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

351–360 of 660 posts

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

#351

Post by jeff_carr »

sunshowers wrote: post #217
dbrueck wrote: post #176

The anti-cheat problem is long-running and complicated. If you choose not to run anti-cheat because you understand that these are opaque rootkits, good for you! That's a totally, 100% valid choice. But please keep in mind: - you are a tiny minority and not the target customer - online multiplayer games are an absurdly big business (i.e. there are huge incentives here) - no, you can't completely solve this server side…

While all of what you're saying is true, I think it is worth noting that historically a large chunk of this problem was solved by communities hosting servers. I agree that in the matchmaking era, remote attestation via kernel-level anticheat is the inevitable solution that you converge to after a few iterations. And yes, servers would often kick out people who were too outside of the general skill level, even if they…

Not at all correct! Nothing of what was said is true. The actual reality is:

* Microsoft makes piles of money from Gaming * Microsoft got involved with Gaming to damage Linux adoption and corporate support (Sony/Linux/Playstation) * Microsoft spends massive amounts of attention on gaming to lock in the general public to Windows * Microsoft continues to lose to Linux * Microsoft uses cheating to lie about open source being 'something something' cheaters

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has absolutely no interest in an open source solution to these problems and are using these issues to lie, mislead and spread FUD in some absurd fantasy world where only some superior microsoft driven closed source solution is the only possible way this can be solved. All of that is a complete lie. Nothing more.

A smart linux and free software lawyer would be wise to file a class action lawsuit for discovery documents inside Microsoft where one would undoubtedly find piles of emails between the executives hell bent on doing everything to damage Linux adoption have stupidly wielded this unidentified axe which is actually a -4 cursed boat anchor.

Anyone that tells you that computer security or trust can only be done with proprietary software is lying to you for their own benefit.

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

#352

Post by Sceptre6 »

nathants wrote: post #236

kernel level anticheat is not enough. client inputs have to be trusted, and there is no provenance. the kernel has no visibility of inputs. i’m shipping a 100 player matchmaking game now. clients tick at 360hz, server ticks at 120hz. fair up to 60 ping, which covers entire continents. servers are metal, not vms. epyc 4244p with 2Gbps egress, 1 server per 15 minute game. mitigations=off and nosmt on all clients and th…

What an incredible testament to the lengths men can be driven by spite.

I would like to try your game, sir. But my problem is the people trying to take over my computer. I am not going to solve that by letting you take over my computer.

Let's talk system requirements- could I get away with running it on an old junker laptop?

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

#353

Post by jeff_carr »

imchillyb wrote: post #342

Locks & picks. This is the war. It's always been the war. It will always be the war. Digital changed the medium but war, war never changes. The war in unwinnable in any real sense of the word win. However, security does not need to be impenetrable security only needs to dissuade the attacker. Kernel level, blah-blah-blah, doesn't dissuade cheaters. Those things dissuade legitimate users. It's never the ideology that…

> This is bad for the entire industry.

This is Microsoft continuing to demonize free software and Linux. If they actually cared, they would support an open source solution to the problem. SOMETHING THEY ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE. That is the core issue. Say it over and over, Microsoft _DOES NOT WANT A SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS_.

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

#354

Post by rkharsan64 »

akira2501 wrote: post #258
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

My question would be can't the netcode be improved to prevent this in the first place? The fact that all players receive full game state enables this. In the early 2000s this made sense. Does it still today?

That will only protect you against wall hacks. This is a strategy known as fog of war. The server will not send the positions of players far from you. However, you still need to send the positions of players near you, but still behind walls, otherwise lag compensation won't work properly.

This doesn't protect you against trigger bots (shoot automatically when you put your mouse on a target), aim bots (snap to targets, ranging from obvious hacks to very minute adjustments), and others.

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

#355

Post by a2128 »

jolmg wrote: post #39

I've never seen a game request root privileges, and I would think installation of anything kernel-level would need that. None of the steam binaries have setuid nor capabilities set. Have anyone seen games that request root privileges? EDIT: I'm gathering from this[1] and the fact that no wine-related package have kernel modules included and no executable from any of those packages have setuid nor capabilities set, th…

From my understanding, if you play an EAC game on Linux with Proton, you're not really running the same EAC as Windows players. You're running a lite version that runs as a regular user and it tries to provide at least some level of protection like verifying game files or detecting anything clearly out of place that it can detect, but obviously it doesn't have the permissions to see everything running on your system or install a kernel module. This does mean cheaters could probably just cheat on Linux to bypass it more easily, so anticheats like EAC will put Linux support as an opt-in toggle which some developers choose not to enable.

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

#356

Post by nathants »

Sceptre6 wrote: post #352
nathants wrote: post #236

kernel level anticheat is not enough. client inputs have to be trusted, and there is no provenance. the kernel has no visibility of inputs. i’m shipping a 100 player matchmaking game now. clients tick at 360hz, server ticks at 120hz. fair up to 60 ping, which covers entire continents. servers are metal, not vms. epyc 4244p with 2Gbps egress, 1 server per 15 minute game. mitigations=off and nosmt on all clients and th…

What an incredible testament to the lengths men can be driven by spite. I would like to try your game, sir. But my problem is the people trying to take over my computer. I am not going to solve that by letting you take over my computer. Let's talk system requirements- could I get away with running it on an old junker laptop?

possibly, depending on the gpu. wickedengine requires modernish gpu.

spite was definitely a part of it. at a certain point while playing and watching fortnite solo build, i wondered why there are so many bugs and if i could fix them. i wanted to understand why ping advantage and storm surge have to exist. this game was my journey to find out. it has been a privilege and a joy every single day.

as far as security, you’re asking the right questions. the typical gamer showing up in my discord doesn’t, so i guide them to them.

if you boot my game, you’ve booted an archlinux iso. what could i do? i could read/wipe your disks, so you should make sure they are encrypted/backedup. i could probe your network. i could maybe even install bios level persistent malware. i could do anything a userspace app with admin can do.

none of this is different from a windows app as soon as you click yes on the admin popup thingy which every multiplayer game needs.

reboot-to-play is better, because assuming you use bitlocker, i can't read every file on you c drive, unlike every game you've installed from steam. i also can't mess up your windows registry, or any other os config.

the reboot-to-play build process is not yet open, but soon will be. even then, the game binary it will download and run is not open.

this and more is explored in the faq on the games site, let me know if you want more answers up there!

the purpose of reboot-to-play is not to corrupt your disks. its purpose is to get all players into an identical state, for fairness, and to avoid finicky windows tweaking for performance. everyone’s pc is a special snowflake. what we want for multiplayer is identical arcade machines. every time you boot, you're in the correct state.

running software is ultimately about trust. you can trust epic, or riot. you can trust steam or apple to vet user provide apps. you can trust me.

do you want to trust me? that's up to you. i would say, wait for launch, watch some streams and videos, and see if it looks fun!

launching soon. working through final matchmaking issues now.

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

#357

Post by nathants »

rxyz wrote: post #327
nathants wrote: post #236

kernel level anticheat is not enough. client inputs have to be trusted, and there is no provenance. the kernel has no visibility of inputs. i’m shipping a 100 player matchmaking game now. clients tick at 360hz, server ticks at 120hz. fair up to 60 ping, which covers entire continents. servers are metal, not vms. epyc 4244p with 2Gbps egress, 1 server per 15 minute game. mitigations=off and nosmt on all clients and th…

I opened the website in his profile and joined the discord. Yes there's a discord for this.

welcome to the team. reboot-to-play is the future.

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

#358

Post by nathants »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #321
ryankrage77 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is satire, because nobody would play a game with those requirements.

I wouldn't be so sure. Life has taught me that people will accept damn near anything in order to get the entertainment they want. If you worked your way up to the point OP describes slowly, over time, I wouldn't be at all surprised if people shrugged and said "it's just what you have to do if you want to play those games".

to be honest, all of this would be worth it just to never have to listen to fortnite streamers whine about cheating/bugs/ping/serverlag/stormsurge/etc ever again. i understand why they whine, but i just don't want to hear it anymore.

i sympathize with their pain, and i have the solution.

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

#359

Post by a2128 »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #116

I think the population of game developers and their knowledge of multiplayer networking is fundamentally getting worse over time, because I see things that should not be architecturally possible in a lot of newer multiplayer games. This whole thing anti-cheat thing is just a separate problem entirely, but it's so painfully exacerbated by the first.

I definitely think it's just a business decision being made in some cases.

Your developers have just built and demonstrated a functioning multiplayer prototype. They want to spend 3 months to rewrite some of it for better security, and 3 months to implement the missing features and make it fully functioning. You just got off a call from a sales person for an anticheat vendor who gave you a strong pitch, so you say no to the first 3 months because it's cheaper to just add anticheat than to pay 3 months of salary on this.

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

#360

Post by sunshowers »

jeff_carr wrote: post #351
sunshowers wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While all of what you're saying is true, I think it is worth noting that historically a large chunk of this problem was solved by communities hosting servers. I agree that in the matchmaking era, remote attestation via kernel-level anticheat is the inevitable solution that you converge to after a few iterations. And yes, servers would often kick out people who were too outside of the general skill level, even if they…

Not at all correct! Nothing of what was said is true. The actual reality is: * Microsoft makes piles of money from Gaming * Microsoft got involved with Gaming to damage Linux adoption and corporate support (Sony/Linux/Playstation) * Microsoft spends massive amounts of attention on gaming to lock in the general public to Windows * Microsoft continues to lose to Linux * Microsoft uses cheating to lie about open source…

Sorry, where did Microsoft come in? I'm not sure what Microsoft thinks but I do see both the ups and the downs of remote attestation.
Post reply on HN