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

Anti-cheat kernel driver

na.leagueoflegends.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#101

Post by zenexer »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #57
bob1029 wrote: post #42

Ah yes. A kernel-level security feature provided by a software company wholly-owned by a Chinese conglomerate. I do not think I will continue running their software on my machines. Also, many other posters here have commented that kernel-level mitigations are futile in the face of hypervisor or hardware attacks. What's to stop me from altering system memory arbitrarily using a PCIe device I control externally? How wo…

Problem with those systems are the forums full of completely innocent people being banned

Completely innocent people also get banned by clientside systems. Accidentally left some programming tools open from work, particularly for debugging or reverse engineering? Expect a ban. Tried to run the game on an unsupported platform, e.g. via WINE? Ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/9uk38b/was_ba...

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#102

Post by bob1029 »

zenexer wrote: post #101
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with those systems are the forums full of completely innocent people being banned

Completely innocent people also get banned by clientside systems. Accidentally left some programming tools open from work, particularly for debugging or reverse engineering? Expect a ban. Tried to run the game on an unsupported platform, e.g. via WINE? Ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/9uk38b/was_ba...

This is what happened to me on VAC. I was running some memory snooping tool for experimenting with an entirely unrelated process. It was simply minimized and I forgot it was running. At some point I then decided to play a game of TF2. A few days later the permaban hits with zero chance for recourse. I am far more open to a softer ban system where I can actually appeal a ban if something goes wrong.

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#103

Post by matheusmoreira »

kick wrote: post #92
matheusmoreira wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I don't see how that is relevant though. It doesn't matter how bad the cheating gets. Sacrificing our computing freedom and privacy is simply not okay. These principles are far more important than having an online gaming experience that's free of cheaters. It is better to crack and remove the game's invasive modules than to let it run freely on our machines. The truth is online multiplayer gaming is fundamentall…

Sacrificing our computing freedom and privacy is simply not okay. The anti-cheat kernel driver is already just going to be for Windows, so bringing this argument up probably holds less weight than you intended.

Yes, these drivers are likely to be Windows only. Linux users will probably be left unsupported. I've seen posts on reddit from players who say they have already been banned for tampering with the game. All they did was log into it from Linux without the third party anti-cheating software running.

Lack of Linux compatibility means people have to choose between playing the games they enjoy and running a free operating system. They will indirectly sacrifice their privacy and freedom in order to get access to the games.

There's also the fact that, just like the hardware manufacturers, the company will eventually stop supporting old version of its proprietary drivers. Eventually, they will no longer run even in newer versions of Windows. The games may be rendered unplayable due to lack of maintenance. Installing old versions of user space libraries like DirectX isn't going to help in this case.

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#104

Post by ta999999171 »

stavrus wrote: post #74
matheusmoreira wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just please don't force your principled stance on others. I'm not forcing it on anyone. Users are free to install and use the invasive software if they don't care about the implications. They're also free to circumvent the software and play the game without it. It's an individual decision. People shouldn't have to abstain from playing a game they bought because the game company doesn't have total access to their ma…

> They're also free to circumvent the software and play the game without it [...] People shouldn't have to abstain from playing a game they bought because the game company doesn't have total access to their machine. Imagine we're playing soccer. We both know the rules. However I don't really like how those rules restrict me from using my hands when I'm not a goalie. You could say that I feel like the rules shouldn't…

> If a player turns on a wallhack, what signal can the server use to figure out what's going on?

Don't take this the wrong way...but, is this serious?

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#105

Post by nebulous1 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #96
nebulous1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spoilers: the teenagers will always win; you can never trust a client no matter how many technical barriers you erect. I think if we accept sgx type technology onto our systems then they can at some stage win this battle, at least theoretically. This is assuming that the sgx-like tech cant be practicably attacked, which isnt currently a valid assumption but could, at least theoretically, be in the future. This diff…

Even SGX based methods could be bypassed. You could do DMA on the video-game memory, you could plug the monitor HDMI cable into a raspberry pi 5 or 6 camera input and do framebuffer based aimbot, you could stealthily modify the GPU drivers to give you data before some processing stages (you could probably do that without leaving anything in CPU RAM for too long), and so on.

> could do DMA on the video-game memory

The SGX won't allow you do this as the memory is encrypted

> plug the monitor HDMI cable into a raspberry pi 5 or 6

I don't know if the pi is powerful enough for that or not, and a HDCP type extension to what's coming out of the SGX could stop it, but ultimately yeah, you could have a robot play the game for you.

> stealthily modify the GPU drivers

Again, SGX type systems aren't going to allow that. This side of SGX type systems is all about trying to make your computer act how the developer wanted it to, regardless of your wishes or a malicious actor's wishes.

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#106

Post by himinlomax »

sudosysgen wrote: post #97
himinlomax wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty easy to detect an hypervisor. There was an article recently on using CPUID timing to that effect. It takes a few cycles on bare metal, but hundreds when virtualized. There are ways to defeat the time measurement, but it gets complicated fast, and the counter-measure itself is trivial to detect.

You can just edit that code out from outside the hypervisor and no one will be any wiser.

That applies to any anti-cheating or copy protection code anyway, so I'm assuming this will be handled similarly.

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#107

Post by fortran77 »

tomc1985 wrote: post #25

These horrible analogies make me want to stab the writer with a pen How about he just writes technically and lets reddit comments translate? I'm so sick of writers' concerns for illiterate proles (along with, in this case, a seeming need to maintain the energy and punch of a memetastic for-12-year-olds YouTuber) ruining perfectly good technical writing

> These horrible analogies make me want to stab the writer with a pen

Are physical threats what Hacker News is about now?

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#108

Post by blibble »

sudosysgen wrote: post #97
himinlomax wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty easy to detect an hypervisor. There was an article recently on using CPUID timing to that effect. It takes a few cycles on bare metal, but hundreds when virtualized. There are ways to defeat the time measurement, but it gets complicated fast, and the counter-measure itself is trivial to detect.

You can just edit that code out from outside the hypervisor and no one will be any wiser.

this would be the case if there wasn't an external entity with its own timesource (i.e. the game server) interrogating your machine while the game in underway

if there's a VMEXIT it will be measurable, and you have no ability to virtualise the server's clock

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#109

Post by aey »

wink wrote: post #87
aey wrote: post #38

Why not a trusted boot into a live CD that only runs the game?

Not sure how good the adoption would be. Laziness wins. It's the number one reason why my big machine is the only one I run Windows and not Linux on. Don't want to reboot all the time.

I think we are getting to an age where reboots could be near instant.

Re: Anti-cheat kernel driver

#110

Post by jsjohnst »

nitrogen wrote: post #59
matheusmoreira wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It betrays a fundamental lack of respect for the user of the computer. They don't think of themselves as guests who have the privilege of being installed on people's computers. They actually think they own our machines. In their opinion, the mere existence of cheats is an affront to their divine authority over our domains. To them, we are merely an adversary who must be attacked and defeated preemptively before…

Have you ever played a multiplayer game when someone else is cheating?

Say you’re at a board game night and the other party decides to openly cheat, do you pull out a gun and shoot them, or maybe instead simply play the game with different people next time?
Post reply on HN