> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private.
You’re not a gamer so you don’t have a word here. I was a competitive gamer and I would happily accept even the game where you need a government id to be allowed to play in ranked/matchmaking. I do dual boot for gaming/home stuff though.
Uninstalled riot years ago, not playing games that dont run on linux with proton, problem solved and you should do the same.
Avoiding to play games that take over my system on a low-level is a no go, I can live without LoL or BF6 and I live even better :)
ignoring this problems means you don't care about your identity, data, privacy and you prefer to keep ignoring this and play the games that hype abd you like, but inside you know that long term your are profiled and such profiling will be used against you!
I must admit I immediately questioned the credibility of the article when the author admitted they "aren't a gamer" and then started making allusions to vague political threads. Not to say these criticisms aren't valid, but they're a weird jumping off point
The reality is none of the companies want to do these things. Every step in this process locks out some subset of customers. And that's not including the ones who meet the technical requirements but are turned off enough by the decision to just avoid the games anyway
They're an unfortunate response to how utterly profitable and expansive cheating in online games has become. They cost the companies precious development time that could be spent making the game better to instead make it just vaguely "playable" for normal people
I play a lot. Competitive shooters mostly. Most of them are unplayable for one or two reasons. Cross play (controllers with aim assist) and cheaters. As a PC player I would like to see no aim assist and actual consequences for cheating. I’ll gladly verify my real world identity, if it meant cheaters where banned once and forever. I’ve heard this is how it works in Korea (claim not verified) and could see it work here too as most of Europe has access to very UX friendly state sponsored digital ID.
If there were actual stakes to cheating, it would be less prevalent. Now you can create another account and keep playing. Often for free!
On a side note. How come replay analysis doesn’t catch more cheaters?
> "How come replay analysis doesn’t catch more cheaters?"
1) There's too many players.
2) Closet cheaters are extremely subjective: automated & manual moderation would be full of false positives. In these cases, functional anti-cheats actually serve to vindicate these players.
> Riot went as far as pushing a UEFI firmware update to Valorant players to close a hardware attack — the first time an anti-cheat has reached below the operating system to change your firmware
I don't believe Vanguard did this at all? It told users they need to update their firmware to play, it didn't touch the firmware itself.
> Cheats started in user space, so anti-cheat moved into the kernel to see them. Cheats followed into the kernel, and then below it into hypervisors
I think cheats moved into kernel space before anti-cheats did.
Almost all trainers from time immemorial operate in the kernel space because they require direct access to memory addresses. The whole cheats paradigm started with altering values stored at specific addresses. Alter the right value and the player character gets infinite ammo or lives or whatnot, and it went from there. Modern day cheats embed more sophisticated logic that ultimately boils down to altering locations in memory in a specific order, which brings me to my point:
An anti-cheat mechanism can always be defeated if the cheater can access a lower order of abstraction from the mechanism. An arms race is the inevitable outcome. It's either that or competitive gaming is not viable.
You are limited in envisioning a game where the client device is being trusted for ground truth about the game.
In client-server models, it is possible to limit trust such that many cheat modes and methods are impossible. Furthermore is the “remote GPU streaming” model like Stadia, which nearly obsoletes conventional techno-cheating, and likewise obsoletes kernel-mode anti-cheat.
You can buy an autoclicking device or software that recognizes screen pixels of enemy avatars and instantly clicks to kill them. This works in "remote streaming" situations and is ~30% of the cheating dataset detected by Riot's kernel level anticheat:
> A “pixelbot” is a computer vision cheat that injects player input for the purposes of aiming at heads or casting spells with perfect timing. Coming in “external” (hardware microcontroller) and “internal” (python script) varieties, pixelbots can be extremely impactful in VALORANT due to the low time-to-kill, sometimes just simply pulling the trigger for the cheater when an enemy enters their reticle (also known as a “triggerbot”).
Websites that sell DMA devices also sell devices that merge mouse usb and hdmi signals that allows you to run the cheat on another machine and let it display en ESP overlay and do aimbot. It's likely that a naive implementation of such an usb device would be detected. But can you create such a device that uses a normal mouse usb driver and looks like a normal mouse?
At least in Valorant, DMA is becoming impossible due to IOMMU / Memory Integrity enforcement. The only option is becoming pixel bots.
As for faking the input device: I'm sure it's possible, but I'm also sure that perfectly spoofing an input device is much easier said than done.
Even if it is possible, all they have to do is make it hard enough to where the percentage of players cheating is at the point where you will rarely if ever encounter a cheater in your matches. As far as I'm aware, Valorant is one of the only games that has accomplished that.
Aimbot will always be possible, it only uses what you see. ESP/wallhack can be somewhat curbed and has already been done in cs and valorant, but it really only works well with small player count and simple geometry maps. Stadia is dead, but it and geforce now had way too much delay to be enjoyable for competitive games where anti cheats are needed.
Windows has no security between processes reading and writing each other's memory as long as they are from the same user. You doing need kernel level access to do it.
> An arms race is the inevitable outcome. It's either that or competitive gaming is not viable.
I'd rather just give my passport and do one of those face turning challenges to play competitive video games. Then if I get caught cheating, my real life identity can't play anymore, rather than make a new account and "get better at cheating".
If I am a habitual cheater in literally any other sport on Earth, governing body figures that out and issues me a lifetime ban. At that point, I'm blacklisted. Even my Tuesday night dodgeball league can issue bans that actually stick because they know my real identity.
> I was forced to convert the disk with mbr2gpt and spent about an hour manually rebuilding the boot drive to work under UEFI.
I'm surprised Windows 11 even booted on MBR, I was under the impression that after 7 all Windows installs had to be GPT/EFI, regardless of whether secure boot was on or not.
I don't think kernel goes far enough. We are pushing down the wrong path. We don't need kernel level anti cheats.
I think there should be real world legal consequences for exploiting information systems like this. "Gaming" shouldn't magically exempt a business sector from reasonable protection against fraud and abuse. Just because it's easy to do or involves bits in a computer (that isn't physically on the game developer's premises) should not magically exempt bad actors from prosecution. Yes, it's your computer, those are technically your bits, but this is about how these things are used and the context within which they are.
We have the CFAA in the US, but you'd need a fairly loose interpretation to cover most forms of cheating today. I don't really see the distinction between client and server when the actions taken on the client side cause a dramatic loss in quality of service for other clients connected to that same server or p2p relay.
yes but you are going off topic, the point is companies installing low level malware on any gamer's system to prevent cheaters and monitoring all of them as a consequence. And not that there are not enough laws against cheaters and against people tampering with a software or system, also tampering imho has always been the base for the rest of the reversing :)
More than that, they'd be illegal by your own standard, if applied fairly. You can't steal control of someone's computer just because they bought a game from you. That's a strictly more severe "exploit" with strictly more impact on "quality of service" than sending bogus data to a server. Cuts both ways.
But we all know how it'd really play out. If lying to a server counts as "hacking", but corporate rootkits and locked bootloaders are fine, all you've really done is solidify "felony infringement of business model". You haven't protected anyone. Video games are a stupid thing to immolate computing freedom for.
Have you played games with a ton of cheaters? It's infuriating, and I'm glad that kernel-level anti-cheat makes it such that you can have an enjoyable gaming experience. Now, I no longer play competitive shooters due to my age, but this was a huge issue back in the day.
On private/community hosted/moderated servers my experience was that cheating was mostly a non-issue. Only with the advent of forced matchmaking/only official servers and such has it become a real problem.
I think this is the answer. You get a lot more false positives, but at least the players can do something about it and aren't at the mercy of devs who can stop support at any time and also are fighting a losing battle.
Same. I write cheats for CS2 for my own amusement and it's 100% detectable by replay analysis.
If I'm reacting to information that I shouldn't have at a rate much much greater than the general population, then I'm not psychic, I'm just cheating.
This is also true for aiming, spray control, etc. All current cs2 cheaters are producing a very large and detectable audit trail of very suspicious plays in game, even if they think they're being sneaky. The resolution of the data looks like keeping track of your location and where you're aiming about every 15ms.
I can hide from a kernel module, but I can't hide from my own data trail.
There's only really two paths:
* We do kernel anti-cheat in trusted execution environments, which is bad for all the reasons in the article. When I break through this, you'll get the full "having a cheater" experience in your game.
* We do AI/ML heuristic-based detection to the point where cheaters are forced to behave exactly like non-cheating teammates or risk detection, cheating maybe only 10-20% above their previously established skill patterns. When I break through this, you'll have a normal game and I'll be kind of bored and nobody will be having the "cheaters in my game" experience even though I'm actually cheating.
In either case, I'm still going to try and beat the system for fun. Because video games.
Valve has already discussed using ai? There's also some commercial alternatives. I haven't seen that it works well yet, so it doesn't seem easy to solve.
But it seems that will just push cheat devs to adjust their aimbot to become more human in behavior? For the average gamer the top 0.1% will look like cheaters anyway.
Since you're not a gamer sorry but your opinion does not means much, you don't seem to realize how cheating is a problem in online games, it's not just an inconvenience, it kills games.
I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves. Thing is, cheating is an existential threat to the entire business model. Games like Valorant rely on a player base that keeps coming back, and a competitive scene where if you work hard, you can move up the ranks and maybe even make money one day. Players quit over cheating. You log in, you play hard and good, but you just can’t win because there are cheaters. These are games you’re trying to be good at… It’s incredibly demoralizing. Happens enough times, and you’ll find a different game not plagued by the same issue. And then your game is dead. You make money off it being a live service, and so maybe your business is dead too.
So it makes a lot of sense for a company releasing a new FPS game centered around competitive gaming to pull out all the stops to prevent that issue.
Now, the bigger question here is why can I play a game like Overwatch 2 on Linux, but not Valorant? Does Overwatch have a bigger cheating problem? If not, then Valorant should take a look at why their anticheat is just as effective without requiring kernel access.
One can also look at Counterstrike running on Valve's matchmaking which uses userland cheat detection versus Faceit's kernel level anticheats for the exact same game. It's been incredibly rare for me to run into obvious cheaters on Faceit but I'll often run into cheaters in Valve's matchmaking. It's the same game, the same executables.
I finally stopped playing Counterstrike because of all the cheating. It was difficult enough to detect that I never knew when I got killed because someone was good, because they were lucky, or because they were cheating.
> I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves.
Users do not have meaningful choice. On most games that use Anticheat, it is required to play the game. I can’t choose to use a non-anticheat version of games. It’s either submit to it or don’t play. Not much of a meaningful choice.
This rhetoric comes up all the time. It goes like this: "if you don't like it, don't buy it." / "don't play it." / "find something else." It's everywhere: don't like non-repairable devices? Well don't buy those then. don't like proprietary operating systems? Well don't use those then. don't like games with anticheats? Well don't play those then. I've found this argument to be entirely antisocial because it completely ignores the biggest problem which is that the presence of those qualities entirely taints whatever it is attached to. The problem isn't that you can't use another operating system or play another game or buy another device. The problem is that operating systems and games and devices end up unusable. Sure you can start arguing about how most people don't care and will never care so it's not / will never be a problem, but at that point you are entirely leaving advice territory and entering cargo cult mentality.
Here's an example. ARC Raiders recently added Denuvo. There's basically no game like it that doesn't have anticheat. None. You can't just go play another similar game that doesn't have anticheat, you just don't get to play those games
Linux and some BSDs are basically the only free operating systems nowadays. Maybe HarmonyOS. Too bad most anticheats don't work with it, too bad most companies only release broken windows drivers and maybe mac drivers but not linux, etc etc. You just don't get to use that hardware or play those games or etc.
Good luck getting anything like any iPhone or Android flagship that has a replaceable battery. When you choose something like pocophone you are giving up every piece of the bleeding edge to choose outdated components for their repairability. Which is repairable but not fast. Also depending on your choice of vendor you might lose out of netflix / google pay / etc because of course.
Some like framework laptop can have better value for money because their upgrade model is to replace the entire computer (logic board) so they can still vertically integrate it / be decently fast. Nobody has tried that yet with phones
It's terrible that we even have to deal with this. I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games. I don't want to be forced to use any operating system for anything (even though I genuinely believe mac is best). I don't want to be forced to replace a whole device when the battery dies etc. Or spend hours removing dozens of tiny screws in order to do it myself. And I certainly wouldn't put up with a slower device just because it's repairable or just because of nearly anything ever.
ARC Raiders once forced me to update windows because it was too outdated or something, one of the system DLLs expired from their allowlist or whatever. Nobody cares, I should be able to play on windows 10 as far as they're concerned. Windows updates are a hazard nowadays, asking someone to update is asking them to risk all their data. I do everything in my power to block windows update. I never asked and I never consented.
Meanwhile I update all my apple devices the day each beta releases because apple is not a stupid bonehead
Comparing non reparable devices to games is a huge stretch. Not buying a phone or a car in many places means you can't get a job at all. But if you don't play games you lose little. There are more than enough games of all kinds to spend your time on. Plus you can always, you know, just stop staring at the screen and do something else.
Low stakes vs high stakes version of the same problem. Sure it's not catastrophic if you simply can't play some or most games. But the basic idea is the same, and the common rhetoric is the same and the choices you're given are the same. Toxic thinking taints a product, making you no longer want to use it, but if you don't use it then you have to lose out on the entire product, not just the part you don't agree with. There are so many things out in the world, that are packaged together with such toxic thinking. So many things you have to miss out on, so many things you discover you'd otherwise want.
It's related to an idea I've had for years. You know, I've always wanted a news site that only announces products that already exist. Like things you can actually buy. I'm so tired of hearing about new innovations that don't exist yet that I want to punch whoever posts about them. I'm so tired. I don't want to hear about the future ever again. I want to hear about the present. I want to hear about stuff I can actually buy.
Likewise I am so tired of hearing about products that are harboring toxicity. I'll get so excited for something that seems so cool only to find out by surprise that I can't run it or wouldn't. And then I feel worse off than if I'd never heard of that thing.
Yes there are some markets where you need something. Like now, if you're in the comcast monopoly you can no longer manage your network without a smartphone. They retired the website, and they ripped out big sections of the LAN admin panel with pointers to go to the app. If you don't have the app you just can't do it anymore. More of the world is becoming like this, it's so exhaustingly evil and it's so normalized that stuff like that's not even a footnote.
I don't think the impact of not having a phone or car or etc matters in this discussion though. You can factor that into how badly you want/need one but in the end I'm talking about how shitty it is to have to miss out on something purely because it's tainted. Like if you miss out on a phone and you need one then you might be pretty sad you have to settle for something worse than what could've been possible. Same for a car or anything. It's just with a game you're not forced to pick an alternative and you can just be sad without having to settle for having to get something lesser. But being without the game you wanted is still sad. If that makes any sense.
And I sometimes hear "vote with your wallet". Unfortunately the product I want doesn't exist so that's not possible. I can avoid paying for the one I don't want, but then I have nothing at all. And not paying for something has also never changed anything, since no one will think the same way I do, so I am the only possible difference. So I don't bother trying. A difference of 1 is so vanishingly insignificant that I couldn't even possibly be supporting anyone with all the purchases I've ever made, let alone hurting anyone with any of the purchases I could ever not make.
> I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games.
I don't want to be forced to play with cheaters due to some people's philosophical concepts of what software I should be allowed to run on my computer when there's technology to radically minimize their numbers for the games I'd like to play.
If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that?
> If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that?
This is exactly why I choose Mac and iPhone. I actually trust Apple to do this. I do not however trust Microsoft or third-party app developers to do this. But I absolutely believe in that freedom and exercise it myself.
That’s a fair point, but I think the issue is that the other players don’t want to play with you unless you’re running the anti cheat.
Some games do have servers with anti cheat disabled, but a few minutes of playing on one of those servers will reveal why self-selecting into a population not running the anti cheat is not very fun.
This is a long winded way of saying that there isn’t a good way to have a multiplayer game give you the choice while still being fun.
Overwatch is a bit different though , it's not a pure hitscan fps such as valorant, cs or r6. Cheats in Overwatch are not as useful because the gameplay is different from other fps.
The tl;dr from the post is that kernel anti-cheat presents both an attack vector for malware and a backdoor for firms. The former is already known to be exploited.
I don't know why comments here are so negative. PC gamers should be wary of installing this stuff, and PC users in general wary of attempts to lock down their computer. If game companies want a fully locked down PC, they already have one; it's called a console.
There are people who treat their PC almost like a console, cause all they use it for is video games anyway, but they want more than what a console offers (and will spend a lot). They install whatever. Kernel anti-cheat isn't even the worst thing on those, that'd be Windows.
It's fine. Personally I keep my Mac clean. It can play a few games, which is enough for me. I also found a spare PC in e-waste, and occasionally boot it up to play games in Win10, but wouldn't care if it died.
In my opinion, the debate about kernel anti-cheat on Windows is disingenuous fear-mongering. I'm confused why Hacker News of all places misrepresents the technical details.
You can already completely compromise the average user's privacy with an underprivileged process (nearly all of your personal information is accessible with zero privileges!), and you can already persist with administrator privileges (that is routinely given on Windows).
In regard to the "RCE attacker risk", attackers can RCE to escalate just as easily into vulnerable Windows services (there's too many to count). Kernel drivers aren't that special.
In regard to the "CrowdStrike risk", that's not privacy related and is extremely overblown.
What exactly does a kernel driver change regarding privacy? Nothing I can think of.
It's this simple: If games want your personal data, they don't need a kernel driver to get it.
> I want to preface this with the fact that I’m not a gamer.
So you're prefacing it as someone who has never really dealt with the games you like to play getting totally infested with and nearly unplayable with so many cheaters in practically every lobby.
Its easy to think its something that's not needed if one never spends any time in the space.
Do they stop all cheats? No. Do they make the bar extensively higher to cheat? Absolutely. Even they point this out: "A DMA cheat is a separate FPGA card that sits in a PCIe slot and reads the game’s memory directly over the bus, while a second computer processes what it sees and feeds back aim and wallhacks..." Any random person can go run some executable they found on a forum, what percentage of the playerbase has these FPGA cards and a second computer to properly run these cheats? And even then, more modern systems can even detect these kinds of things.
Are there lots of problems with these anti-cheat platforms? Sure. Are they now often developed with ties to countries many wouldn't want have that deep of access to their computers? Sure. Is kernel-level anti-cheat overall as a concept overreach? Probably not for what a lot of players actively want. Players want systems to ensure everyone is playing on a somewhat equal playing field. Other than the games being rendered in the cloud I don't know any other real way to begin to enforce it.
> I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater
What if it wasn't "the occasional cheater" and instead was "nearly every match of every game you like to play"?
Yes, it is very rich for someone with no skin in the literal game to police what others do to their computers.
I don't play any games that use anticheat. But I also don't go out of my way to tell other players who knowingly, consensually installs games with anticheat so they can play them. It's like saying it is an invasion of privacy for cycling athletes to be subjected to doping tests. It's their game. Why does it bother you?
No but it has largely reduced it to where you can play competitively and not run into cheaters. Go play f2p csgo and enjoy a hacker in nearly every single game blatantly spinning in spawn head shotting everyone.
It's hard to know. If I were cheating on a competitive server, I'd be using cheats that gave me an edge without making me dominant. That sort of thing is very difficult to detect.
The overreach of kernel anticheats that this article complains about can be done just as easily from user mode anticheats. It's not whether an anticheat is kernel mode or not for whether it is overreaching or not.
>The hardware requirements lock out Linux and the Steam Deck
Because their security is out of date. Meanwhile macOS has modern security good enough to not even require Vanguard to need kernel mode to be effective.
> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private.
You’re not a gamer so you don’t have a word here. I was a competitive gamer and I would happily accept even the game where you need a government id to be allowed to play in ranked/matchmaking. I do dual boot for gaming/home stuff though.
Uninstalled riot years ago, not playing games that dont run on linux with proton, problem solved and you should do the same.
Avoiding to play games that take over my system on a low-level is a no go, I can live without LoL or BF6 and I live even better :)
ignoring this problems means you don't care about your identity, data, privacy and you prefer to keep ignoring this and play the games that hype abd you like, but inside you know that long term your are profiled and such profiling will be used against you!
Letting RIOT into your ring ZERO is not a risk I'm willing to take.
It just sits nagging in the back of your mind. So why take the risk.
Are you playing games on a different user? If not a user space program can already access all your files and memory of running processes.
This article reminds me of Chesterton Fence - the author is complaining about something, without ever experiencing why it exists.
Unlike the Fence, kernel anti-cheat wasn't always there and won't be effective in the future with new AI-powered cheats growing.
The analogy of Chesterton's Fence does not imply / require that the fence has been "always there".
Cheaters are a problem, that's the focus you should be taking, not that KAC is an overreach. Everyone knows its not a solution.
Writing an article about a problem without addressing the problem shows the author never had the problem i. The first place
I must admit I immediately questioned the credibility of the article when the author admitted they "aren't a gamer" and then started making allusions to vague political threads. Not to say these criticisms aren't valid, but they're a weird jumping off point
The reality is none of the companies want to do these things. Every step in this process locks out some subset of customers. And that's not including the ones who meet the technical requirements but are turned off enough by the decision to just avoid the games anyway
They're an unfortunate response to how utterly profitable and expansive cheating in online games has become. They cost the companies precious development time that could be spent making the game better to instead make it just vaguely "playable" for normal people
I play a lot. Competitive shooters mostly. Most of them are unplayable for one or two reasons. Cross play (controllers with aim assist) and cheaters. As a PC player I would like to see no aim assist and actual consequences for cheating. I’ll gladly verify my real world identity, if it meant cheaters where banned once and forever. I’ve heard this is how it works in Korea (claim not verified) and could see it work here too as most of Europe has access to very UX friendly state sponsored digital ID.
If there were actual stakes to cheating, it would be less prevalent. Now you can create another account and keep playing. Often for free!
On a side note. How come replay analysis doesn’t catch more cheaters?
> "How come replay analysis doesn’t catch more cheaters?"
1) There's too many players.
2) Closet cheaters are extremely subjective: automated & manual moderation would be full of false positives. In these cases, functional anti-cheats actually serve to vindicate these players.
> Riot went as far as pushing a UEFI firmware update to Valorant players to close a hardware attack — the first time an anti-cheat has reached below the operating system to change your firmware
I don't believe Vanguard did this at all? It told users they need to update their firmware to play, it didn't touch the firmware itself.
> Cheats started in user space, so anti-cheat moved into the kernel to see them. Cheats followed into the kernel, and then below it into hypervisors
I think cheats moved into kernel space before anti-cheats did.
long beforehand naturally. the arms race is as good of an excuse as any to trample user rights though
Almost all trainers from time immemorial operate in the kernel space because they require direct access to memory addresses. The whole cheats paradigm started with altering values stored at specific addresses. Alter the right value and the player character gets infinite ammo or lives or whatnot, and it went from there. Modern day cheats embed more sophisticated logic that ultimately boils down to altering locations in memory in a specific order, which brings me to my point:
An anti-cheat mechanism can always be defeated if the cheater can access a lower order of abstraction from the mechanism. An arms race is the inevitable outcome. It's either that or competitive gaming is not viable.
I mean the assumption here is that administration needs to be automated. Cheating is an intermittent problem at worst on moderated servers.
> The whole cheats paradigm
You are limited in envisioning a game where the client device is being trusted for ground truth about the game.
In client-server models, it is possible to limit trust such that many cheat modes and methods are impossible. Furthermore is the “remote GPU streaming” model like Stadia, which nearly obsoletes conventional techno-cheating, and likewise obsoletes kernel-mode anti-cheat.
You can buy an autoclicking device or software that recognizes screen pixels of enemy avatars and instantly clicks to kill them. This works in "remote streaming" situations and is ~30% of the cheating dataset detected by Riot's kernel level anticheat:
https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/vanguard-on-demand
> A “pixelbot” is a computer vision cheat that injects player input for the purposes of aiming at heads or casting spells with perfect timing. Coming in “external” (hardware microcontroller) and “internal” (python script) varieties, pixelbots can be extremely impactful in VALORANT due to the low time-to-kill, sometimes just simply pulling the trigger for the cheater when an enemy enters their reticle (also known as a “triggerbot”).
This isn't possible in Valorant. Their kernel module is extremely particular about input devices:
1) only allows a single mouse input device at a time
2) completely ignores virtual mouse input
3) flags "special"/"uncommon" input devices
Their anti-cheat is actually much more involved and effective than most would assume.
Websites that sell DMA devices also sell devices that merge mouse usb and hdmi signals that allows you to run the cheat on another machine and let it display en ESP overlay and do aimbot. It's likely that a naive implementation of such an usb device would be detected. But can you create such a device that uses a normal mouse usb driver and looks like a normal mouse?
At least in Valorant, DMA is becoming impossible due to IOMMU / Memory Integrity enforcement. The only option is becoming pixel bots.
As for faking the input device: I'm sure it's possible, but I'm also sure that perfectly spoofing an input device is much easier said than done.
Even if it is possible, all they have to do is make it hard enough to where the percentage of players cheating is at the point where you will rarely if ever encounter a cheater in your matches. As far as I'm aware, Valorant is one of the only games that has accomplished that.
But really, if HID becomes suspect too, then why do you even need kernel level anti-cheat, if all you can do is behavioral detection?
If you're in the kernel you at least have raw access to the USB controller and input events, thus can try pick out real mouses from fake ones.
Aimbot will always be possible, it only uses what you see. ESP/wallhack can be somewhat curbed and has already been done in cs and valorant, but it really only works well with small player count and simple geometry maps. Stadia is dead, but it and geforce now had way too much delay to be enjoyable for competitive games where anti cheats are needed.
Windows has no security between processes reading and writing each other's memory as long as they are from the same user. You doing need kernel level access to do it.
> An arms race is the inevitable outcome. It's either that or competitive gaming is not viable.
I'd rather just give my passport and do one of those face turning challenges to play competitive video games. Then if I get caught cheating, my real life identity can't play anymore, rather than make a new account and "get better at cheating".
If I am a habitual cheater in literally any other sport on Earth, governing body figures that out and issues me a lifetime ban. At that point, I'm blacklisted. Even my Tuesday night dodgeball league can issue bans that actually stick because they know my real identity.
> During setup, I did a clean Windows 11 install
> Unfortunately the install was legacy MBR
> I was forced to convert the disk with mbr2gpt and spent about an hour manually rebuilding the boot drive to work under UEFI.
I'm surprised Windows 11 even booted on MBR, I was under the impression that after 7 all Windows installs had to be GPT/EFI, regardless of whether secure boot was on or not.
I don't think kernel goes far enough. We are pushing down the wrong path. We don't need kernel level anti cheats.
I think there should be real world legal consequences for exploiting information systems like this. "Gaming" shouldn't magically exempt a business sector from reasonable protection against fraud and abuse. Just because it's easy to do or involves bits in a computer (that isn't physically on the game developer's premises) should not magically exempt bad actors from prosecution. Yes, it's your computer, those are technically your bits, but this is about how these things are used and the context within which they are.
We have the CFAA in the US, but you'd need a fairly loose interpretation to cover most forms of cheating today. I don't really see the distinction between client and server when the actions taken on the client side cause a dramatic loss in quality of service for other clients connected to that same server or p2p relay.
South Korea has laws on the books as of 2016.
https://dotesports.com/overwatch/news/ow-hacker-sentenced-pr...
yes but you are going off topic, the point is companies installing low level malware on any gamer's system to prevent cheaters and monitoring all of them as a consequence. And not that there are not enough laws against cheaters and against people tampering with a software or system, also tampering imho has always been the base for the rest of the reversing :)
No thanks.
>We don't need kernel level anti cheats.
More than that, they'd be illegal by your own standard, if applied fairly. You can't steal control of someone's computer just because they bought a game from you. That's a strictly more severe "exploit" with strictly more impact on "quality of service" than sending bogus data to a server. Cuts both ways.
But we all know how it'd really play out. If lying to a server counts as "hacking", but corporate rootkits and locked bootloaders are fine, all you've really done is solidify "felony infringement of business model". You haven't protected anyone. Video games are a stupid thing to immolate computing freedom for.
I’m actually surprised how a lot of commenters here are defending kernel-level anticheat.
Have you played games with a ton of cheaters? It's infuriating, and I'm glad that kernel-level anti-cheat makes it such that you can have an enjoyable gaming experience. Now, I no longer play competitive shooters due to my age, but this was a huge issue back in the day.
On private/community hosted/moderated servers my experience was that cheating was mostly a non-issue. Only with the advent of forced matchmaking/only official servers and such has it become a real problem.
I think this is the answer. You get a lot more false positives, but at least the players can do something about it and aren't at the mercy of devs who can stop support at any time and also are fighting a losing battle.
That's a different type of game entirely. Private/community servers cannot be competitive at the scale of modern competitive games.
Same. I write cheats for CS2 for my own amusement and it's 100% detectable by replay analysis.
If I'm reacting to information that I shouldn't have at a rate much much greater than the general population, then I'm not psychic, I'm just cheating.
This is also true for aiming, spray control, etc. All current cs2 cheaters are producing a very large and detectable audit trail of very suspicious plays in game, even if they think they're being sneaky. The resolution of the data looks like keeping track of your location and where you're aiming about every 15ms.
Here's some recent research that's related: https://arxiv.org/html/2508.06348v1
I can hide from a kernel module, but I can't hide from my own data trail.
There's only really two paths:
* We do kernel anti-cheat in trusted execution environments, which is bad for all the reasons in the article. When I break through this, you'll get the full "having a cheater" experience in your game.
* We do AI/ML heuristic-based detection to the point where cheaters are forced to behave exactly like non-cheating teammates or risk detection, cheating maybe only 10-20% above their previously established skill patterns. When I break through this, you'll have a normal game and I'll be kind of bored and nobody will be having the "cheaters in my game" experience even though I'm actually cheating.
In either case, I'm still going to try and beat the system for fun. Because video games.
Valve has already discussed using ai? There's also some commercial alternatives. I haven't seen that it works well yet, so it doesn't seem easy to solve.
But it seems that will just push cheat devs to adjust their aimbot to become more human in behavior? For the average gamer the top 0.1% will look like cheaters anyway.
Most of the worries that people focus on already apply to programs running in userspace.
Since you're not a gamer sorry but your opinion does not means much, you don't seem to realize how cheating is a problem in online games, it's not just an inconvenience, it kills games.
> So I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater than run un-auditable ring-0 software on the same machine I use for anything private.
Yeah except that’s not the options here. Even with ring-0 there are lots of cheaters. Without it the game would be completely infested with them.
I would still rather have that than let some game run in ring 0 TBH.
I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves. Thing is, cheating is an existential threat to the entire business model. Games like Valorant rely on a player base that keeps coming back, and a competitive scene where if you work hard, you can move up the ranks and maybe even make money one day. Players quit over cheating. You log in, you play hard and good, but you just can’t win because there are cheaters. These are games you’re trying to be good at… It’s incredibly demoralizing. Happens enough times, and you’ll find a different game not plagued by the same issue. And then your game is dead. You make money off it being a live service, and so maybe your business is dead too.
So it makes a lot of sense for a company releasing a new FPS game centered around competitive gaming to pull out all the stops to prevent that issue.
Now, the bigger question here is why can I play a game like Overwatch 2 on Linux, but not Valorant? Does Overwatch have a bigger cheating problem? If not, then Valorant should take a look at why their anticheat is just as effective without requiring kernel access.
> Does Overwatch have a bigger cheating problem?
Yes, considerably.
One can also look at Counterstrike running on Valve's matchmaking which uses userland cheat detection versus Faceit's kernel level anticheats for the exact same game. It's been incredibly rare for me to run into obvious cheaters on Faceit but I'll often run into cheaters in Valve's matchmaking. It's the same game, the same executables.
I finally stopped playing Counterstrike because of all the cheating. It was difficult enough to detect that I never knew when I got killed because someone was good, because they were lucky, or because they were cheating.
> I think that’s a choice people can make for themselves.
Users do not have meaningful choice. On most games that use Anticheat, it is required to play the game. I can’t choose to use a non-anticheat version of games. It’s either submit to it or don’t play. Not much of a meaningful choice.
This rhetoric comes up all the time. It goes like this: "if you don't like it, don't buy it." / "don't play it." / "find something else." It's everywhere: don't like non-repairable devices? Well don't buy those then. don't like proprietary operating systems? Well don't use those then. don't like games with anticheats? Well don't play those then. I've found this argument to be entirely antisocial because it completely ignores the biggest problem which is that the presence of those qualities entirely taints whatever it is attached to. The problem isn't that you can't use another operating system or play another game or buy another device. The problem is that operating systems and games and devices end up unusable. Sure you can start arguing about how most people don't care and will never care so it's not / will never be a problem, but at that point you are entirely leaving advice territory and entering cargo cult mentality.
Here's an example. ARC Raiders recently added Denuvo. There's basically no game like it that doesn't have anticheat. None. You can't just go play another similar game that doesn't have anticheat, you just don't get to play those games
Linux and some BSDs are basically the only free operating systems nowadays. Maybe HarmonyOS. Too bad most anticheats don't work with it, too bad most companies only release broken windows drivers and maybe mac drivers but not linux, etc etc. You just don't get to use that hardware or play those games or etc.
Good luck getting anything like any iPhone or Android flagship that has a replaceable battery. When you choose something like pocophone you are giving up every piece of the bleeding edge to choose outdated components for their repairability. Which is repairable but not fast. Also depending on your choice of vendor you might lose out of netflix / google pay / etc because of course.
Some like framework laptop can have better value for money because their upgrade model is to replace the entire computer (logic board) so they can still vertically integrate it / be decently fast. Nobody has tried that yet with phones
It's terrible that we even have to deal with this. I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games. I don't want to be forced to use any operating system for anything (even though I genuinely believe mac is best). I don't want to be forced to replace a whole device when the battery dies etc. Or spend hours removing dozens of tiny screws in order to do it myself. And I certainly wouldn't put up with a slower device just because it's repairable or just because of nearly anything ever.
ARC Raiders once forced me to update windows because it was too outdated or something, one of the system DLLs expired from their allowlist or whatever. Nobody cares, I should be able to play on windows 10 as far as they're concerned. Windows updates are a hazard nowadays, asking someone to update is asking them to risk all their data. I do everything in my power to block windows update. I never asked and I never consented.
Meanwhile I update all my apple devices the day each beta releases because apple is not a stupid bonehead
Comparing non reparable devices to games is a huge stretch. Not buying a phone or a car in many places means you can't get a job at all. But if you don't play games you lose little. There are more than enough games of all kinds to spend your time on. Plus you can always, you know, just stop staring at the screen and do something else.
Low stakes vs high stakes version of the same problem. Sure it's not catastrophic if you simply can't play some or most games. But the basic idea is the same, and the common rhetoric is the same and the choices you're given are the same. Toxic thinking taints a product, making you no longer want to use it, but if you don't use it then you have to lose out on the entire product, not just the part you don't agree with. There are so many things out in the world, that are packaged together with such toxic thinking. So many things you have to miss out on, so many things you discover you'd otherwise want.
It's related to an idea I've had for years. You know, I've always wanted a news site that only announces products that already exist. Like things you can actually buy. I'm so tired of hearing about new innovations that don't exist yet that I want to punch whoever posts about them. I'm so tired. I don't want to hear about the future ever again. I want to hear about the present. I want to hear about stuff I can actually buy.
Likewise I am so tired of hearing about products that are harboring toxicity. I'll get so excited for something that seems so cool only to find out by surprise that I can't run it or wouldn't. And then I feel worse off than if I'd never heard of that thing.
Yes there are some markets where you need something. Like now, if you're in the comcast monopoly you can no longer manage your network without a smartphone. They retired the website, and they ripped out big sections of the LAN admin panel with pointers to go to the app. If you don't have the app you just can't do it anymore. More of the world is becoming like this, it's so exhaustingly evil and it's so normalized that stuff like that's not even a footnote.
I don't think the impact of not having a phone or car or etc matters in this discussion though. You can factor that into how badly you want/need one but in the end I'm talking about how shitty it is to have to miss out on something purely because it's tainted. Like if you miss out on a phone and you need one then you might be pretty sad you have to settle for something worse than what could've been possible. Same for a car or anything. It's just with a game you're not forced to pick an alternative and you can just be sad without having to settle for having to get something lesser. But being without the game you wanted is still sad. If that makes any sense.
And I sometimes hear "vote with your wallet". Unfortunately the product I want doesn't exist so that's not possible. I can avoid paying for the one I don't want, but then I have nothing at all. And not paying for something has also never changed anything, since no one will think the same way I do, so I am the only possible difference. So I don't bother trying. A difference of 1 is so vanishingly insignificant that I couldn't even possibly be supporting anyone with all the purchases I've ever made, let alone hurting anyone with any of the purchases I could ever not make.
> I don't want to be forced to accept an anticheat for games.
I don't want to be forced to play with cheaters due to some people's philosophical concepts of what software I should be allowed to run on my computer when there's technology to radically minimize their numbers for the games I'd like to play.
If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that?
> If I want to have a computer that's locked down to be a platform for playing games online with a low likelihood of encountering cheaters shouldn't I have the freedom to be able to choose that?
This is exactly why I choose Mac and iPhone. I actually trust Apple to do this. I do not however trust Microsoft or third-party app developers to do this. But I absolutely believe in that freedom and exercise it myself.
I don't think the vast majority of people who install anti-cheat realize the extent to which they're opening the security kimono.
That’s a fair point, but I think the issue is that the other players don’t want to play with you unless you’re running the anti cheat. Some games do have servers with anti cheat disabled, but a few minutes of playing on one of those servers will reveal why self-selecting into a population not running the anti cheat is not very fun.
This is a long winded way of saying that there isn’t a good way to have a multiplayer game give you the choice while still being fun.
Overwatch is a bit different though , it's not a pure hitscan fps such as valorant, cs or r6. Cheats in Overwatch are not as useful because the gameplay is different from other fps.
The tl;dr from the post is that kernel anti-cheat presents both an attack vector for malware and a backdoor for firms. The former is already known to be exploited.
I don't know why comments here are so negative. PC gamers should be wary of installing this stuff, and PC users in general wary of attempts to lock down their computer. If game companies want a fully locked down PC, they already have one; it's called a console.
There are people who treat their PC almost like a console, cause all they use it for is video games anyway, but they want more than what a console offers (and will spend a lot). They install whatever. Kernel anti-cheat isn't even the worst thing on those, that'd be Windows.
It's fine. Personally I keep my Mac clean. It can play a few games, which is enough for me. I also found a spare PC in e-waste, and occasionally boot it up to play games in Win10, but wouldn't care if it died.
In my opinion, the debate about kernel anti-cheat on Windows is disingenuous fear-mongering. I'm confused why Hacker News of all places misrepresents the technical details.
You can already completely compromise the average user's privacy with an underprivileged process (nearly all of your personal information is accessible with zero privileges!), and you can already persist with administrator privileges (that is routinely given on Windows).
In regard to the "RCE attacker risk", attackers can RCE to escalate just as easily into vulnerable Windows services (there's too many to count). Kernel drivers aren't that special.
In regard to the "CrowdStrike risk", that's not privacy related and is extremely overblown.
What exactly does a kernel driver change regarding privacy? Nothing I can think of.
It's this simple: If games want your personal data, they don't need a kernel driver to get it.
> In my opinion, the debate about kernel anti-cheat on Windows is fear-mongering
I don't think a lot of people who complain about kernel anti-cheat actually play competitive games.
I feel someone doesn't need to play competitive games to be able to give an honest assessment of the privacy & security risks.
I'm sad I'm not seeing that honesty elsewhere in this thread.
what a goof. yes it's a privacy risk, but so is half the things people do on the internet.
cs2 is infested with hackers, arc raiders died because of hackers... many games I've played and loved are dead because of hackers.
Hackers were only one of the many straws that killed Arc Raiders. Mostly it was a dev team that didn’t care.
> I want to preface this with the fact that I’m not a gamer.
So you're prefacing it as someone who has never really dealt with the games you like to play getting totally infested with and nearly unplayable with so many cheaters in practically every lobby.
Its easy to think its something that's not needed if one never spends any time in the space.
Do they stop all cheats? No. Do they make the bar extensively higher to cheat? Absolutely. Even they point this out: "A DMA cheat is a separate FPGA card that sits in a PCIe slot and reads the game’s memory directly over the bus, while a second computer processes what it sees and feeds back aim and wallhacks..." Any random person can go run some executable they found on a forum, what percentage of the playerbase has these FPGA cards and a second computer to properly run these cheats? And even then, more modern systems can even detect these kinds of things.
Are there lots of problems with these anti-cheat platforms? Sure. Are they now often developed with ties to countries many wouldn't want have that deep of access to their computers? Sure. Is kernel-level anti-cheat overall as a concept overreach? Probably not for what a lot of players actively want. Players want systems to ensure everyone is playing on a somewhat equal playing field. Other than the games being rendered in the cloud I don't know any other real way to begin to enforce it.
> I would rather share a match with the occasional cheater
What if it wasn't "the occasional cheater" and instead was "nearly every match of every game you like to play"?
Yes, it is very rich for someone with no skin in the literal game to police what others do to their computers.
I don't play any games that use anticheat. But I also don't go out of my way to tell other players who knowingly, consensually installs games with anticheat so they can play them. It's like saying it is an invasion of privacy for cycling athletes to be subjected to doping tests. It's their game. Why does it bother you?
It's everyone's problem if those PCs get turned into a botnet, but otherwise whatever.
>it hasn’t stopped cheating
No but it has largely reduced it to where you can play competitively and not run into cheaters. Go play f2p csgo and enjoy a hacker in nearly every single game blatantly spinning in spawn head shotting everyone.
It doesn't take kernel level anticheat to detect that kind of behavior. This is just laziness.
It's hard to know. If I were cheating on a competitive server, I'd be using cheats that gave me an edge without making me dominant. That sort of thing is very difficult to detect.
The overreach of kernel anticheats that this article complains about can be done just as easily from user mode anticheats. It's not whether an anticheat is kernel mode or not for whether it is overreaching or not.
>The hardware requirements lock out Linux and the Steam Deck
Because their security is out of date. Meanwhile macOS has modern security good enough to not even require Vanguard to need kernel mode to be effective.