Live data from Hacker News

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

gamingonlinux.com

391–400 of 660 posts

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

#391
post #195

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.

What's even worse is with this update they completely cut off Linux users. It had been performing better than on W*ndows but they had to ruin the game.

Surely this is foreshadowing the future of GTA VI and will have the same problems of being unplayable.

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

#392
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not teleporting that's hard to deal with, it's aimbots and wall hacks. You have to trust the client with enemy position information that it shouldn't be able to see yet, and trust their shot position inputs. Also, constantly flying around and teleporting is easy to catch, but using it in small bursts is very powerful and harder to catch.

>You have to trust the client with enemy position information that it shouldn't be able to see yet That seems like something that would be solvable with location-style differential privacy. Report a number of plausible locations to the client small enough that it can efficiently anticipate them all, but large enough to prevent being able to auto-aim or wall hack. Run some bots or actual player movements recorded from…

> Even small violations of continuity seem like they'd be observable server-side, no? I've not studied this, but presumably clients must be constantly phoning home with their position.

Jumps in position are not always illegal: network issues, quirks from physics-based forces, glitches in the game, are all very common and can all cause unexpected positions. Differentiating from bannable offenses is not easy. Yes, there's always heuristics you can use to narrow down possible issues, but you have a limited CPU budget: You need to be running multiple instances per machine, each updating 60 times a second, serving dozens of players, sending and receiving constant updates to and from all players 30-60 times a second, while simulating physics, large worlds, complex player states, and synchronizing the states of thousands of objects. It's tricky to get everything right and performant. And people will get extremely mad if you make a false positive.

> That seems like something that would be solvable with location-style differential privacy. Report a number of plausible locations to the client small enough that it can efficiently anticipate them all, but large enough to prevent being able to auto-aim or wall hack. Run some bots or actual player movements recorded from other matches, originating from roughly the same point where you last saw the real opponent.

But what is the client suppose to do when actually seeing the real position? At someone the waveform needs to collapse and reveal the real location. The only way to make the fake locations indistinguishable from the real ones is to make them a real enemy player from the client's point of view. But then you stumble across all these fake enemies that don't do anything? You could place them in unreachable positions so normal players wouldn't ever find them. But then the heuristics for checking if a client "knows" about the position is still quite fuzzy. Also, visuals aren't the only giveaway of an enemy location. Audio is also location based. Playing fake audio would be detrimental to normal players' experiences.

Having said that, the unreachable-fake-player technique is not bad, it can cut out some low hanging fruit. But it's only part of the equation of a robust anti-cheat solution. It's complex to implement and only gets you some cheaters.

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

#393
post #371

I built a separate Arch Linux box just for Steam gaming. I will never log into any of my sensitive accounts -- email, banking, etc. -- on that machine. It's a Framework laptop so I can physically keep the camera and microphone disconnected. I basically treat it like a public terminal.

Do you truly expect any steam games to have anything like a root kit that’d exfiltrate your credentials? I feel if this were the case literally anything I install on my PC would be suspect. Installing ssh would be a much more scary thing than a random steam game.

I thought some games snooped through your system.

Kerbal Space Program comes to mind, I recall it had adware that did this.

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

#394
post #390

> kernel-level anti-cheat Add UEFI on your PC and DRM in your browser. And next, your governement will ask you to add its anti pedo-pornography tools. And then we have a new episode of Black Mirror...

UEFI is here, browser DRM for video is here, browser DRM for text+ads on ordinary web pages is just around the corner, government won't ask anyone - the tools will be added at the ISP level, if they're not already installed and operational.

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

#395
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so you don’t have to run a rootkit on a machine that you might file your taxes on.

I would bet 90% of people here have at least another laptop if they have a gaming PC, if you’re concerned about being compromised by rootkits, just do your taxes on that.

There's nothing "just" about compromising one of my machines so badly that I don't trust it to file my taxes on any more.

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

#396
post #386
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I run a PS5 instead. AFAIK, there's fewer cheaters on PlayStation current-gen than on PC, and I don't have to worry about anti-cheat kludges corrupting my "rig".

You’ve just got Sony watching over you and transcribing your audio conversations with friends.

“Shoot that guy” “Ok”

Super valuable stuff.

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

#397
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so you don’t have to run a rootkit on a machine that you might file your taxes on.

I would bet 90% of people here have at least another laptop if they have a gaming PC, if you’re concerned about being compromised by rootkits, just do your taxes on that.

So you own one machine and Rockstar owns the other?

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet 90% of people here have at least another laptop if they have a gaming PC, if you’re concerned about being compromised by rootkits, just do your taxes on that.

So you own one machine and Rockstar owns the other?

Well that was supposed to be the deal with the PlayStation, too.

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

#399
post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve just got Sony watching over you and transcribing your audio conversations with friends.

“Shoot that guy” “Ok” Super valuable stuff.

Training data for AI

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

#400
post #182

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…

> . But if you have a cheat that statistically makes you look like a skilled non-cheating player (these things exist today!)

Then we've achieved our goal.

https://xkcd.com/810/

Post reply on HN