Back

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

850 points21 hoursgamingonlinux.com
yreg18 hours ago

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.

mrpippy12 hours ago

Add ‘-nobattleye’ to the Steam command-line launch options and you can play single-player without any installs.

(Rockstar really should’ve made this a separate launch option like other games do)

soderfoo11 hours ago

> (Rockstar really should’ve made this a separate launch option like other games do)

This is what happens when a producer's/product manager's cherished KPIs come before UX.

In their mind, adding a toggle in the launcher would lead to lower engagement and player acquisition.

We, the players, fail to recognize how our gaming experience can be enhanced by using social features like leader boards, guilds, or in game chat. We are not enlightened.

Think about all the fun and exciting connections you'd miss out on if all the social crap was off by default or in an easily accessible place.

I'm honestly surprised it's a command line option. My guess is that the requirement originated externally.

parl_match8 hours ago

> This is what happens when a producer's/product manager's cherished KPIs come before UX.

> In their mind, adding a toggle in the launcher would lead to lower engagement and player acquisition.

Not "in their mind". It does and they have the data to show it. Very frustrating situation.

+2
_factor3 hours ago
+1
hx83 hours ago
+1
bravetraveler8 hours ago
+4
soderfoo6 hours ago
veunes10 hours ago

If the decision came from an external party, it's likely from publishers

gigatexal7 hours ago

Call of duty 6 launches the single player campaign from the main launcher and I noticed they advertise the anti cheat stuff being enabled (I forget what it’s called). For a single player game. Smh.

kjkjadksj22 minutes ago

Achievements are serious business

nottorp5 hours ago

I stopped getting Rockstar games for PC when the Steam store page for Max Payne 3 was lying that a rockstar club account was only required for multiplayer. Turns out it was mandatory for single player too instead.

I did get GTA V for playstation, and indeed you can play single player without the rockstar account. Probably Sony forcing them to allow that, I don't think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts.

However, every time you start the game you get a screen pushing you towards multiplayer. And the single time I did click on some multiplayer related options, they spammed my playstation system notifications with 'there are new events in GTA online' even in weeks I didn't start their title at all.

So... good bye, rockstar. Your games are getting too big for their own good anyway.

crtasm17 hours ago

Readers can search keyword Grand_Theft_Auto_V_v3095-Razor1911 for further information on experience options.

alwayslikethis5 hours ago

We need to stop normalizing the idea that businesses can change the offer of a purchased product after the fact.

> These companies are all run by CEOs who got their MBAs at Darth Vader University, where the first lesson is “I have altered the deal, pray I don’t alter it further.”

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed

veunes10 hours ago

Piracy shouldn’t feel like the "premium version" of a product...

tantalor2 hours ago

This is true for watching NFL.

Option 1: subscribe to 7 streaming services which each have some unpredictable subset of games

Option 2: go to some website that has all the games

bitsandboots4 hours ago

Ownership is the premium version of a product. Turns out piracy is sometimes the only ownership option. Everything else is just a subscription, license, service.

johnisgood6 hours ago

But the reality is that it often is.

strogonoff4 hours ago

Big game publishers will inevitably flex the “we can impose any restrictions we want at any time, go sue us” in your face at some point. Piracy is indeed the superior experience, unfortunately, though I would add a caveat that as a rule it does not apply to indie titles.

(At least while they stay indie… Not long ago I was reinstalling Minecraft after a long break and found out that Microsoft has the balls to demand that I verify a phone number to play a game I bought more than 10 years ago. Like with GTA V’s rootkit, they don’t care if you want to play single-player—once you’re locked out of the loader, you’re locked out and no human will help you.)

lmm7 hours ago

So why didn't you pirate it? At some point people need to stop complaining and start putting their money where their mouth is.

dspillett5 hours ago

It had already been bought some time ago, this was stated as a reinstall.

Using a pirate copy now might avoid the rootkit, but it would not send a message to the publisher as they'll not see a difference between not getting any money for this new install and not getting any money for this new install. Any difference in a numbers-playing stat, if the pirate version doesn't call home to be counted in those, is likely not significant.

neilv13 hours ago

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".

Aeolun11 hours ago

You mean all the anti-cheat options are pre-built into your rig?

pjc507 hours ago

Yes. It's kind of an odd situation, because it's one where it's a benefit to me if other people are running anti-cheat. A limited sort of remote attestation that the people you're playing with aren't running certain kinds of software that peeks into or alters the memory image of the game or its graphics drivers.

grbrr11 hours ago

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

+2
echoangle10 hours ago
portaouflop11 hours ago

Which is fine on a device that you only use for gaming, or am I missing something?

dmichulke11 hours ago

Well, you run untrusted code in your local network.

Then again, we all trust our "smart" devices even if we really don't.

I suppose a separate network would be the safe option (if you trust your router).

That said, have there been rotten meat attacks using "temporarily above temperature" fridges?

Are vegans just applying a defensive strategy against those?

+2
lxgr4 hours ago
Woeps6 hours ago

This is the exact reason why is started with streaming services for games (Gfore/boosteroid/game pass). Next the anti-cheat thing I also spend less waiting for updates. And this way I can still play these games with my buddies.

pixxel10 hours ago

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

generalpf9 hours ago

“Shoot that guy” “Ok”

Super valuable stuff.

notabee1 hour ago

Or more likely, listening to background noise to spy on what family members are saying and listening for marketing/brand trigger words. It may not be very human audible but if it's machine audible it will probably be scraped.

+1
croes8 hours ago
IG_Semmelweiss4 hours ago

Honest question.

Would a Windows10-11 user be able to tell there are "rootkits" embedded in installations, without looking at the (optional) disclosures made available now on steam ?

In other words, what guarantee is there that if i'm buying a game from Steam, or say GOG, that there's no quasi-malware riding along with the game install ?

nemomarx43 minutes ago

in general anti cheat will advertise that it has kernel level access and might need admin permission during install

if you're worried about hidden stuff I'm not sure how you could tell

k4rli9 hours ago

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.

dartharva6 hours ago

As he said, pirating is the better option. I'm guessing all pirate releases of GTA V will run perfectly on Linux.

bunderbunder36 minutes ago

So, I'm not really into online multiplayer, but from a distance I keep wondering if this could be more easily mitigated by altering the incentive structure?

What if online games track how well people do and sort them into tiers based on skill level? And then put people who are roughly evenly matched together. I am guessing that cheaters will naturally end up clumping together with each other, and maybe a smattering of elite players who are good enough that they can hold their own, and maybe even benefit from the added challenge. And also, casual and less-skilled players can play together and not get dominated so much.

I don't think it would end cheating. But perhaps it would mitigate it by reducing a lot of the potential upside. Assuming the upside for many cheaters is that they enjoy feeling like they can dominate a server full of non-cheaters.

wigl11 minutes ago

As someone who plays a lot of online multiplayer, there's a few issues. A lot of games do have skill based matchmaking systems (aka SBMM) in place.

Ideally, this would lead to people having a 50% win rate which is just unacceptable to some. Those people resort to smurfing or cheating to get their fix--they don't really want a fair and equal match. Just look to the Call of Duty community crying about SBMM. Those people want to farm clips and play with those worse than them--not people at or above their skill level.

Additionally, many multiplayer games at all but the highest skill levels have most matches determined by the side that plays the fewest number of mistakes. This is especially true of team based games. At most skill levels, both teams will be making many obvious (and less obvious) mistakes. This can frustrate some who believe that they're held back by their team and just need to play with higher ranked teammates. So people will boost or buy accounts or resort to cheating.

JambalayaJimbo26 minutes ago

Skilled players will NOT benefit from playing with others who are cheating, because their games will adapt to cheaters and not other skilled players.

Cheaters will also easily adapt to ranking systems by creating new accounts or intentionally de-ranking themselves.

raincole6 minutes ago

I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

> What if online games track how well people do and sort them into tiers based on skill level?

Games have been already doing this for at least a decade. Games that do this are exactly the games where cheating is rampant.

stonogo18 minutes ago

KLA isn't about preventing cheaters. It's about protecting the artificial scarcity of products for sale via microtransaction.

ho_schi8 hours ago

First step.

Second step?

Ban games with kernel-level anti-cheat.

It is not acceptable on Linux. Apple will also not accept that shit further, that said Apple lost relevance in gaming with Mantle and the M-Processors (both mean a lot of incompatibility). And Microsoft is regretting every choice in this regard:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/12/24242947/microsoft-window...

But that is a usual pattern. Microsoft makes bad decisions and everyone suffers. Even Linux. Their is a reason why closed-source kernel modules mark Linux as tainted, the system is not trustworthy.

It is the duty of game developers to secure their games themselves. Not manipulating user devices. Forcefully doing stupid and dangerous things because you cannot achieve your task in a safe why is not a reason.

wrren4 hours ago

That's an incredibly naive perspective. KLA represents a real risk to companies, as something going wrong can crash player computers instead of just game processes; this is a PR nightmare if/when it happens on a large scale. Not to mention the cost of hiring engineers capable of building kernel components in the first place, it's a niche skillset that's not cheap to hire for.

Games companies don't turn to KLA out of laziness, it's out of absolute necessity, especially for games like FPS' where it's impossible to fully secure the game using pure server-side methods. Machine learning has been tried, it's too prone to false positives and misses more subtle cheats that still negativel impact the the player experience. Anti-Cheat used to exist purely in user mode and then, guess what?, cheats moved into the kernel where they couldn't be detected or stopped. Anti-cheat had to follow in order to remain effective.

The alternative was conceding the space to cheaters and watching games that players love, and that required massive resources to develop and maintain, degenerate into a hellscape of cheating that real players refuse to play.

ikety2 hours ago

I'd believe this if every multiplayer game that doesn't have KLA was just rife with cheaters. Also, why is EA adding KLA to Battlefield 1 almost a decade after release?

I refuse to believe there is only one simple honorable objective when it comes to KLA. I simply do not care if companies can't figure out how to stop cheaters without it. What about our experience? You might complain about cheaters, but what if I can't even play the game because of KLA?

Played plenty of recent MP games on Linux just fine and cheating was never experience breaking.

jakebasile1 hour ago

We had the best alternative decades ago. Let the community run the servers and ban cheaters while allowing individual servers to form their own culture and community. The obsession with matchmaking and games as a service (requiring publisher run servers) is what painted the industry into this corner.

Note that I like matchmaking, specifically skill based matchmaking, in some games and at some times but completely ending server browsers and community run dedicated servers was a mistake.

xvinci15 minutes ago

I was pretty good at CS:S, semi-professional level. I nevertheless still enjoyed hanging out on public servers with friends. I cannot tell you how often I have just been banned.

Another example: I was an anti-cheat admin in a major league about 20 years ago. I am quite confident a lower double digit percentage of banned players were innocent - it was simply too hard to get enough competent people for doing manual checks (you'd have to be really good at the game yourself to confidently tell what might be intuition and what cant while evaluating pro players with money-prizes on the line).

So while I appreciate that sentiment, and maybe you found THE one community where all that really worked out for you, but it was by no means the "best alternative" from where I am standing.

jakebasile4 minutes ago

As I said, offering both is the ideal. I'd rather have some false positives if it means a way forward without kernel rootkits berg the new normal.

notabee59 minutes ago

But then it's harder to shim in the money-makers like microtransactions, loot boxes, and all the other recent "innovations" in the gaming industry.

LinXitoW47 minutes ago

Until the obviously detectable cheaters like spinbots get INSTANTLY banned, I don't believe for a second they've "tried everything".

If hackers have to limit themselves to behaviour that looks like real skill, it's kind of unimportant to the games community if they're cheating. Cheaters only ruin the experience if they're obvious to the player.

Finally, something like Overwatch in CS, together with paid employees and PUBLIC bans of high paying cheater accounts (including hardware bans) would create a chilling effect, further forcing cheaters into hiding.

montagg41 minutes ago

> The alternative was conceding the space to cheaters and watching games that players love, and that required massive resources to develop and maintain, degenerate into a hellscape of cheating that real players refuse to play.

This was a key reason for Valorant's success. Anti-cheat is a necessary evil to make online games fair. I think if someone wants to suggest otherwise, they would need to demonstrate a superior solution. Companies truly do not want to be in the business of messing with your kernel, so if another solution exists—one that is actually superior in cheat detection and prevention—without a kernel extension, they'll do it.

I'll provide another example of why companies would rather not do it unless they have to. Kernel extensions usually require a system restart. Requiring a restart adds a huge drop off point to a conversion funnel and costs the game some amount of players who may have stuck around, and some players, like the ones here who are upset about it, won't even bother because they are outright opposed. Games would gobble up a solution that worked and didn't have that baggage.

devnullbrain26 minutes ago

> tainted, the system is not trustworthy.

I wonder what is worth more: the median installation of a free-to-play multiplayer game, or access to everything they do on that PC?

I won't be the first one to wonder this.

dartharva6 hours ago

> Second step

> "Ban games with kernel-level anti-cheat."

> "It is the duty of game developers"

It's hilarious that people actually think the publishers will ever have two hoots to give about notions like that. FWIW I agree we'd all be better off without those things but the entitlement to believe private businesses should run on your personal whims and that developers have a "duty" to make things only as you prefer is gobsmacking. I am always left in wonder what commenters like this think about themselves.

LinXitoW46 minutes ago

I agree that profit driven companies will never ever care about the morality or the safety or the social impacts of their choices.

I don't think, however, that "publishers would use disabled children slave labor if they could" is really an argument you ought to make.

moffkalast23 minutes ago

That's right, they won't care. That's why any action will only come if Valve bans the practice from their store, because losing money is all publishers understand.

Every publisher that's greedily taken their products off Steam in an attempt to recuperate Valve's fee has sooner or later come crawling back because they weren't able to make a half usable platform to sell their stuff on. Valve holds a really large influence over the industry.

Arch-TK7 hours ago

The reason games companies reach for KLA is not because they're dumb and can't be bothered to secure their network protocols on the server side, it's because they don't want to have to hire an inordinate number of human reviewers to make unreliable decisions on whether someone is cheating or not in their game.

While KLA is fundamentally flawed (DMA and even CV based cheats are becoming more popular as a result of KLA and they still give cheaters a significant (but now even harder to detect) advantage) it solves the problem of obvious and even most kinds of subtle cheating.

Attempting to detect cheating once inputs are being sent to your server (which is within your domain of control and on which you can implement non-intrusive anti-cheat) is very difficult to do reliably. An inexperienced player will make slow, delayed inputs. A highly experienced player will have reactions which are an order of magnitude faster (and in many cases faster than the speed of thought because of muscle memory). If you want to make a working but no longer detectable cheat, all you need to do is spend a bit of time and effort programming in human limits of reaction time into all your code and making sure all inputs look realistic (again, more limits).

At the end of the day, you can make a cheat which gives you a significant advantage without it being actually detectable by any statistical methods on the server.

At this point you might attempt to reach for AI but undoubtedly that will require human oversight or you will get false positives.

So, in summary, even if you were to design your game around server-side rendering and server-side input processing, forcing your players to effectively play over a remote desktop connection (which is impractical for any fast paced competitive multiplayer game due to latency issues but let's pretend those don't exist for a minute), you will still get cheaters with snap-to-head or recoil compensation or auto-fire making a significant impact on games. Heck, there's even the idea of using sounds (which need to be pretty accurate so human players can utilise them to determine where enemy players are) to implement a rudimentary wallhack.

This is just the nature of FPS games and why games companies end up implementing KLA for these games. The way to make an FPS game un-cheatable is to make a different game where cheating is more difficult or impossible just by nature of the format.

Want FPS without cheaters? Encourage people to do DIY matchmaking again, DIY server hosting and DIY administration. Except that "this doesn't scale". Neither does human review. Neither does server side rendering. The core reasons why game companies do KLA is that players will pay for games with KLA but won't pay for games without it. As much as I think Microsoft is one of the worst companies in existence, in this case I don't think they or KLA developers are to blame. KLA developers are simply doing what players want them to do and Microsoft is only allowing what their end-users want them to allow. If Microsoft removes KLA, it will be by replacing it with userspace code with hardware attestation support, it won't be by killing the concept of intrusive anti-cheat. All Microsoft is doing is trying to re-design the tools to cover their own ass.

Fundamentally, KLA has pushed cheating further into DMA and CV territory. This means that more obvious and annoying forms of cheating, undetectable by KLA are probably going to soon become more common. At this point the options are to have these games be console-only with blessed hardware and hardware attestation. And even that has flaws (as described). Eventually it will just be impossible to play a game in a public server without cheating. Maybe this will force people away from these types of games, or towards private lobbies. I don't know what the future holds here.

aenis2 hours ago

And fundamentally, the anti-cheat software is fighting a loosing game because of some quirks of x86:

- hardware breakpoints on memory latch to logical, not physical addresses - one can map the same area of physical memory to different logical addresses thus allowing arbitrary memory reads - simulating inputs through the PnP stack can be made indetectible with polymorphic code doing the injections - detecting the aimbot's core code can be prevented via at least two methods: triggering (and capturing) page faults on memory hosting the bot or, again, with polymorphic code generation

One could create a fully open source cheat engine relying on memory reads and input injection via the pnp stavk and it would be undetectable deterministically (with heuristics, sure).

Games - unless streamed - need to know a bit more about the world they display than the player is allowed to see. Some engines I analysed (years ago) tried to limit propagating data to the local client to only a portion of the map and close proximity (the more recent battlefield games, if memory serves), while lots still have all enemy coordinates at all times in memory, some even with debug symbols to help the poor aimbot community reverse memory structures that more easily.

Its hopeless. The only winning move is not to play :-)

kjkjadksj18 minutes ago

Realistically if you make a game hack where it behaves exactly as well as a high skilled player, no one should care. The lobby experience is the same as if you got a really good player in there. When people moan about hackers its when they are blatant. Dominating the entire server and obviously hacking when you spectate them. If you take away all this low hanging fruit who cares about the people who are cheating within statistical variance of player skill?

Eisenstein5 hours ago

> Want FPS without cheaters? Encourage people to do DIY matchmaking again, DIY server hosting and DIY administration.

Yes. This is the answer. There is no solution that relies only on technology that will fix human problems at scale. You can make it harder, but once one person figures it out, everyone has access to it. You need to break it into pieces and let people deal with it on the community level, where communities are small enough that people can deal with individuals.

The main issue is that 'at scale' you have the fact that a certain percentage of people are sociopaths, a certain percentage of people are really smart, and a certain percentage of people have the time and motivation to do something, and when they all cross you end up with a person who breaks your system.

Arch-TK5 hours ago

> Yes. This is the answer. There is no solution that relies only on technology that will fix human problems at scale. You can make it harder, but once one person figures it out, everyone has access to it. You need to break it into pieces and let people deal with it on the community level, where communities are small enough that people can deal with individuals.

The issue is that the players themselves seem to think that the convenience of KLA (over running your own community, paying for your own servers, etc) outweighs the privacy risks.

shkkmo2 hours ago

> The issue is that the players themselves seem to think that the convenience of KLA (over running your own community, paying for your own servers, etc) outweighs the privacy risks.

That's not true and there isn't data to show it.

The reasons why support for community run servers have fallen by the wayside are more complicated than "players chose one over the other and companies followed them".

Companies also recognized significant downsides for themselves of community run servers. When your online experience is in community run spaces, you expose your player base to experiences outside of your control. When you don't run your own server instances, you can't enforce the cheating rules you want. These, among many other reason, make it harder and more risky to monetize the online experience of your game. A such, the choice was generally taken away from players to protect companies. This wasn't at all a pure reaction to player preference.

kjkjadksj16 minutes ago

Really? Most gaming communities seem to hate kla as it breaks their steam deck compatibility or linux compatibility.

BoorishBears4 hours ago

It's only the answer if the goal is to not feel like you're being cheated by cheaters: realistically cheating would be absolutely fucking bonkers if you actually tried to treat DIY matchmaking as a form anti-cheat.

Voting to kick/ban and sharing ban lists only works for ragehacking, but the most joy stealing form of cheating is people using hacks and cheats subtly enough to beat an average player, but not strongly enough to guarantee they'll be caught by the community.

+1
amiga3864 hours ago
+1
immibis4 hours ago
WatchDog14 hours ago

With the way that computer vision and AI continue to improve, I imagine that we will soon have completely external and undetectable cheating peripherals, simply capture the screen direct from the display output, and pass inputs via mimicking a usb human input device.

This won’t provide all the same capabilities as cheats that hook into the game process, such as wall hacks, but it would be possible to build a super human aimbot with such an approach.

We already have external “radar” cheats that use the game stereo sound to give the direction that a certain sound(such as footsteps) came from.

musjleman13 hours ago

> With the way that computer vision and AI continue to improve, I imagine that we will soon have completely external and undetectable cheating peripherals, simply capture the screen direct from the display output, and pass inputs via mimicking a usb human input device.

This already exists. You can stream your screen to another machine running image recognition and pass your mouse input through a controller that injects auxiliary input (there are off-the-shelf products like kmbox, you can make your own as well).

However, it is very important to understand that only a tiny percentage of cheaters in games end up being determined enough to go through hoops to purchase hardware for it (it's much more expensive and not as simple as getting instant gratification by double clicking on an executable). It's basically considered a win to push people into needing go to such lengths to cheat without getting banned.

MetaWhirledPeas1 hour ago

> However, it is very important to understand that only a tiny percentage of cheaters in games end up being determined enough to go through hoops to purchase hardware for it

Today. That will change when it's a cheap off-the-shelf product sold on Amazon. I almost wish we were there already to get rid of this KLA nonsense.

Not to mention, every KLA game I've played has had cheaters regardless. Circumventing the software seems to become a game unto itself for those people.

Dibby0537 hours ago

For hacks that don't access program memory directly, would external hardware make things less detectable? I don't know how anti-cheat programs work but I'd be surprised if they banned every skilled player that happens to be running AHK and OBS. More likely they work with heuristics that try to detect super-human mouse movements, precision/speed-wise.

maccard5 hours ago

> For hacks that don't access program memory directly, would external hardware make things less detectable?

Yes. But, it's a game of cat and mouse. Anticheat always is. There's not been a need go to the level of "there are X players who report having a Razer deathadder, which we've validated as having a DPI range of Y-Z. With your OS settings, it's not possible to have achieved that with that mouse therefore we suspect you of cheating". But we're probably there now.

> More likely they work with heuristics that try to detect super-human mouse movements, precision/speed-wise.

It's heurestics all the way down. You're unlikely to be banned for AHK+OBS, but a heurestic on what you're doing with the combo might ban you.

madeofpalk7 hours ago

And all of that for something that is worse - software cheats usually get access to more information than just the pixels rendered to the screen. Seeing through solid walls and stuff like that.

lovehashbrowns4 hours ago

You can do DMA cheating if that’s a non-negotiable for you but it is far more expensive. You install a direct memory access (DMA) card on your “clean” machine and flash it with firmware that hides the fact that it’s a DMA card since some rootkit level anticheats will look for that.

The card then sends memory data to a second computer (dirty) which has the cheat software installed but no rootkit anticheat. The dirty computer can then read all the memory it wants, look through walls, shows enemy health, etc. but on a second computer and monitor. Pretty sure there’s hardware to blend both monitor outputs, though most people do two monitors I believe.

ackbar036 hours ago

are there out-of-the-box software tools to do this?

I thought about something like this before, but its non-trivial to train an image recognition system to do this, let alone the commands to mimic it through hardware, its quite an engineering feat in itself.

declan_roberts13 hours ago

That kind of stuff is readily available right now with openCV. Image detection has been very good and very fast for a long time!

Nobody really cares because most players are honest and play to have fun.

aenis1 hour ago

But why bother with image recognition? And pay a heavy latency penalty which makes it difficult to implement PID-style controls on player's aim? Its a game of milliseconds and opencv is comparably slow, as is the I/O involved.

Far easier to do a MiTM on the network traffic and recreate state in another process.

Still easier to clone memory pages used by the target app, or use hardware that allows dma.

reginald785 hours ago

> We already have external “radar” cheats that use the game stereo sound to give the direction that a certain sound(such as footsteps) came from.

Did you just imply my headphones are a cheating device?

More seriously, I've heard these type of devices already exist.

wafflemaker47 minutes ago

I once played some Hunt (difficult, highly competitive game, a little like CS) with people on ex professional level. They obviously had gaming PCs, but they ALL had super expensive 7? Channels headphones. It's apparently a thing among ex pro (or high level) Counter-Strike players to have these super headphones that let you know where people are before regular people can hear them.

They hushed me all the time because "someone's coming". Still a fun experience - to win for a change. Don't have to add that my role was more as a decoy then anything else.

mrtksn11 hours ago

In other words, tech based solutions to human problems always fails at some point probably because the problem creators can also use tech.

jmorenoamor7 hours ago

That would make an awesome competition field for AI bots that rely only on video/audio input and mouse/keyboard output.

nithssh4 hours ago

Makes sense considering Valve has maintained that kernel level AC is not required and has not included one in their own games, but let's be honest, unfortunately you have to often wonder if your enemy is having a good day or if he's hacking in CS but not so in valorant for a reason.

ixwt4 hours ago

I'm also hearing a bunch of grumblings and speculation that Valve is developing a non kernel level anti cheat.

nithssh2 hours ago

They have VAC and the newer version that they promised would save CS2 hasn't exactly changed much from CSGO days in terms of results.

I would love for Valve to prove it is possible but so far they haven't shown it can be done without leaving a bad experience for legit players (due to delayed ban waves, etc) despite the repeated claims.

WithinReason8 hours ago

Hope there will be a tag. I wish they also had a tag for "requires third party account" so I could just filter those games out so I never see them.

sphars4 hours ago

I use the Augmented Steam extension[0], which shows a more prominent banner if a game has DRM, anti-cheat, requires a third-party account, or other gotchas. Plus a bunch of other useful features

[0]: https://github.com/IsThereAnyDeal/AugmentedSteam

paledot5 hours ago

Tags are crowdsourced. I was tagging games with "always-online DRM" before they declared it on the store page, but only the top few tags are displayed, so there's no point.

SXX2 hours ago

They also editable by developers / publishers and it's by design. Any sane developer prune their tags from time to time since Steam recommendations depend on them.

So it's not exactly a reasonable place to put something like that.

nathants17 hours ago

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 the server.

i love steam, but won’t be releasing this there.

it’s reboot-to-play, a modified archlinux iso that boots directly into the game from a usb drive.

i control not only the kernel, but the os, and every running program. you don’t get cortana. you don’t get discord. you don’t get spotify. you get the game. for the duration of play, your pc becomes an arcade machine.

still, this is not enough.

to play ranked, you’re going to have to get a handcam over your left shoulder. it will see head orientation, both hands, full mousepad, and screen. you’re also going to use fixed mouse speed, mousepad size, and monitor size. reviewing any players inputs will look familiar, since everyone is playing with identical settings and setup.

kernel anticheat is not enough. we need a reproducible full os setup, down to running programs and network connections.

even that is not enough. we need provenance of user inputs hooked right up to the game replay system, so you or anyone can review engagements from any parties perspective.

obviously this should all be opt in. not everyone wants to play ranked, and whole-os anticheat should help even without input provenance.

have you ever wondered if you died to a cheater or a god? do you wish you could never wonder again? i do. soon, i won’t.

jokoon42 minutes ago

Valve now catches cheaters using machine learning, which analyzes the demo. Apparently they catch a lot of cheaters this way, and it's more reliable than player reports.

But to be really honest: it's impossible to prevent cheaters. The only way is to play with friends, or to change the incentives of the game where it becomes less interesting to cheat.

For example, a game like counter strike will have a lot of cheaters because you can earn skins and sell them. There are also a lot of players who will buy cheats, because the game is just so popular.

The game design and engine design can also help to prevent cheating.

Honestly, you cannot solve corruption, you need to change the game or the players.

In my view, the Counter strike community is quite toxic, but very profitable for valve, which is why they don't care if their players behave poorly. CS is a nice game but human nature is what it is. You don't find recommendable people playing CS, most gamers play something else because that community is just so terrible to interact with.

Sceptre612 hours ago

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?

nathants12 hours ago

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.

shkkmo2 hours ago

While I appreciate the lack of self promotion, I don't see any name or link for your project in either comment. Can you share one? I'm sure I'm not the only curious person.

vuldin9 minutes ago
red_admiral8 hours ago

DOS era "insert game disk 1 and reboot to play" vibes.

nathants6 hours ago

building an archiso, flashing it, and then booting is very satisfying.

[x670e][~/repos/WickedEngine/Protoverse/reboot-to-play][better-game][us-west-2][-][master]

>> bash flash.sh /dev/sda 1224736768 bytes (1.2 GB, 1.1 GiB) copied, 52 s, 23.3 MB/s

Koofte7 hours ago

[flagged]

dlock1712 hours ago

All of this, when you can just play on console. I know cheaters theoretically exist there, but in low enough numbers on my PS5 games that they don't impact my user experience.

Kudos to your insane game plan. Gonna be hard to get any marketing from Twitch streamers though.

nathants12 hours ago

thanks! if the plan isn’t insane, why bother.

ps5 can’t play 360hz and can’t use performance mode graphics. consoles are great, but esports will always be on pc.

input cheats are common on pc and console, there isn’t a difference anymore.

dual pc streaming will work fine. maybe we include obs in the iso at some point, but probably not.

also, this game is mnk only. next game will be controller only. gotta keep inputs standardized or fair play isn’t possible.

maccard6 hours ago

> thanks! if the plan isn’t insane, why bother.

This is the only reason you need to keep going.

> ps5 can’t play 360hz and can’t use performance mode graphics. This [0] is your game. Without running it (because I'm not installing your OS on my machine, no offence) there's no reason that wouldn't run at 360Hz on a PS5. A PS5 is an 8 core machine with a dedicated GPU; it's going to be vastly more powerful (and has the advantage of being standardised hardware) than the random beater laptops your players are going to run. If you're talking about rendering at 360Hz - How many people realistically have that sort of monitor? And if they need to splash out £250 for it, we're getting close to the price of a console _anyway_ where you can play other games too.

> consoles are great, but esports will always be on pc.

Except for fighting games, sports games, and most importantly CoD.

> input cheats are common on pc and console, there isn’t a difference anymore.

Theoretically, yes. Practically speaking, input cheats are widespread on PC, and non-existant on console. (that's not to say XIM and co don't exist, but they're nowhere near the adoption level that's seen on PC).

[0] https://better.game/#/

+1
nathants6 hours ago
ryankrage7715 hours ago

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

bigstrat200313 hours ago

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".

nathants12 hours ago

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.

jokoon54 minutes ago

could be made necessary for pro players many of them were caught cheating

nathants15 hours ago

i would never joke about cheaters, spammers, or other netizens of ill repute.

if this is a challenge, consider it accepted.

link in bio.

CursedUrn4 hours ago

Making a webcam work on every hardware configuration is very difficult. I don't think this is possible.

nathants3 hours ago

really? usb webcams? i suppose it’s possible, but this seems unlikely.

very well, ranked will then require specific hardware. i’m gonna have to build more test pcs. 9800x3d 7700xt b650m looking pretty clean.

bitsandboots4 hours ago

Hey man I just play games to have fun. I guess fun isn't for everyone.

nathants3 hours ago

outlandish. i will get laws passed that require you to play and enjoy my game. how dare you, sir.

rxyz13 hours ago

I opened the website in his profile and joined the discord.

Yes there's a discord for this.

nathants12 hours ago

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

Hikikomori5 hours ago

How do you stop anyone from modifying the image?

Can you stop them from using DMA hacks?

Can I boot the image in a VM?

nathants5 hours ago

not possible to stop modification, but i will be heavily surveilling the system, and i know exactly what it should look like. the process tree is known in advance.

handcam anti-cheat and replays will handle provenance of inputs. non-human inputs are cheating.

you could try to boot in vm, but performance will suffer. the server moved off vms for the same reason.

the only thing i really care about is non-human inputs. if you get really creative with booting the game, and aren’t nefarious, i’ll set phasers to stun.

shkkmo2 hours ago

Anti-cheat is always an arms race. A modified image can report anything it wants to your surveillance.

That said, you can win that arms race for a while by doing something sufficiently innovative, different and specialized and you may have that here. I doubt this approach offers a permanent solution though.

Edit: I do think there is a lot to the idea of not trying to put all players through the same level of anti-cheat security. The anti-cheat needs of competitive players is very different from casuals and offering different levels of anti-cheat based on those levels. How amazing would it be if other games did the same and let players choose the level of anti-cheat to use and to require.

tightbookkeeper45 minutes ago

Cheating is a human problem. The technology just makes us feel in control.

I will not be playing games that make me feel like a prisoner. The experience taking standardized tests is enough for one life.

valval2 hours ago

Is there a system in place for when my identical brother who is leagues better at your game than me hops on my account and proceeds to mop the floor with the competition?

kjkjadksj6 minutes ago

For most games these days there is thanks to skill based matchmaking. Your brother will be matched up with people in your skill bracket and will absolutely wreck them. Then whenever you get back on you will have moved up in skill thanks to big bro and will now get wrecked until you get tossed back into the lobbies you belong.

People generally hate this though because for one it makes most games into way too serious sweat fest with everyone so closely matched. And for two it doesn’t even stop the entire reason it was built which was to protect the noobs. The elite players can just tank like an nfl team for a few rounds and go back to stomping noobs.

rldjbpin6 hours ago

very interesting approach here, but i wonder if steam could provide a way to distribute this game in its current form.

maybe a generic steamos image with console-level isolation, and make the game steamos-only perhaps?

no offense, but there might be a sliver of the pie that don't like cheaters but also don't mind running something as invasive.

nathants5 hours ago

i might distribute a usb flashing downloading thingy in steam, but it’s not a priority.

the goal is to be minimally invasive. you don’t have to install anything!

i don’t fight your misconfigured pc, you don’t worry about me scanning your c drive.

nothing to install, configure, save, or lose.

bananamerica8 hours ago

That was very enjoyable.

nathants8 hours ago

welcome to the team.

andrewmcwatters13 hours ago

honestly, we have consoles for this dude

nathants13 hours ago

exactly! what we need is more power, and more mouse room.

anyone playing fortnite ranked already has the needed hardware, and the motivation.

if you haven’t won a solo build game on 1440p 360hz, you haven’t ever actually played a video game.

digging59 minutes ago

> if you haven’t won a solo build game on 1440p 360hz, you haven’t ever actually played a video game.

I think this is the most insane thing you've written here today, the one thing I truly disagree with. I'm not sure you even agree with it, given you seem to already understand well the difference between casual, competitive, and hardcore competitive play. But are you aware of solo play?

Koofte7 hours ago

[flagged]

nathants7 hours ago

handcam anti-cheat is the future.

a21287 hours ago

How does that scale? Handcam anticheat works well for exams and Olympiads where there's limited people and plenty of time to review footage after it's over, but I can't imagine it would work well on Fortnite or Counter Strike unless you staff entire offices reviewing footage full-time. Though I'm also doubtful there'd be many people willing to run an untrusted OS on their computer just for a random game so maybe you wouldn't have that much footage to begin with

nathants7 hours ago

the plan is to let users report bad engagements.

when you lose a fight, you drop into replays without leaving the game. scrub back like in a video editor, and watch the engagement from the other players perspective. the handcam footage is available here. cheating should be obvious. report or no, then return to the game, where you can spectate the rest of the match like a ghost.

fortnite replays are commonly used by pros, but less so by more casual players. their main issue is that you have to leave the game to get to replays. they also only kind of work, and don't show full server fidelity. our server ticks at 120hz, and replays are full fidelity.

lots to figure out still, but that's the idea. ranked won't launch for a while, but i wanted to design around anti-cheat from day 1.

failure is a distinct possibility with this game, that's ok. success would be interesting too.

i'm not quitting the day job to build this game. if it never makes a dime that's ok.

i started this to study fortnite and understand it's tradeoffs. turns out, it's mostly just tech debt and accidents of history. i wanted to see if i could do better, and i could.

Koofte7 hours ago

[flagged]

nathants7 hours ago

then they are not ranked ready, and can play pubs.

steelframe15 hours ago

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.

Aeolun11 hours ago

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.

gspetr7 hours ago

>Do you truly expect any steam games to have anything like a root kit that’d exfiltrate your credentials?

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/steam-game-mo...

"Downfall, a fan expansion for the popular Slay the Spire indie strategy game, was breached on Christmas Day to push Epsilon information stealer malware using the Steam update system.

Once installed on a compromised computer, the malware will collect cookies and saved passwords and credit cards from web browsers (Google Chrome, Yandex, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, Brave, Vivaldi), as well as Steam and Discord info.

It will also look for documents containing 'password' in the filenames and for more credentials, including the local Windows login and Telegram."

maccard6 hours ago

That's not a steam game, that's a user mod (read: random binary downloaded from the internet and executed). Also, it doesn't need kernel level access to do any of that stuff, it can get by just fine with normal application level permissions.

This is no different to downloading a random binary off the internet and being surprised it's malicious.

+1
remnantdiving5 hours ago
LinXitoW38 minutes ago

I don't expect that. I expect that publicly traded companies will cut corners in developing their kernel extension (like always), turning them into literal root kits waiting for anyone willing to exploit them.

See: https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/h/ransomware-ac...

steelframe1 hour ago

> root kit that’d exfiltrate your credentials

Yes. I truly believe some janky random anti-cheat kernel module could very well capture telemetry about my keystrokes to a log and then send that log off to a server.

At the very least I don't trust that it's secure enough to be in the kernel of a machine for which I require any degree of trust in its integrity.

westpfelia8 hours ago

The concern is that malicious actors can take advantage of what is certainly a poorly written rootkit.

m4639 hours ago

I thought some games snooped through your system.

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

Delk6 hours ago

Unity has some kind of data collection that can be used for analytics and advertising, so you might need to opt out of that in a Unity game. I think that came up in KSP as well.

https://unity.com/legal/game-player-and-app-user-privacy-pol...

https://unity.com/legal/game-player-and-app-user-privacy-faq

wodenokoto11 hours ago

No, he expects the root kit will open up his machine to automated worms.

rldjbpin6 hours ago

at that rate why bother using arch for the box? unless you never touch online multiplayer games, i can understand that it probably works for you.

nathants12 hours ago

dedicated hardware is a good idea, but too expensive for many. dedicated os is a good first step.

cascades4213 hours ago

Yep, same here. I have a dedicated gaming machine because I’m afraid to expose my banking information.

j-bos15 hours ago

This is the way.

insane_dreamer20 minutes ago

I haven't been a hardcore gamer in nearly 2 decades (think Half-Life, original CS), so forgive the ignorance; but why do game publishers care whether users cheat? I mean it's not like it costs them money--you're buying the game either way. I guess maybe in a MOOG it ruins the experience for other players if you show up with a gazzilion resources, but other than those games, so what if you leveled up quickly? why spend dev effort on trying to stop it?

ultrafez19 minutes ago

People might not buy a game if they don't think they'll get a fair play experience.

plutoh2817 minutes ago

A game that is overrun by cheaters makes it less fun to regular players. If regular players don’t want to play your game, it ends up being a hacker circle jerk before the servers stop getting consistent players at which point the game is dead. And a dead game is not interesting to potential buyers which affects the publishers revenue stream.

wiz21c9 hours ago

> 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...

M95D9 hours ago

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.

dartharva6 hours ago

> government won't ask anyone

Wishful thinking. That government hasn't asked anyone yet (at least in public information) is a miracle in itself.

M95D6 hours ago

You didn't understand my meaning: Government never asks. It just does things whether you agree or not.

proaralyst7 hours ago

What's your problem with UEFI? If your OEM wanted to install malicious firmware they can do that in BIOS no?

fngjdflmdflg18 hours ago

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 any case, especially in this case considering that this is not a requirement of law but of a private company.

skizm16 hours ago

As a counter strike player, I definitely shy away from the invasive anti cheat stuff… but I’d let valve inject it into my veins if it meant I could actually play and not suspect everyone of cheating all the time. Mostly because Valve has earned my trust. I won’t install games from other companies using similarly invasive techniques though.

LinXitoW33 minutes ago

But you couldn't. After all, there's a lot of hardware based cheats that even KLA can't reliably detect.

If you're "not sure if someones cheating or just good", maybe that's a mental problem with you? Put differently, if all cheaters were perfectly hidden (aka looked exactly like a real player of that skill level), would you still care? If yes, you seem more interested in a morality than actually enjoying the game.

adastra2212 hours ago

Valve wouldn't purposefully backdoor you for nefarious purposes. But any such code is not nearly reviewed enough to be sure it is free of unintentional backdoors that could be exploited by third parties.

dietr1ch15 hours ago

While I trust valve, I'm not willing to mess up with my workstation to play.

Also, there's hardware cheats, so I don't need a rootkit on my machine, but a server side thing that properly weeds bad players out through reports/trust and automated bans.

Sohcahtoa8211 hours ago

> a server side thing that properly weeds bad players out through reports/trust and automated bans.

No. No no no.

Automated bans via the report system is very well-known to be abused.

Even if you implement a "trust" system where initially, all your reports are manually verified by game staff until its determined your reports are correct until your reports are acted on automatically, all it takes is a player to just be "good" until their trust is high enough, then start reporting people who don't actually deserve it.

And I'm not convinced that server-side anti-cheat can be effective. You have to rely entirely on heuristics. Sure, a simple aim-bot that instantly snaps someone's aim right on someone's head might be detectable, but one that simply lets you see through walls certainly won't be if the player doesn't make it stupidly obvious by pre-aiming around every corner.

janderland15 hours ago

Reports only work so well. Overwatch has MANY cheater in spite of vigorous reporting.

freeAgent14 hours ago

Yeah, I generally trust Valve but gaming is definitely not important enough to me to give them kernel access to my system. I’m sure many gamers disagree with me though.

anonymousab5 hours ago

I take it community moderation tools like voteban/votekick aren't sufficient anymore?

They worked pretty well for pub matches back in CSS and 1.6, where it was pretty trivial for anyone to cheat or bot for free with minimal effort. I wonder what changed.

jonathantf22 hours ago

In a normal 5v5 match, you need everybody else on the team to vote yes to kick the cheater. If they're queued with someone else (which is very likely) then you've got no chance

veunes10 hours ago

Trust in a company plays a huge role here

ehnto12 hours ago

Yep. I would call myself a privacy focused person, but given that Windows is the primary platform for PC gaming, and I trust Microsoft about as far as I can throw a their corporate headquarters, the platform is already compromised. Treat it accordingly, play your games. Maybe watch your adult films and write your memoirs on a different system than your gaming rig.

rldjbpin5 hours ago

valve has their own ethos in this topic, which i wholeheartedly accept. you can guess which end of the spectrum they lie from the original news article.

faceit for the longest time has had their own way around this. so did esea, before they ruined the trust forever (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636233). some highly-motivated players still found ways around it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39352331).

veunes10 hours ago

Ideally, players would be given both a choice and a clear breakdown of what’s actually being collected or monitored.

andrewmcwatters18 hours ago

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

fngjdflmdflg18 hours ago

>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.

flessner16 hours ago

As someone that plays CS2 and Valorant regularly...

Vanguard hasn't been effective for a while now. The cheating situation is a lot worse than CS in my experience, but every discussion gets shutdown because... well... it's Vanguard.

With CS2 I have talked to many players about this and everyone says the same thing: "There's a very noticeable decline in cheaters above 10k Elo."... personally I have pushed beyond 15k and briefly above 20k Elo and the amount of cheaters have steadily declined (although less obvious cheats, eg. wallhack, are probably more common at that level) - for Valorant it has pretty much stayed at a constant amount of "cheatiness" across the ranks.

CS actually has a rich history of features, functions, services?... that aren't strictly anti-cheat...

Overwatch gave players the option to "police" others players replays - this wasn't only against cheating, but also griefing.

Prime? Is it still even a thing? It was great when CSGO went F2P... all the cheaters just annoyed the non-prime players (F2P).

The ominous Trust factor which is probably the single most effective piece in making my personal experience great. But there's no real way to tell?

Also, VacNet - which is running? is AI based? banning players? lowering their trust factor?... with Valve there's no real way to tell most of the time, but it's probably existent in some shape, way or form.

Not to say that CS2 has solved cheating, it's far from it - but neither has Valorant.

+2
fngjdflmdflg16 hours ago
xinayder8 hours ago

They should implement honeypots like they did with Dota 2: https://www.dota2.com/newsentry/3677788723152833273

but yeah I can agree, my friends say CS2 is full of cheaters, I have played 7-12k rating and I got only a few cheaters throughout this whole year of CS2.

and they say they keep playing Valorant because there's way less cheaters than CS2.

akira250116 hours ago

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?

+2
rkharsan6412 hours ago
Hikikomori8 hours ago

Both CS and Valorant has had it for years, MOBA games as well. It works when you have maps with simple geometry.

cmxch16 hours ago

Blizzard’s Warden + their legal team. While not strictly an FPS directed solution, I can play Heroes of the Storm in more places without breaking my system like Vanguard does for League of Legends.

Der_Einzige18 hours ago

Doesn’t matter in a world of AI powered hacks. Kernel level anti cheat isn’t detecting the yolov8 model fine tuned on the head of my enemies.

ok_dad18 hours ago

This video suggests you can catch this type of cheater without even a kernel level anti cheat:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=x-EbjGSRyKA

There’s a lot of other stuff in the video but if you skip the robot building parts at the beginning he talks about an anti cheat system he developed with another person.

orbital-decay17 hours ago

Behavioral analysis (the thing he's talking about) doesn't work that well and has a hard precision limit due to the nature of online gaming. What the player sees, what the server sees, and what other players see are entirely different things. I'm not even talking about plausibly deniable things like visual sound location.

Nobody's using complicated stuff like this in practice though, as there are easier methods. But of course this path can be taken, and it's not possible to block easily.

mmis100014 hours ago

it's not always easy to tell if it's just a player playing weirdly or a mistuned AI though. Maybe the player just have too low mouse sensitivity so it is always a little lagged, maybe it's actualy AI. There is no easy way to tell, and require manual judgement in a lot of cases.

Der_Einzige22 minutes ago

Aimmy is still undetected everywhere except overwatch last I checked:

https://github.com/Babyhamsta/Aimmy

And it's likely that most detection systems can be trivially fooled by me ChatGPTing the code around the way mouse movements are implemented to act slightly different / use a different compiler or something to get different file hashes on the core tool.

logical_person18 hours ago

Prop 65 went great! Let's get a warning out for every game with peer to peer networking while we're at it.

byteknight18 hours ago

I get the argument, but if that is more than a strawman argument to you, I am bewildered. Making a network connection is infinitely less problematic than having root level access to a kernel (translate to windows language for NT)

akira250116 hours ago

> Prop 65 went great!

The secondary effect is that business will stop using processes and chemicals which require them to carry this warning. You've effectively created a new market segment.

Are the labels annoying to the point of comedy? Sure, but it's not /your/ behavior we were trying to modify.

Matheus2816 hours ago

Seeing the warning everywhere has mostly desensitized people to it, which makes it ineffective.

mock-possum14 hours ago

Do you think a large percentage cares about cheats in general?

donatj50 minutes ago

Has anyone made a game where cheating is not just explicitly allowed but is in fact the game? It really seems like there could be something there.

jolmg20 hours ago

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, that this isn't really a problem in Linux, just in Windows.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/gjzkzk/will_w...

zamadatix20 hours ago

The kernel level anticheats are almost always written for Windows. They are relevant to gaming on Linux because those games won't work on Linux even if wine/proton run the user space portions fine

a212812 hours ago

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.

sadeshmukh20 hours ago

Everything says "wants to make changes to your device". I accidentally installed EAC that way.

keyringlight19 hours ago

It's worth noting that when you first install it, steam asks to install a service to assist with its duties, presumably for most install tasks. Steam has been around long enough and that service is now trouble free that it became part of the furniture most ignore as part of the background. That's aside from how users may be trained to hit 'yes' on any permission box that comes up to swat it away and play the game.

jsheard18 hours ago

> It's worth noting that when you first install it, steam asks to install a service to assist with its duties, presumably for most install tasks.

They do this because Steam was originally designed in the XP era when you could write whatever you want to Program Files without escalating to admin, and instead of refactoring where they put their files when Vista made the permissions more strict they started installing that backdoor service which lets them keep putting everything in Program Files without triggering UAC prompts all the time. It's a pretty gross and unnecessary hack, but I doubt they're ever going to fix it at this point.

sunshowers17 hours ago

I don't think this is why -- Steam actually sets permissions on its subdirectory so that any user can write to it. (This means that while installing mods, for example, I can write to that directory without having to deal with UAC/sudo.)

keyringlight7 hours ago

Although I'm not fully linux knowledgeable, I think they put everything under the user profile in ~/.local/share/Steam for similar reasons so they can do software installs with no elevations. They're not the only ones taking that approach though, it's become common across OSes to offer an easy/quick installer that dumps itself in your user profile because that's seems to matter most to getting users up and running.

bjackman18 hours ago

Not on Linux. Things are different on Windows, especially if you wanna play competitive games, I'm told.

lousken21 hours ago

Good, the sooner devs realize they need to do server side properly, the better

arp24220 hours ago

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.

plopz20 hours ago

I think server side statistical analysis can go a long way to detect stuff like that. Obviously its always a cat and mouse game between devs and cheaters, and there are always workarounds, but theres a lot more the devs could be doing without relying on invasive client side detection.

arp24219 hours ago

You can tune the aimbot to be as good as the server allows, maybe with a bit of variation to throw it off.

And realistically, some real non-cheating players will by chance just have similar statistics to bots, especially since the bots will start doing their best to mimic real players.

Also many players don't need to cheat all the time; just in that critical moment when it really matters. Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win? Something like that probably applies to a many people and fields. This is even harder to detect with just statistics.

Also also reminds me of the "you can't respond in less than 100ms, and if start the sprint faster than that after the starting pistol then you're disqualified"-type stuff they have in the Olympics – some people can consistently respond faster and there's a bunch of false positives. Not great.

LinXitoW28 minutes ago

Is the main problem with cheaters that it's unfair, or that it feels unfair/ruins the experience?

Because if you force all the cheaters to hide well enough to look like "normal" players, no one will know, and the game feel will not be negatively impacted. Outside of the tippy top of competition where money becomes involved, it's kind of irrelevant if the game is technically fair, as long as it feels fair to everyone.

ninth_ant12 hours ago

> Also many players don't need to cheat all the time; just in that critical moment when it really matters. Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win? Something like that probably applies to a many people and fields. This is even harder to detect with just statistics.

The difference is that IRL chess and a typical FPS game have very different availability of datasets. IRL chess has both fewer moves per game, and fewer games played in short succession than typical FPS games. Also, with FPS games there is a single metric to evaluate -- the shot landed or missed -- compared with chess where moves are ranked on a scale.

So I'd argue that it would be much easier to do a statistical model to predict a cheating aimbot than it would a cheating IRL chess player. I don't believe Magnus's proposition holds for prolific online chess players when they do dozens or more blitz/bullet games in a single day.

shultays5 hours ago

  Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win
If we are thinking of the same quote, iirc he said all he needs is a prompt from computer "there is a winning move here"
lupusreal7 hours ago

> Didn't Magnus Carlsen say he only needs a single move from a chess computer in the right moment to be virtually guaranteed win?

That's because he's an elite chess player. Him cheating once per game could make the difference between being number 1 or number 10 but either way he's up there.

But for you or me, cheating once per game wouldn't make a difference. We'd still be ranked as nobody plebs. To get ranked high enough for people to know our names we would have to cheat dozens of times a game, and experienced players would easily peg us as cheaters.

Try cheating on chess.com, if you cheat enough to make a meaningful difference their servers will automatically nail you with statistics.

stevemk14ebr14 hours ago

My human aimbot evaded fairfight for years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVdaf6CkqL8

emgeee19 hours ago

I've always wondered about this too. It should be pretty easy to recognize statistical outliers. I'm sure cheaters would start to adapt but that adaptation might start to look more in-line with normal skill levels so at least the game wouldn't be utterly ruined

nicce19 hours ago

Valve has adapted this kind of thing in Counter Strike for almost a decade.

They try to make own matchmaking for possible statistical outliers so cheaters end up playing against each other. Of course, real good players can still get there and there are (at least used to) real humans on reviewing on those games to see if someone is actually a cheater. It is not a simple task, since you can cheat to be just slightly better than others and that is enough to be good.

lifeformed14 hours ago

Good players are statistical outliers. False positives are hard to avoid with this kind of approach.

+1
alex_lav19 hours ago
babypuncher19 hours ago

The problem is that most cheaters don't just go full aimbot and track people through walls. That is a surefire way to make sure your account gets reported, reviewed, and banned regardless of what anti-cheat is in place.

Serial cheaters cheat just enough to give themselves an edge without making it obvious to the people watching them. By just looking at their stats, it can become very difficult (though not impossible) to differentiate a cheater from a pro player. This difficulty increases the odds of getting a false positive, necessitating a higher detection threshhold to avoid banning innocent players.

evoke490820 hours ago

I think the problem is that that kind of work requires a good deal of developer resources for a long time. What company wants to pay upkeep on a shipped product? You could save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by shipping a rootkit to players and not worrying about server security.

+1
a_wild_dandan19 hours ago
vkazanov20 hours ago

Any company that makes big money on long-living multiplayer games?

phito20 hours ago

It would not only take a lot of developer resources, but also computing power.

butterfly4206920 hours ago

BasicallyHomeless did a recent YouTube video on this.

darknavi20 hours ago

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.

arp24219 hours ago

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.

+1
lomase18 hours ago
Rohansi19 hours ago

Latency significantly reduces the effectiveness of culling via the server. There will always be a place for client side anti-cheat if games are running on players' computers.

+2
nicce18 hours ago
gpderetta20 hours ago

On the other hand an aimbot can operate purely on informations you /need/ to send in and out to the physical machine (input peripherals and the screen), so there's that...

zamalek18 hours ago

There is a startup attempting to use ML to find cheaters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkmIItTrQP4 (this video might be overly optimistic) - https://anybrain.gg

They even claim to be able to fingerprint players according their playstyle, thwarting all methods of ban evasion. Skepticism should be abundant here, but this one of the oldest tricks in ML: categorization/clustering. I'm cautiously hopeful.

This would be server-side by nature.

akira250116 hours ago

It makes it way easier to detect it. If a player can pre move their aim to be at the point near where the aimbot would take it by using a wallhack they can hide the action much more clearly. If they're constantly doing 180 no scopes you've got a pretty good indication something is wrong.

Also if your guns aren't _perfectly_ accurate then the aimbot can't actually predict much of anything.

baseballdork20 hours ago

Shouldn't that be detectable?

Cthulhu_19 hours ago

It should be - if a server firehose streams all players' network data to an analysis thing, it should be able to detect patterns of impossible accuracy and response time, even though there is some margin for error due to e.g. lag and packet loss (iirc intentional lag / packet loss are some strategies cheaters use to obfuscate things like aimbots, e.g. generating movements that shoot someone in the head but holding them back for a second or so so that in theory a competent player could have done the required motions within a second instead of 1/100th thereof)

intended11 hours ago

Nope.

Evolutionary pressures on cheaters drives them to get better.

Eventually someone finds a stable chink in the server armor and it is exploited en masse.

The goal is to make it inconvenient to cheat on average.

There’s probably some ratio of games with cheaters to games without cheaters that players can tolerate that governs this.

heromal19 hours ago

Without kernel level anti cheat you can detect (some) other usermode cheats, but not kernel level cheats. With kernel level anticheat, you can detect the vast majority of other kernel level cheats. Vanguard is effective enough that most successful cheaters are using external devices and DMA to bypass the kernel altogether (or they just use Macs because Apple doesn't allow Vanguard). And despite Riot's insistence to the contrary, they have not "detected" DMA cheats.

coretx17 hours ago

Advanced DMA/IOMMU attacks are hard, soft and firmware specific. In order to detect it, you'll have to do a ton of very expensive work all the while you risk destroying the customers soft, firm and hardware. Good luck explaining the judge what you did.

nickphx20 hours ago

if you have a large enough player base to sample, you can determine who is cheating with math. EA Fairplay is pretty good.. Steam's VAC is good, and not some kernel level nonsense..

jsheard19 hours ago

VAC is so not-good that there are not one but two popular third-party matchmaking services for Valves games whose main selling point is much stronger (read: more invasive) anti-cheat than VAC, and one of them even charges a subscription to play, which highly skilled players gladly pay to get away from the cheaters in high-rank VAC servers.

https://play.esea.net / https://www.faceit.com

Rohansi19 hours ago

To some degree, yes. But there are actually many cheaters that intentionally don't play perfectly to avoid detection. That way they appear higher skilled but still within human range.

heromal19 hours ago

VAC is absolutely terrible, are you kidding? You have to rage to get VAC banned.

Brian_K_White17 hours ago

False positives with no process for recourse and nice perfect fingerprinting to prevent ban evasion is better?

I think they intentionally have the knob turned all the way up to 0.1 initially, for PR and lube reasons.

teen20 hours ago

I think most of these companies do do the server side properly. There are plenty of hacks that just make a client play ungodly well. Like macros, aimbots, cooldown tracking, auto-hex

plopz20 hours ago

I'm not sure about that first part, some of the biggest games like gtav is an embarrassment in the concept of never trust the client.

Matheus2820 hours ago

GTA V is an exception because it's so easy to cheat in. I believe it's peer-to-peer with no verification among peers that what happened should actually have happened. It's basically impossible to secure that.

Cthulhu_19 hours ago

I suppose that was an intentional choice, I can imagine running the amount of worlds that GTA has (iirc you only have up to 32 or so players in a world? Something like that) doesn't scale well cost-wise. IDK if AWS and co were up for the task yet back when. But since you earn in-game currency, not having a central authority check these things is... an interesting choice.

I suspect GTA VI may improve on these things and have centralised/dedicated/anti-cheat-guaranteed servers. Then again, it never impacted their profit margins so idk.

veunes10 hours ago

It could eliminate a lot of these issues theoretically

hypeatei20 hours ago

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.

Brian_K_White20 hours ago

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 power to control whatever you want instead of having to cooperate and respect others and respect boundaries. It's no more valid than saying "Everything would be so much better if everyone would just do what I say.". Using that argument is invalid even if supposedly applied in service to some otherwise valid goal.

kelnos18 hours ago

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 is the same (correct) argument against the effectiveness of DRM: if you put things in the hands of a user and client you don't control, then it is a cat-and-mouse game to try to maintain control of those things.

Sure, a naive cheat program of 20 years ago will today obviously look like a cheater. But if you have a cheat that statistically makes you look like a skilled non-cheating player (these things exist today!), the server isn't going to be able to catch you.

I'm not saying that justifies letting another party install what is effectively a rootkit on your hardware. I personally won't do it; I just live without games that require it, and that's fine. Maybe there is some middle ground where some form of client-side anti-cheat can reliably run without kernel-level permissions. But it's a lazy, ignorant argument to just say that game companies haven't come up with it yet because it's "easier" to write a kernel-level system.

+1
Brian_K_White17 hours ago
kuschku8 hours ago

> . 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/

+1
sadeshmukh18 hours ago
Brian_K_White18 hours ago

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.

wilsonnb318 hours ago

> The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property.

What the users want to use their ultimate ownership and control over their own property for is preventing cheating.

It's not like Riot is forcing this on people against their will, people just don't like playing against cheaters.

The only place I ever hear complaints about kernel anti cheats are people complaining because they want to use Linux and it isn't supported or forums like Hacker News, where people paradoxically care so much about peoples computing rights that they are perfectly happy to limit what gamers are allowed to do with their computers.

marcus_holmes11 hours ago

I basically agree with this. Which is why I run a Linux box for gaming, and why I don't play games that have this problem.

I used to play Quake-likes, and there are people who are just that good out there, but it assuages the ego so much more to call them cheaters. I saw this all the time on CS - as soon as someone even halfway good joined, everyone called them a cheater and the game dissolved. I eventually realised that this is not an anti-cheating problem, but a community/personality problem with the people that like playing these games. So I stopped.

tzs18 hours ago

> Not our problem

It is if you want to be allowed to play with other people because...

> The problem of cheating in games does not weigh more than the users ultimate ownership of and control over their own property

...when you play a multiplayer game what happens on your property affects what happens on the property of the other players and often also on the property of the game company. If you want to be allowed to do that you might have to agree to do some things on your property because...

> No one has a right to a business model

...no one has a right to play any particular multiplayer game.

hypeatei18 hours ago

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.

babypuncher19 hours ago

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.

+1
Brian_K_White12 hours ago
throwaway4847620 hours ago

It's not about prevention, but detection.

hypeatei20 hours ago

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!

+1
JoshTriplett19 hours ago
throwaway4847620 hours ago

A prevention model would be like the xbox where technical measures are used to prevent user code. A detection model is server side and detects anomalies for bans.

+2
JoshTriplett19 hours ago
cobalt20 hours ago

and it is a cat and mouse game between cheat and game devs

forgetfreeman20 hours ago

Aaany day now...

juliangmp9 hours ago

They need to disclose when they want to install malware on my system? About time if you ask me...

Terr_17 hours ago

There are two trends in the broader multiplayer game ecosystem which I think are worth highlighting:

1. More games are trying to cut costs with ad-hoc P2P servers, meaning that sometimes important logic is occurring on a not-so-trusted machine.

2. More games are using a revenue model which may be threatened by consumer-side tinkering.

For example, imagine a cooperative game that uses a P2P server, and the host has done something to make it much easier for the squad to get a drop of the Super Special Loot (#1) and the rarity of the loot through gameplay drives many players to purchase it though an in-game store.

mmis100014 hours ago

Critical login happen at client machine is how fps games work at all. It's way too late to judge every hit on server due to the latency. A 40ms latency is 3 frame lag even on a 60fps monitor. And It can be a lot worse in a lot of cases. The server may detect some hit that is too far off and impossible. But it have to trust what client says as long as it is on some reasonable range or the game won't even work.

And that reasonable range isn't that small. It is enough to make every bullet that was supposed to shoot on air shoot on the enemies' heads.

Terr_13 hours ago

Did you mean to post that to a different subthread?

I'm familiar with FPS networking, however I'm talking about a trend where a customer-machine is designated to act as a game-server, so that the company can avoid paying to host one in a dedicated but more-secure fashion.

If that machines happens to be the attacker's, then their scope for chicanery is so much greater than just wallhacks or aimbots.

For example, they might temporarily or permanently grant everyone equipment that is otherwise locked behind some grind-wall, where the company hopes to make money selling a "level boost". While not totally malicious, it's definitely a "hack" the company will oppose.

dang13 hours ago

Related ongoing thread:

Why anti-cheat software utilizes kernel drivers (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42001030 - Oct 2024 (50 comments)

dbrueck18 hours ago

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
  - elite players are insanely good - they are by definition outliers, so looking for statistical outliers is not in itself a solution
  - game companies are highly incentivized to work with (or at least not antagonize) the elite players (so just throwing them in matches with cheaters is not a solution)
  - the stakes are high both for the devs and their users, so "pretty good" anti-cheat is usually insufficient
You can sum things up by saying that kernel-level anti-cheat DRM is the worst solution, except for all of the other solutions.

I hope to see more discussion on possible solutions and tradeoffs - this is a challenging technical problem whose solution (if there is one) is fairly valuable.

[edit: hopefully fixed the tone, per feedback]

sunshowers17 hours ago

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 weren't cheating. As (say) a p80 player, playing against a p99 player feels roughly as bad as playing against a cheater. (But of course the p99 player is doing so honestly.)

ethbr113 hours ago

> historically a large chunk of this problem was solved by communities hosting servers

Yes and no.

I lived through that era too, and there are serious scaling problems: at some point, trying to banhammer griefers with rotating IPs becomes a full time job, and then the public servers turn into a dumpster fire.

sunshowers13 hours ago

Yeah, having written that I was thinking about this as well. There's a lot of unpaid labor involved in that model. Maybe, between rootkits and that kind of exploitation of humans, rootkits are the less unjust option.

ethbr15 hours ago

I'd be curious how many anti-cheat rootkit vendors that there are out there, though. It seems like the sort of industry that consolidation to 3-4 larger, more well-funded vendors would be beneficial in terms of security.

Versus everyone rolling their own or using smaller / cheaper solutions.

jeff_carr12 hours ago

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.

sunshowers11 hours ago

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.

Gamemaster137916 hours ago

> game companies are highly incentivized to work with (or at least not antagonize) the elite players

Actually, this is generally untrue. Companies BELIEVE this but often times, these players are a vocal minority put on pedastal and they often end up making the game worse for the general player base.

dbrueck14 hours ago

Sorry for not being more clear, I was referring to the advertising or promotion that comes via the elite players. Take Valorant, for example. Riot Games leveraged their League of Legends user base and gave early access to high-end players and that apparently played a big part in helping its popularity take off. Now it has a robust presence in eSports, again helped by the high-end players.

It's not uncommon now for popular professional streamers to get early access to new features/modes because the game companies know that those players can help build or retain the player base.

latexr17 hours ago

> I'd love to see more curiosity from the HN community on this.

These kinds of sweeping comments are as frequent as they are tiring. There are other comments like yours in this thread and yours is currently at the top. It has nothing to do with a lack of curiosity, you’re simply seeing the contrarian dynamic at play.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215601

dbrueck17 hours ago

I appreciate the feedback - I've edited the comment to hopefully do better. Thank you for taking the time!

cmxch16 hours ago

Rejoinder: Blizzard’s Warden. No bootkit, no invasive system configuration required, even plays nice with “niche/enthusiast” platforms like Linux, doesn’t even care if your keyboard isn’t a bit niche too.

Thought: If they expect a console level of lockdown, why do they bother writing for the PC? If I wanted a $game_console, I’d buy the console.

dbrueck14 hours ago

Hmm... isn't Blizzard's main FPS title Overwatch though? Cheating seems pretty common in that game (and there are tons of forum threads where people are complaining about it).

LinXitoW21 minutes ago

I have about 1500 hours in OW and OW2. I can't recall ever playing with/against a cheater.

ethbr113 hours ago

Forum threads aren't a great measure of cheating though, given the toxicity and inability of the average gamer to admit "the other player was better than me."

pezezin11 hours ago

There are tons of forum threads about gamers complaining about every single game in history. Seriously, most gaming forums are incredibly toxic.

sadeshmukh18 hours ago

Why isn't server-side anticheat a possible solution? Cheats can spoof inputs purely through visual output as well, meaning there cannot be full trust client-side.

burnished17 hours ago

Not an expert but I've done a little reading and basically the combination of real time actions and a network makes it intractable, you end up just having to trust the client on some things (or having to make trade offs like a client potentially not having the information needed to display the game state to the player, or choppy/unresponsive gameplay as a function of latency).

FactKnower6915 hours ago

>some things

Any specific examples? I hear this said all the time and it's almost never true.

Movement, for example: many decide to just let clients be fully authoritative over their positions and then act shocked when teleport hacks drop. Just keep track of the player's max move speed server-side, continually validate, and flag if they consistently move faster than is possible according to the server. No one is ever saying you have to validate inputs server-side in lock step with zero client-side prediction whatsoever and enforce 200ms of input lag for all players.

+1
lifeformed14 hours ago
fireant13 hours ago

We're mostly talking about FPS here, you've got 2 main cheat categories: aimbots and esps (visibility hacks)

Esps are purely client side, they read actors from game's memory and draw a client side overlay. It's impossible to protect against these on the server. Even if you had perfect culling from the server (didn't send players behind walls for example) you'd still have semitransparent surfaces like foliage and smoke. There are people making good money in PUBG just making enemy textures that are easier to see. You need kernel anticheat to prevent the cheat reading the memory. Also you want to take screenshots periodically and detect overlays.

Aimbots in the olden days could be detected on the server because their movements were instant, precise, unnatural snaps. But these days cheat developers have wisened up. Again the best protection is to prevent the cheat from reading the games memory in the first place, some anticheats go as far as to try to prevent input from any artificial device (so the cheat can't create mouse movement)

There are also movement hacks, but I don't think that these are really common these days. You can detect protect against these on the server side

Hikikomori3 hours ago

Just adding that occlusion only works with games that have simple geometry, 90 degree corners, straight corridors, enclosed areas and no large difference in elevation. So its useful in games like CS or Valorant, but will not work well in open games like Battlefield or Escape from Tarkov.

There's also DMA based cheats that will read memory with another computer which can then output an ESP overlay to a HDMI or DP merge box that will show both the game and overlay on your monitor. They can also do aimbot by adding mouse inputs to a device you connect your mouse.

Websites sell DMA cards and these other devices together.

ukd117 hours ago

Oh it's a solution, it's just worse than kernel-level - as it's much easier to bypass.

phire15 hours ago

A good anti-cheat solution needs both client side and server side components, they complement each other.

You also need active human involvement, both as moderators and evolving the anti-cheat technology over time.

bitsandboots4 hours ago

Perhaps true of competitive games. But I find anticheat mainly exists to protect microtransaction games. And generally those games aren't worth playing, so having the little badge on steam can help avoid wastes of time.

nox10111 hours ago

Do you think it will escalate to the point that client side checks will be worthless? Say in 5yrs I can let an AI watch the screen and control the mouse and keyboard. From the rootkitted computer, it can't tell I used an external AI to control the USB keyboard and mouse.

zerd10 hours ago

In 5 years -> hobby project 3 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXA7zXVz8A4

1276 hours ago

Just use local servers and player validation signatures. Faceless matchmaking is bullshit. Local communities win. Don't mix e-sports with casual game-play. Just like you don't need a security detail for the average person, you don't need invasive anti-cheat for the average gamer.

FactKnower6915 hours ago

>no, you can't completely solve this server side

This is what every dev who can't be bothered to implement relevancy filters says when their server broadcasts the locations of every hidden player to every other player every tick and wallhacks drop a week later

Exactly what can't be fixed server side? Are you just talking about aimbots and other situations where script kiddies can trivially author bots that generate optimal inputs? Because at a certain point that's more a problem with shitty, boring game design that got stale 20 years ago; if the top of your game's execution ceiling is "can the player click on heads perfectly" you have bigger problems

Hikikomori2 hours ago

Server side can not do anything about ESP or aimbot as they rely only in information that the server must provide the to the client. ESP can be curbed somewhat by obfuscating objects not in their view, but how effective this is depends very much on map geometry as the server must send it at some point. It works okay in games like CS/Valorant (that already has it implemented for years) but does basically nothing in Battlefield/Apex/Escape from Tarkov as they have very open maps. Aimbot can be configured to be pretty much indistinguishable from the best players.

dbrueck14 hours ago

Relevancy filtering is more for network traffic optimization, it doesn't really help with cheating in most cases. In a FPS, for example, the actors the cheater most wants to know about are almost always also network relevant.

But taking a step back, for fast games (like an FPS), the latency requirements drive you to send semi-secret info to the client (like the positions of other players), and so that's where things start to break down. But the traffic in the other direction is a problem too, as you have all of the scenarios in which the messages to the server (e.g. aim info, timing of weapon of firing) can be spoofed or engineered.

The motivation for the client-side anti-cheat systems is to extend as far as possible the envelope of what is considered trustworthy - i.e. if they can't solve the latency problem, then they try to make the client more trusted.

It's impossible to completely solve the problem, so it's about finding a solution that solves as much of the problem as possible. Unfortunately the main thing going for kernel anti-cheat is that most users don't care that they have to let someone root their machines to play a game, though the tide would likely turn if there were a high publicity exploit.

lifeformed14 hours ago

"All cheats can be trivially solved server side, as long as I exclude all games I don't like, which are also the games where the problem is hardest to solve and most relevant to the discussion."

talldayo17 hours ago

> I'd love to see more curiosity from the HN community on this.

I'd love to see more curiosity from developers - the disappointment is mutual. Instead of attempting to systematically stop all forms of cheating through innovative or competitive methods, it would appear the industry is converging on dangerous half-measures and excusing it with evidence from a clearly failing system.

What should we, the users, expect? Perfect, cheat-free software that surveils us endlessly, or "good enough" security that lets users decide for themselves which servers are suitable? Let me cast my vote, and I know which ideal I consider realistic and attainable.

Levitating17 hours ago

> I'd love to see more curiosity from developers

Developers spent millions on Anti-Cheat. It's why entire products like EasyAntiCheat and BattleEye exists.

Valve spent a LOT of time and effort on VACNet, a server side machine learning based Anti-Cheat primarily trained only on CS:GO verdicts and it was awful still.

Developers know the common methods used by cheaters. That includes exploiting known vulnerable kernel drivers to run code in the kernel. The only way to monitor for this is to utilize a kernel module loaded before that of the cheater. That's why the current state of Anti-Cheat is the way it is.

The developers of various anti-cheats like Vanguard have been very transparent about this.[1]

[1]: https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/dev/dev-null-anti...

gnuser1 hour ago

Im annoyed at all the servile responses in defense of these bad companies.

Wanna hear my conspiracy theory?

Three letter agencies are using games as an intel gathering tool, and KLA is part of that. What if the CEOs are getting NSLs, etc?

jokoon58 minutes ago

what if they do? does that bother you?

LinuxBender18 hours ago

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...
butterfly4206920 hours ago

The biggest giveaway the kernel level anti cheat is stupid is that Easy Anti-Cheat works on Linux without kernel level access.

jsheard20 hours ago

It only works on Linux if the developer allows it, because it's not nearly as effective on Linux. Rust (the game not the language) uses EAC but doesn't run on Linux by choice for example. Neither does Fortnite. Apex Legends uses EAC and does run on Linux, and now nearly every public cheat for that game targets the Linux version because it's such a soft target.

I don't really like the status quo of installing random kernel-mode crap either, but nobody has a compelling answer for how to not make cheating absolutely trivial without it. Usermode anticheat barely does anything, serverside anticheat can only do so much, and the only other alternative is switching to console platforms which prevent cheating by giving the user zero freedom.

NekkoDroid19 hours ago

Still wondering what kinda special sauce that Blizzard is using in Overwatch. In my literal thousands of hours of playtime I encountered so few blatant cheaters its probably still in the double digit. Are there probably a good amount of cheaters I didn't realize were cheaters? probably, but does it really matter if you don't realize they are cheating?

trissylegs19 hours ago

PirateSoftware on twitch/youtube talks about his time at blizzard working on catching cheaters in WoW. Their methods are usually about figuring out how they're cheating and what behaviors cheaters follow.

Before overwatch they had years of experience catching cheaters in wow.

ChocolateGod20 hours ago

> game targets the Linux version because it's such a soft target.

I was going to say games on Linux should require secure boot so cheat kernels and modules can't run, but then the kernel could just lie about it being enabled.

jsheard19 hours ago

Most Linux cheats don't even bother with kernel modules, a process running as root can read and write arbitrary memory in the game process without an unprivileged usermode anticheat having any way to know it's happening. It's embarrassingly easy compared to the hoops you have to jump through to maybe avoid detection on Windows.

sunshowers16 hours ago

Right, provenance is an issue.

I suspect the only way that might balance everyone's interests would be to set up a separate OS installation for competitive games. This could be done via bare-metal dual boot, via a hypervisor, or just by having a completely different computer for playing games on (what I have). At least in that world you still have a lot more freedom than you do on console, such as the ability to mod games that don't need anti-cheat (which is almost all of them).

supportengineer19 hours ago

Not a gamer - Is Steam basically a package manager like 'yum' or 'brew', but for games?

sunshowers17 hours ago

Like 10% of Steam is yum/brew. The other 90% is:

* GUI

* managing installations, including things like Proton to run Win32 games on Linux, and Fossilize to precompile shaders

* bandwidth-saving stuff like being able to transfer games locally

* being able to play remotely in a variety of configurations: LAN, WAN, or having a friend connect to your local session ("Remote Play Together")

* pretty good support for mapping any controller you have to any controller inputs a game wants

* cloud saves

* a bunch of community features like forums and broadcasting

* family sharing

* a VR runtime

* marketing for devs (regular sales, algorithmic recommendations etc)

* an API for devs with various services

* the backend infrastructure for all of the above

It's been around for a long time so it's quite feature-rich at this point. Lots of things that generally make sense to have.

m46314 hours ago

and telemetry

red_admiral8 hours ago

More like an app store, which is really just a GUI/payments/licence layer on top of a package manager.

ranger20718 hours ago

Similar to Google Play with Google Play Services: both an app store and a set of services for games to use

ukd117 hours ago

Yes; but more like the apple App Store - they take a cut, and (to some/varying extent) try to ensure some level of legitimacy / quality.

PeakKS18 hours ago

More like flatpak/flathub since it has it's own runtime, with the addition of community features and purchasing.

dark-star19 hours ago

more like an app store

Jnr18 hours ago

Yes, and also a store and a community platform.

0cf8612b2e1e20 hours ago

I built a dedicated gaming PC a couple of years ago. Too much cowboy coding in the industry for me to feel safe running this code on my main computer. Even games for which I pay have supposedly* been scanning/uploading personal data presumably for some adtech purposes.

Why should I ever trust a gaming company to take security seriously? There was a story a few years ago about how one guy at home debugged GTA5’s atrocious loading times without any resources. Loading times which were notoriously bad and surely had a negative impact on revenue, yet nobody in the company could be bothered.

*Never verified it, but I recall the new owners of Kernel Space Program were accused of reporting personal data files to the cloud.

Cthulhu_19 hours ago

Oh yeah, that was down to a huge JSON file / slow JSON parser or something wasn't it? That was so bad.

tpxl11 hours ago

They wrote their own json parser which used strlen() all over the place, which is O(n), resulting in O(n^2) complexity for json parsing. The guy shimmed the function to return a cached response if it was called with the same string consecutively, which it was for parsing the JSON. The JSON contained the items in the real-money store btw.

Topfi20 hours ago

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 course, that is a great move for those who actually are willing to walk-the-walk, just asking whether we should perhaps temper our expectations on the impact of such a measure.

dmonitor19 hours ago

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...

grayhatter19 hours ago

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?

righthand15 hours ago

FYI - Denuvo paid for that study.

bitwize19 hours ago

[flagged]

lomase18 hours ago

As Gabe Newell said "piracy is a service problem"

I could pirate every game I have on my Steam account. I don't do it because the added value that Steam gives me.

+2
bhelkey18 hours ago
Thaxll17 hours ago

Gabe newell has 0 value in that discussion, Steam is defacto the monopoly on PC, when you make billions by not doing anything and taking 30% on every game it's less of an issue.

The other funny thing is that Half Life 2 came out with full blown DRM that only decrypted when the game released.

m46314 hours ago

A better example would be GOG.

coretx17 hours ago

DRM is not going away because the extra power it provides can be monetized.- Shareholders and investors want money at all cost. Ask anyone in any creative field. Very few are rights holders. They have food on their table despite DRM and their rights being coerced from them.

ls61218 hours ago

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.

AdmiralAsshat20 hours ago

Do kernel-level anti-cheat measures even work if I'm running Steam as a Flatpak + Using the game under Proton? I (naively, perhaps) assumed the security sandboxing model of flatpak would restrict that level of access.

LelouBil20 hours ago

Does any Linux kernel level anti cheat exists ?

If you're running under proton, it can't work. Proton/wine are not virtualizing a windows kernel, they are intercepting syscalls/library calls and running the equivalent linux code.

tdb789320 hours ago

Some anti-cheat has clients for Linux (the ones that don't generally just disallow playing on Proton). I don't think the Linux ones are kernel level but don't quote me on that.

andrewmcwatters19 hours ago

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.

juunpp19 hours ago

The anti-cheat also goes hand in hand with the predatory business models of "always online" and micro transactions. Those things sell because of advantage over other players or just social factors in the case of cosmetics. Wouldn't be as relevant in an offline game. But now, since the game is online (for business, not technical, reasons), we need some way to keep everyone honest.

I'm just hoping this entire business model dies, along with the anti-cheat and everything else with it.

janderland15 hours ago

Strange take. These things are being put forward by major companies who hire very good engineers. Riot Games makes the most popular game in the entire world (League of Legends) and they use kernel-level anti-cheating. I interviewed with them and found their test to be one of the more difficult ones I’ve taken. I’m not under the impression they lack the necessary knowledge.

tightbookkeeper40 minutes ago

Poor networking -> need for anti-cheat

Does not mean:

Using anti-cheat -> poor networking

Ops comment is absolutely true. Engineers in games who are good have high incentive to 5x their salary and lifestyle by doing anything else.

This was not true in 1997. The industry also just attracts a different crowd, more adjacent to film and entertainment than it used to.

a212811 hours ago

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.

pjmlp19 hours ago

This is very much welcomed.

imchillyb12 hours ago

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 dissuades those users though as they don't know or care. What dissuades these users are the difficulties that these systems present to the uninformed user.

The typical end user doesn't know how to 'fix-it' when things go wrong. PC vendors won't support the issue. The game publisher won't support the issue. The game developer rarely supports the issue. Kernel level blah-blah-blah causes a blah-blah-blah. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody wants to fix it.

And, to top off this defecation-confection, the user is left with software that they paid for and cannot use or access. No refunds. Sorry. And, and, and!!! There are still cheaters on the platform. Every platform. There's your f'n cherry.

This is bad for the entire industry.

jeff_carr12 hours ago

> 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_.

mattigames20 hours ago

I still hope someday the European Union forces Steam to allow transferring of games "owned", even if it's time-restricted (e.g. can't transfer the same game twice in a month)

Cthulhu_19 hours ago

Oh yeah, they did rule that you were legally allowed to transfer / resell digital games... but not that Steam & co had to offer the option.

dark-star18 hours ago

...but you don't buy the game anymore, you acquire a license for using (playing) it.

If you want games that you can re-sell, you will have to keep buying them on physical media (or on appstores that don't have DRM like GOG)

mattigames18 hours ago

I know, that's why I added quotes around "owned", so in other words what I meant is that the EU should force Steam to create the option to transfer that license among its own users.

dark-star18 hours ago

Yeah but I can just assume that this would also apply to e.g. Microsoft Windows licenses, and that Microsoft lobbies strongly against such a law (also every other vendor who locks software licenses to a particular end-user or licensee)

Note that I wouldn't very much welcome such a law but I wouldn't bet on it happening any time soon

tpxl11 hours ago

You can, and people do, resell Windows licenses in Europe. Microsoft seethes about it, but can go fuck itself, because this is legal.

bastard_op19 hours ago

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%.

lomase18 hours ago

I think the end goal of Valve is to support anticheats in Linux. But they want the Kernel to provide an API for it, so you don't need to run the anticheat like a driver.

bastard_op17 hours ago

But will a canned, defined api ever be good enough? As soon as someone paints a border, someone will step over it. It's the reason security products in windoze as well as anti-cheats require kernel-level access, and why outages like the crowdstrike one a few months ago occur and why microsoft lets it (for now).

It's an arms race, and no api will ever be good enough to keep a miscreant from working against logical choices. If I have to play a game that I have to assume someone is cheating, I really don't want to play that game, or at least with others of dubious reputation. This is why I run my own server for games I like to play with others I trust.

If someone wants to play competitively publicly with anti-cheats, they should opt-in to do so, but I'd like the option to not, and simply play local or private instances with my own general TOS. If diplomacy fails, a ban option for the server.

Jnr18 hours ago

1.9% already :)

two_handfuls17 hours ago

They didn't already? O.o I thought Steam was better than that.

agentultra18 hours ago

Yeah… it’s more that the anti-cheat itself provides surface area for RCE’s than the anti-chest company using it nefariously.

bigstrat200319 hours ago

Good. I absolutely refuse to compromise my system by using these things. Games should be required to let people know what they are signing up for.

And if that means more companies choose to avoid kernel anti-cheat, so much the better. I'm still mad that I can't play Helldivers 2 - a freaking co-op game where cheaters can't pose a problem - because of this nonsense.

Cthulhu_19 hours ago

> a freaking co-op game where cheaters can't pose a problem

Winning doesn't give you any permanent rewards?

bigstrat20038 minutes ago

Why would that matter? If someone gets rewards that they didn't earn, it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.

m46314 hours ago

so anti-cheat, but not drm?

throwaway4847621 hours ago

After the crowdstrike disaster 3rd party kernel drivers need to be shunned for non critical applications.

Games publishers have been bad actors in this space for a long time now. The genshin impact anticheat was used in a malware campaign. Rockstar was very misleading trying to imply their kernel driver not being compatible with the steam deck was valves fault.

RobotToaster21 hours ago

Lets call them what they really are, rootkits.

OtomotO20 hours ago

That's exactly what I tell my friends.

I can't play certain games, because they don't run on Linux and even if they did, I am not gonna install a rootkit to run them.

kibwen20 hours ago

Getting a Steam Deck has done wonders for my piece of mind. I don't need to worry if whatever games I'm installing are malicious, because the machine is airgapped from anything critical.

OtomotO20 hours ago

Same, but I am only using it for couch gaming

+1
dark-star19 hours ago
tw0415 hours ago

Ultimately, this is why we have consoles. We can have rootkits, or we can have cheating. Nobody has solved cheat prevention without rootkits. If you can, you’d make millions, if not billions. It’s not like the game creators want to have software on your system that has the potential to brick your system.

+1
slimsag14 hours ago
kibwen14 hours ago

> Ultimately, this is why we have consoles.

Nah. Consoles were a decade late to the online gaming party, and online gaming on consoles (counting Xbox Live as the first concerted attempt) has only been around half as long as consoles as a product segment have existed.

jm414 hours ago

Running games in a VM appliance or an immutable container type of environment could be neat. Or some kind of hardware device. Like a console on an expansion card that could enable a secure environment while still letting you use your hardware.

rendaw13 hours ago

This is a false dichotomy. Genshin is single player. Some people play multiplayer only with friends. The only legit use for anti-cheat is competitive multiplayer with strangers.

+2
j-bos15 hours ago
andyferris15 hours ago

Hmm, here’s a thought I’ve never had (but might be obvious to others).

Could I run windows as a VM guest under Linux and play Fortnite in that (with good GPU performance)? I don’t mind their rootkit running on some dedicated VM - I’ll just consider it my Fortnite unikernel.

(I’m also ok with the host OS being Windows or MacOS).

+1
quenix15 hours ago
Thaxll20 hours ago

And yet you install driver on Linux without knowing it, I mean Linux has 0 security for drivers.

+1
throwaway4847620 hours ago
burnished17 hours ago

You gotta think about surface area and risk when comparing apples to oranges here.

jrepinc20 hours ago

This, so much this. Also often spyware.

schmidtleonard20 hours ago

First party malware.

cmxch17 hours ago

And in the case of Vanguard, a bootkit.

kulahan20 hours ago

Can't wait to find out what China hid in Riot's Vanguard rootkit for all their games. It's 100% a conspiracy theory, but nobody can convince me it's perfectly clean, or if it is, that there isn't an easy way to add some power to it quietly.

throwaway4847620 hours ago

China's national security assistance law came up in the TikTok hearings. There's no reason to believe that the CCP doesn't have the legal authority to compel Riot to push an update with a backdoor to a few select high value targets.

+1
gorjusborg20 hours ago
PaulHoule20 hours ago

If it is written in C you can always introduce a buffer overflow or something similar by just adding a little bit of line noise here or there and nobody can prove it was deliberate.

+1
throwaway4847620 hours ago
Levitating17 hours ago

The vanguard drivers are signed by Microsoft, the procedure for which includes a safety audit by Microsoft.

The driver is just what the developers say it is (as with all other anti-cheat). It provides an untempered interface for the userland anti-cheat to use to get info from the kernel. Because modern cheats tend to alter the output of kernel syscalls by running in the kernel themselves.

I really don't see why anyone needs to think it's anything more than that.

If Tencent needed to spy on you so badly there's no reason kernel anti-cheats need anything to do with it...

kulahan1 hour ago

The level of sophistication that can go into a hack when sponsored by a nation-state is incredible. Just remember Stuxnet all the way back in '06 or whatever it was. Tech was a lot less advanced nearly two decades ago. It's not right, imo, to leave your safety up to this process.

cmxch17 hours ago

It says something about Microsoft when they OK a known harmful bootkit that expects your computer to act like an XBox with a fancy keyboard (but not too fancy), requests invasive changes to UEFI that have broken systems, and have an overall opacity that rivals an Arthur C. Clarke Monolith.

Hikikomori2 hours ago

Drivers are generally not audited by Microsoft to be signed, you only need to register your EV cert to get it signed. Cheat developers have registered their own/gotten their hands on EV certificates to create a kernel driver cheats. Anti cheat like Battleeye also download anti cheat modules at runtime to obfuscate what they do.

perillamint12 hours ago

MS usually don't bother with driver audit... They mostly rely on EV certificate to check driver dev is a proper legal entity.

If they audit properly, they should not let the Asus AuraSync driver certified at the first time. (basically opens PORT instruction to every userland app, unristricted)

gruez14 hours ago

>The vanguard drivers are signed by Microsoft, the procedure for which includes a safety audit by Microsoft.

Did the crowdstrike driver get the same audit?

+1
1515513 hours ago
jsheard20 hours ago

If I wanted to deploy a trojan horse then the last place I would try to hide it is in an anti-cheat driver that will without any doubt be exhaustively analysed by people attempting to bypass it.

+3
bravetraveler20 hours ago
+1
throwaway4847620 hours ago
tapoxi20 hours ago

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.

bigstrat200320 hours ago

> They expose a kernel API to allow games to verify the state of the system

And that API has root access... thus it's a rootkit.

+2
tapoxi19 hours ago
lomase19 hours ago

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.

+1
davrosthedalek14 hours ago
jolmg20 hours ago

> They expose a kernel API to allow games to verify the state of the system, and they're knowingly installed by the user.

Can you give examples of games where you do that?

billyoyo20 hours ago

Riot games use theirs (Vanguard) to improve detection of cheating software. basically the idea is by being on from the moment the computer is booted up it can validate the environment better.

Here's a recent blog post by riot detailing their recent deployment of the system for league of legends, the biggest online multiplayer game in the world

https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-gb/news/dev/dev-vanguard-...

towards the end it talks about how and why it works

orbital-decay18 hours ago

> The genshin impact anticheat was used in a malware campaign. Rockstar was very misleading trying to imply their kernel driver not being compatible with the steam deck was valves fault.

I mean, nothing of this is new. ESEA, one of the most influential esports leagues, was caught using its anticheat to mine Bitcoin in 2013. [1] This is long out of control, probably since the days BattlEye switched to ring0 in 2012 due to chronic cheating in the DayZ mod, or maybe earlier. Modern anticheats are full-fledged rootkits with extremely complex and targeted payloads siphoning customer data and hijacking all sorts of stuff, and that's not a theory, they actively abuse players' trust and indifference.

If you care about your data and the control of your devices, you should probably avoid them entirely, or at least use them on dedicated gaming PCs on a clean identity, and keep them separate from your LAN and your non-gaming digital life.

[1] https://play.esea.net/forums/492102

wilsonnb318 hours ago

People really need to find a better word than 'rootkit' to describe software that users willingly and intentionally give root access.

drilbo16 hours ago

I think it's fair to say that a lot of users have no idea they're doing so, hence why changes like the one in TFA are necessary to encourage transparency around these practices

chainingsolid15 hours ago

I've ran the installer for Vallorent. I don't remember it telling me it was going to go run code in ring 0. And I would likely have ended the install there if they listed any of the downsides.

For most gamers you'd have to invoke Cloud Strike, to explain whats happening. They play games not study CS.

Nathanba14 hours ago

I agree, we need something that emphasizes that it executes undesired functions. "Trojan horse" would fit better but it's associated with computer virii now. I think I would call it something like "Traitor software".. it generally does the functions you installed it for and pretends to be normal software but then when you aren't looking it betrays you later.

froggit14 hours ago

It's quite literally kit running as root...

davrosthedalek14 hours ago

It's quite literally not. Root is technically a user with extra rights (including modifying the kernel, but there is still an API the root user has to go through). This is running as part of the kernel. It's not running in userland "as root".

A rootkit is something that gives other users the power of root.

hayst4ck16 hours ago

Crowdstrike isn't even the worst case. The SolarWinds disaster is the worst case scenario.

You have a closed source rootkit designed for finding data in raw memory (like passwords from an unlocked password manager), loaded into many gamer's machines, which many software engineers are. Some anti cheat explicitly support's arbitrary remote code execution by design. Many people mix their personal password vaults with their company's, which means that if you successfully hack an anticheat company and you can read the raw memory of an opened password manager with a program that is already designed to scan all processes memory, you now potentially have extremely valuable credentials. A small portion will even do things like add their 2fac keys into their vaults.

Here is Gabe Newell's thoughts on AntiCheat that are very relevant to this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1y70ej/valve_vac_an...

Of course the other problem is the 23andMe problem and enshitification. Even if the data uploaded by anti-cheat isn't used right now, the storage of data alone creates incentive for abuse.

Gigachad16 hours ago

Something slightly related happened recently. A bit of malware that was distributed as a mod for BeamNG was installed by a high up Disney employee, who was also logged in to some internal work stuff. The hackers were able to leak huge amounts of company data.

gauge_field15 hours ago

I just want to spam skill shot with ranged-heros on Aram 1-2 times a week. No way I am running vanguard for that!!!!

doublerabbit21 hours ago

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.

Nadya20 hours ago

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 an ever-increasing number of Pi-devices where the cheating is done externally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpvwjC1_Luo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=revk5r5vqxA

tadfisher20 hours ago

That's child's play. The vogue is PCIe devices that sniff draw calls, memory transfers and network activity on the bus.

ThatPlayer20 hours ago

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.

lomase19 hours ago

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.

Thaxll17 hours ago

Performance impact is overblown, it was proven that the lost of perf is marginal when implemented properly.

Nadya16 hours ago

Proven by who and what proof? Because Denuvo is the only one outspoken about how it doesn't impact performance despite all evidence to the contrary and they provide no evidence of their own beyond claiming it doesnt. Then saying they'll prove it doesn't and then backing out of proving it.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/irdeto-backtracks-on-plans-...

stuckkeys15 hours ago

What is the name of the tool that he is using on the 2nd link you shared? You know for science.

avery1721 hours ago

It hasn't stopped hackers though.

lomase19 hours ago

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.

orwin16 hours ago

It's because nowadays cheats run on a secondary machine, often a Pi,so rootkits have less impacts.

caiomassan20 hours ago

at least they need to search more than the first cheat option on google.

throwaway4847621 hours ago

Critical as in "my gpu is a paperweight without a driver".

sgjohnson20 hours ago

GPU driver can technically be userland too.

Look at what Apple has done in recent years. kexts (kernel-level drivers) are basically all but unsupported today, and both DriverKit and IOKit are fully userland.

throwaway4847620 hours ago

Performance critical drivers are always going to be kernel mode.

2OEH8eoCRo020 hours ago

> 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.

kelnos18 hours ago

I think you're framing this the wrong way.

Is it fun to be a non-cheater, and join a multi-player game where there are other players using software cheats that let them easily beat you every single time?

I'm pretty sure I would quickly stop playing that game, and demand the publisher refund my money. That's just not fun.

And that's just as a casual gamer. For people who compete and win prizes, endorsements, etc., the stakes are a bit higher.

I'm not saying kernel-level rootkits installed on everyone's machine is the answer, but letting people cheat isn't going to work either.

FactKnower6916 hours ago

Community-run and moderated servers easily fixed this issue decades ago. Maybe video games should be fun centers of community again instead of maximally isolating and atomizing skinner boxes designed to make children addicted to endlessly practicing and competing at worthless skills so the sunk cost keeps them buying loot boxes

codebje20 hours ago

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).

+2
prerok19 hours ago
0x45718 hours ago

> (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).

+1
lomase19 hours ago
+3
heromal19 hours ago
Thaxll20 hours ago

Cheats and bots are ruining online games though.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y719 hours ago

Back when communities hosted servers instead of companies, it seemed less common, even though it was easier to do.

eertami17 hours ago

Back then you could just quit the server/match if somebody was obviously cheating (or they got banned).

With competitive matchmaking cheaters can hold players hostage until the end of the match, as leaving incurs penalties and cooldowns that temporarily ban you from playing.

YPPH16 hours ago

There are also cheaters on old games (Modern Warfare II (2009)) that will inject code into your client to disable the quit menu, so you have to dashboard. I can't imagine what psyche someone must have to not only cheat, but force people to play against them.

0x45718 hours ago

Because those were community servers often built around community. There weren't a lot of them either.

If admins allow cheating - people that want to play would leave the server

If live in a non-metro area, you probably have a handful of server your latency allows you to play on - getting banned would be a big suck

Now you just click "play game" and you get match with some strangers you might never play ever again with. Financially, those privately hosted servers no longer make economical sense for game publishers.

pid-114 hours ago

That was not my personal experience. CS and Warcraft 3 community lobbies featured rampant cheating. Way more than CS:GO and Dota 2.

ThatPlayer19 hours ago

Because games were less common. If you look at community hosted servers now they commonly have more anti cheat, not less. Counterstrike with FaceIT and ESEA. Even FiveM for GTA V rolled out a custom anti cheat before it was added to the official game.

prerok19 hours ago

Life was a bit simpler then. At that point in time the leaders also did not get millions for their wins.

evanriley19 hours ago

And Kernel level anti-cheat isn't stopping them.

bigstrat200320 hours ago

Perhaps, but it's far better to have cheaters and bots than to have games require a rootkit to play them.

kelnos18 hours ago

I think that's a matter of opinion.

Personally I find both unacceptable: I won't play a game that requires me to install a rootkit, and I won't play a game where cheaters and bots run rampant, ruining the fun for everyone.

So hopefully there's a solution to this that doesn't require a rootkit.

Thaxll18 hours ago

You definitely don't play games, this is one of the reasons why people stop playing games.

+1
bigstrat200317 hours ago
Cthulhu_19 hours ago

Well no, because they ruin the online experience making people not play the game.

(in theory, GTA online has had / still has huge problems with bots and cheats but still earns the publisher hundreds of millions a year)

throwaway4847619 hours ago

They have problems because they're cheap and don't want to pay to host servers. They don't want to let people host their own authoritative server either because of the $billions in fake money.

bigstrat200317 hours ago

I understand that cheaters suck. I'm saying that in this case, the cure (kernel access) is worse than the disease.

YPPH16 hours ago

This is why I preferred console gaming. You never encountered cheaters until very late in the console's generation. Crossplay ruined that.

umvi20 hours ago

Yeah life sucks when everything and everyone has to be untrusted (applies not just video games).

The solution is to build trusted spaces again IMO.

For video games assume that each user is trusted by default. As soon as they violate that trust by cheating, they are banned permanently for that copy of the game. If they want to be trusted again they have to buy another copy of the game to get another license. Make it hard to become a member of a trusted community and easy to be kicked out of a trusted community for violating trust. This would eliminate the vast majority of cheating and bots because most gamers are kids and having to buy a fresh copy will hit hard. If they abuse it enough, make them jump through more hoops like ip bans and computer fingerprint bans.

billyoyo19 hours ago

This is a naive take. Of course these developers already permaban cheaters. Firstly many of these games are free to play so "getting another license" is a non issue. They're doing hardware bans nowadays which are harder to avoid but not impossible.

Half the battle is detection though. If you don't detect cheaters quick enough they ruin enough games that genuine players start getting frustrated and leave. Anti cheats help with this detection.

Probably every anti cheat idea you can think of, in terms of detection, prevention and punishment, has probably already been tried by a large online multiplayer game. It is an extremely difficult problem to solve, a constant arms race.

+1
umvi17 hours ago
+1
keyringlight19 hours ago
codebje20 hours ago

False positives would very much hurt in that model. But returning to a small multiplayer experience with chosen friends would work: the in/out decision is local and personal.

It’s only a problem when you game with strangers.

daedrdev19 hours ago

Talking just about games, this really doesn't work with free games. Even if there is a lengthy 'lockout' period from the real game, many games have rampant and cheap accounts for sale and doing so will make the game experience worse.

DEATHROW19 hours ago

[flagged]