kernel or user-land anti-cheat can easily be detected by observing the traffic that flows out from your network, so it really doesn't matter if it's open source or not.

The biggest roadblock to a open source in-kernel anti-cheat is not "exposing the amount of data they extract from you", but rather it exposes how the anti-cheat is working, which is working against the efficiency of the anti-cheat. If you know how they detect you're cheating, it's much easier to overcome that hurdle.

In most cases, security-by-obscurity is obviously flawed, but when it comes to cheat/fraud detection, exposing how it happens makes it's core value less efficient.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#73

Post by Bancakes »

Thiez wrote: post #54
corpdronejuly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

How exactly would an open source anti-cheat do its job effectively?

The same way open source crypto libraries do.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#74

Post by sbarre »

dagw wrote: post #56
Rooster61 wrote: post #28

I dig most of this article, and I do applaud the work Valve is doing for the Linux gaming ecosystem, but I draw a line at supporting kernel level anti-cheat drivers. That trend in gaming bothers me to no end, and I refuse to knowingly install a game that features one. The presence of 15 year old script kiddies using aimbots does NOT IN ANY WAY justify having kernel level control over my machine, Linux or otherwise. V…

If I played competitive video games seriously I would absolutely want them to take cheating seriously and take any necessary measure to stop it. At the same time I think they should also make the most serious kernel/driver level anti-cheat software optional. If you don't to want to install it you can still play the game, just not on any of the 'pro' servers. Think of it a bit like doping tests in sports. As long as y…

The problem with this logic is that most multiplayer games have post-sale economies with cosmetics and other add-ons, and I would guess that most of those sales comes from casual players.

So while anti-cheat helps protect the pro/serious players (who in some ways are community/marketing leaders in this world of Twitch and YouTube), it also creates a fair environment for all the casual and aspiring players who keep spending money on the game in droves.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#75

Post by realusername »

dagw wrote: post #56
Rooster61 wrote: post #28

I dig most of this article, and I do applaud the work Valve is doing for the Linux gaming ecosystem, but I draw a line at supporting kernel level anti-cheat drivers. That trend in gaming bothers me to no end, and I refuse to knowingly install a game that features one. The presence of 15 year old script kiddies using aimbots does NOT IN ANY WAY justify having kernel level control over my machine, Linux or otherwise. V…

If I played competitive video games seriously I would absolutely want them to take cheating seriously and take any necessary measure to stop it. At the same time I think they should also make the most serious kernel/driver level anti-cheat software optional. If you don't to want to install it you can still play the game, just not on any of the 'pro' servers. Think of it a bit like doping tests in sports. As long as y…

I agree but it should only be present for pro competitions (and by pro I really mean playing is their job).

Re: Thank You, Valve

#76

Post by ruune »

tapoxi wrote: post #30

Is it too little, too late? Microsoft now owns a lot of the biggest game franchises through the Activision and Bethesda acquisitions, and I wouldn't be surprised if they actively block Proton support by using UWP or Windows-specific anticheat.

Didn't even think about that. A part of me wants to think of Xbox as this cool company that wont prevent Linux support. But Microsoft isn't necessarily know for being overly friendly towards Linux huh

Re: Thank You, Valve

#77

Post by toomanydoubts »

Thiez wrote: post #54
corpdronejuly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

How exactly would an open source anti-cheat do its job effectively?

Being opensource doesn't imply the game server will allow modified builds to work. Being able to see the code doesn't mean you will find a suitable way to circumvent the anticheat.

That being said, I agree it would be harder to maintain an open source anticheat effectively.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#78

Post by ineedasername »

Thiez wrote: post #54
corpdronejuly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

How exactly would an open source anti-cheat do its job effectively?

The same way that other open source security-critical software does it.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#79

Post by FredFS456 »

Thiez wrote: post #54
corpdronejuly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

How exactly would an open source anti-cheat do its job effectively?

By using hardware attestation? Same mechanism used by secure boot and DRM could be used for anticheat.

Re: Thank You, Valve

#80

Post by bruce343434 »

Thiez wrote: post #54
corpdronejuly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would love to see is open source kernel level anti-cheat. The issue of course is that would reveal just how much of our data those things Hoover up.

How exactly would an open source anti-cheat do its job effectively?

It will always be a game of cat and mouse anyway
Post reply on HN