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

Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

gamingonlinux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 660 posts

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#131

Post by babypuncher »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #34
hypeatei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The current PC gaming model where things run on a machine controlled by the user is fundamentally against solving the issue of cheats. You can't prevent everything server-side.

Not our problem. The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property. No one has a right to a business model. They can do plenty enough server-side. It's not a blocking problem at all, it's just easier to take over all control of the users pc for your own convenience. Everything, including all valid goals, is easier if you could just have the p…

If a game is overrun with cheaters, people will not play it. You're basically arguing that whole genres of games should cease to exist.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#132

Post by lomase »

tapoxi wrote: post #48
RobotToaster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets call them what they really are, rootkits.

I mean, they're not rootkits. Rootkits are either to gain root access (thus the name) or to hide something from a user. Anticheats don't do either of these. They expose a kernel API to allow games to verify the state of the system, and they're knowingly installed by the user.

The thing is the Kernel does not have that API.

The real solution, and not the hack Riot uses, is for Kernel to provide an API for anticheats, like it does for everything useland.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#133

Post by babypuncher »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #125
hypeatei wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but in this context there is no difference. If you know someone is cheating, you prevent further cheating by banning them. Now I'll ask: how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? No human review and no false flags. Go!

> how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? You don't tell the client the location of anything they can't see.

This doesn't work well in real time games. The client needs to know another player is on the other side of that wall so it can

* Play sounds from their actions * Actually be able to render them when either player comes around the corner without them obviously materializing out of thin air.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#134

Post by bravetraveler »

phito wrote: post #54
bravetraveler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gamers are great targets. They'll disable security for higher polling rates. Not discerning, gladly walk to the slaughterhouse.

There's a ton of gamers that like to figure out how the game itself works. There's a ton of them trying to figure out how anti cheats work, sometimes to cheat, but more often because they're curious, resourceful teenagers taking it as a challenge.

Oh, I know. That's how my career was started. I made invitational in CS: Source (CAL) and then sold cheats to pay for college. My first Real Job was through a teammate.

Far more would have accepted a RAT and been deprived money than expressed genuine interest. Some did... not many. Most wanted the acclaim without the effort.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#135

Post by daedrdev »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #125
hypeatei wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but in this context there is no difference. If you know someone is cheating, you prevent further cheating by banning them. Now I'll ask: how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? No human review and no false flags. Go!

> how do you detect someone wall hacking automatically? You don't tell the client the location of anything they can't see.

Far easier said than done

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#136

Post by lomase »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #49
Nadya wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they worked to any acceptable level of efficacy then they could be tolerated. They're only tolerated by people who think they work as well as they claim to work (security theater) but anyone who knows about the performance impacts and/or are tech-savvy enough to understand it is a rootkit and potential exploit (that would fully pwn your device) hates them. Some cheats are getting rather sophisticated now. There's…

They're also chosen by users when the game is filled with cheater. Counterstrike 2 is an example of this with players moving to FaceIT and ESEA (with kernel anti cheat) as the higher ranks of official competitive matchmaking are filled with cheaters.

FaceIT works better than normal matchaking, but I am not sure is because is a Kernel level anticheat.

FaceIT only sells one thing, matchmaking, so they have people manually reviewing games. A thing that Valve will never do.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#137

Post by bastard_op »

The problem is since Valve and Proton made windows games viable for Linux and the Steam Deck, most of that anti-cheat vermin does NOT work under Linux. Even if it did, if you run Linux, you likely take some objection to someone wanting to add kernel modules of unknown and/or ill repute to your pretty open-source kernel.

Valve knows this, kernel-level anti-cheat is simply not practical for use with Linux as a consideration. Most game companies care zero for Linux in the first place, which means for us, we just end up inadvertently boycotting those games and bad-mouthing them regardless, but hey, it's only 1%.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#138

Post by lomase »

avery17 wrote: post #7
doublerabbit wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What decides critical or non-critical. One could argue that a game isn't critical but one could say it's critical to stop hackers. If you were to take the stance that gaming isn't critical than with that logic you're then claiming multiplayer hacking is a feature of the game. Doesn't do well for the community or the company. But nor do the rootkits do good for the consumer.

It hasn't stopped hackers though.

To be fair it stopped hackers for a while. Many people said Valorant did not have cheaters.

But nowdays the Valorant community complains about hackers almost as the CS community.

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#139

Post by grayhatter »

dmonitor wrote: post #77
Topfi wrote: post #72

Does anyone know whether disclosure of Denuvo and similarly controversial "add-ons" does negatively affect sales? Maybe I am cynical, but I have come to the conclusion that whether it is always online DRM, rootkit-level anti-cheat or the need to have an account for offline play, community anger is often only maintained when a game had other things going against it from the get-go. Not against disclosing this of cours…

The most recent study I saw showed that Denuvo significantly helps revenue capture within the first few months of a game's release https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18759...

I can't figure out what that article is trying to prove. "When DRM remains uncracked, we can't detect any losses due to piracy." well duh. Does it otherwise effect sales? Do any small games use it, or just large studios?

Re: Steam games will need to disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

#140

Post by arp242 »

darknavi wrote: post #53
arp242 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to prevent cheating from the server-side only. Something like an aimbot can operate purely on information you need to have as a client (to render the other players on the screen), and still be a huge advantage because it can respond faster than any human can.

Client Server architecture can still take you a long way. Culling what you send to the client and relying less on client-side "hiding" of state, server authoritative actions with client-side prediction, etc. At the end of the day someone could be using hardware "cheats" but you can get down to a pretty good spot to stop or disincentivize cheaters without running rootkits on their devices.

You don't need a "hardware cheat"; just a program that reads the memory representation of stuff. This is nothing new and already how many cheating tools work, and is exactly what all these anti-cheating things are designed to prevent.
Post reply on HN