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

191–200 of 660 posts

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

#191

Post by hypeatei »

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…

I'm not advocating for taking away users rights, just pointing out that the current model doesn't really jive with the desire to stop cheaters. This is going to be a never ending cat & mouse game.

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

#192

Post by ls612 »

bitwize wrote: post #144
dmonitor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[flagged]

I think a lot of the anti DRM crowd (who aren't just into it for piracy) believe;

1. DRM works (or more precisely, it has gotten somewhat better at working over time).

2. It will proliferate to everything that can possibly have electricity in it.

3. In the long run this will lead to an authoritarian dystopia which will make modern China look nice by comparison.

By 2124, you will own nothing and you will be happy, or the Neuralink Assistant chip you were given as a kid will restructure your brain to "correct" this deficiency of happiness with your situation.

This is only half satire, I do truly fear this is the direction that improved information technology will move the political economy equilibrium.

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

#193

Post by sadeshmukh »

kelnos wrote: post #182
Brian_K_White wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What a bizarre take. If people consent to installing these invasive anti-cheat systems, then it doesn't matter if anyone has a "right" to a business model or not; in that case their business model is working . > They can do plenty enough server-side. No, they can't. The amount of responses in these threads by people who have no idea what they're talking about is... well, probably not surprising, unfortunately. This i…

DRM is often removed after a little while since it is meant to delay the cracking at launch, where most people are going to buy. Anticheat is not.

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

#194

Post by 0x457 »

codebje wrote: post #62
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one could say it's critical to stop hackers. It's never critical to stop hackers in a videogame IMO. We need to stop being so damn serious about gaming .

Rampant cheating will wreck competitive multiplayer games fast, so there are perspectives from which this critical. (I’d still lean towards expecting game houses to find another way, kernel drivers are still client side trust mechanisms).

> (I’d still lean towards expecting game houses to find another way, kernel drivers are still client side trust mechanisms).

Well, this problem simply can't be solved server-side only. Client-side can't be validated without rootkit (and even then it's not enough, but enough to deter majority of cheaters).

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

#195

Post by yreg »

I've just reinstalled GTA V last week and I was very surprised to find out that I now have to install a rootkit to run it.

They had the balls to add a mandatory kernel extension into a game that I've bought 10 years ago and that I wish to play in single player only.

I find it utterly ridiculous. As usual, piracy would have been the superior experience.

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

#196

Post by screcth »

0x457 wrote: post #181
kelnos wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've already put a piece of hardware into your computer made by nvidia, installing a kernel driver also made by nvidia does not increase your risk at all. Installing some random anti-cheat kernel driver is not the same thing, at all.

But you are not installing a random anti-cheat kernel driver, you're installing anti-cheat kernel driver provided by a game you've already put on your computer. It's very much the same thing.

User space is not the same as kernel space.

User space applications can't access hardware or physical memory. They can't bypass permissions enforced by the OS. None of that applies to hardware or kernel drivers.

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

#197

Post by LinuxBender »

Are these anti-cheats kernel modules? Asking because I only play two games on Linux and they do not use rootkits. If so one could at least prevent the installation using a couple sysctl variables [1]. I do not recommend putting this in /etc/sysctl.conf or in the .d directory as it can break OS updates among other things... I would instead put it in a startup script so that it can easily be disabled and the node rebooted. This would be in the cases the game installer wants elevated privileges and silently tries to install the modules. Obviously it will break the game but maybe that will happen soon enough so that one can request a refund for the games that did not disclose the rootkit. Once these are set to 1 on a running system the only way to set back to 0 is to disable that startup script and reboot as it becomes immutable on a running system. Your OS update tools should also be wrapped to check if this is enabled, warn you and politely abort until it is unset. The failure conditions are not strictly binary and may work, or appear to work until the machine is bricked.

Related to this it may be worth installing something that does checksum snapshots of the filesystems to see if a game has tampered with system files. OSSEC, chkrootkit or even a cron job that just does this manually and runs diffs. While some package managers have this functionality they will usually ignore files outside of the package manifest that may get picked up by the system. Immutable off-system backups are of course good too.

    # do not put in /etc/sysctl.conf, instead use a startup script or a script that is run prior to starting Steam.
    sysctl -w "kernel.modules_disabled=1"
    sysctl -w "kernel.kexec_load_disabled=1"
[1] - https://linux-audit.com/increase-kernel-integrity-with-disab...

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

#198

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #185
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #171

I hate to say this but a large percentage (in fact, I believe a majority) of gamers simply do not care about invasive anti-cheats. Right now CounterStrike players are mostly begging Valve for kernel-level anti-cheat since their current solution isn't working at all. If anything, this warning will actually make many player's more impressed with the game. That said, more consumer information is almost always better in…

You don't need kernel-level cheats to bypass VAC, nor kernel level anti-cheats to catch cheaters.

>nor kernel level anti-cheats to catch cheaters.

Do you have some examples of good anti-cheats that are not kernel-level? Do you have any that are as good as Riot's Vanguard? I'd prefer examples of FPS games since these are the most mechanically skill based compared to other genres that have more strategy, but would like to hear any examples you are thinking of. Lastly, if you say server-side, that may work, but many companies don't seem interested in it due to the cost, at least IIUC.

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

#199

Post by hypeatei »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #122
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!

> If you know someone is cheating, you prevent further cheating by banning them. If you think it's statistically likely that someone might be cheating, but you're not sure, you can matchmake them with other people who might be cheating.

That seems flawed as you would punish people who are playing well. Statistics are great, but you'd inevitably match legitimate players with misfits, ruining their experience.

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

#200

Post by Brian_K_White »

kelnos wrote: post #182
Brian_K_White wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What a bizarre take. If people consent to installing these invasive anti-cheat systems, then it doesn't matter if anyone has a "right" to a business model or not; in that case their business model is working . > They can do plenty enough server-side. No, they can't. The amount of responses in these threads by people who have no idea what they're talking about is... well, probably not surprising, unfortunately. This i…

I think you merely lack imagination and are simply not the one to ask to work on the problem. I don't speak from ignorance.
Post reply on HN