From both a technical perspective and if the maintainers of these anti-cheat will consider porting or re-writing kernel level anti-cheat to work on linux, is it possible? Do you think that the maintainers of kernel level anti-cheat will be adamant in not doing it, or that the kernel even supports it or will support it. I think that if it ever happens, there will be a influx of people moving to linux, or abandoning their duelboots, and that alot of people will hate that such a thing is available on linux.

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I surely hope they never will, no user program should ever be allowed to run at kernel level, that’s what malware does.

    I personally avoid those kind of games, but those who won’t can dual-boot.

    • NotProLemmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or…just don’t play those games.

      99% of their communities are more toxic than radioactive waste. And, they are not open source and they don’t respect privacy. Because they are greedy.

      • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        All true. And yet, plenty of people do want to play those games. And there are other games (Borked) which also cannot be played no matter what. Really annoying, that.

        • NotProLemmy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, some people are just stubborn. By some i mean most. You gotta adapt, what do you think evolution’s trying to tell you?

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s the other way around. Windows will stop supporting kernel level anti-cheat because of Crowdstrike

  • phantomwise@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can’t wait until I am able to give random programs kernel access on my system! That doesn’t sound problematic in the least! After all, I have the fullest confidence that for companies developing anticheat, my security is their highest concern! /s

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          He’s just being pedantic.

          Technically ‘ls’ has kernel access because it depends on system calls in order to produce its output.

          System calls are the mechanisms through which programs request services from the Linux kernel, allowing them to perform tasks like file management, process control, and device management. Any program that’s running on your machine has the access required to make syscalls and so you could say they have access to the kernel. They won’t have kernel-level privileges, so they can’t act as the kernel, but they do have access. Obviously the original user was referring to kernel anti-cheat modules which act as the kernel with all of the same privileges.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    AFAIK Microsoft have plans to block kernel level anti-cheat on Windows. After the CrowdSec issues last year, they’re rethinking which types of programs should even be allowed to run in kernel space.

    Edit: I was wrong. They actually want to increase what can be done in user mode, to reduce reliance on kernel mode code.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      They actually want to increase what can be done in user mode, to reduce reliance on kernel mode code.

      That’s basically what Apple did with macOS 11. They deprecated kernel extensions and replaced them with “system extensions”, and created new APIs so security tools, VPNs and such could function without kernel-level privileges.

    • sibachian@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      i assume the problem with league of legends since last year is because they switched to kernel level anticheat then? would be nice if they get kicked in the face for the anti-linux decision they made so we can start playing again :P

  • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think its less a question of the technical feasibility, and more of an issue that we, as users, don’t want more closed-source blobs in our kernels. Meanwhile, the publishers insist that they can’t open-source their anti-cheat code; Their idea being that if we know what’s in it, it will be easier to bypass.

    Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.

    They could go the rought of kernel modules, I would think, but for whatever reason, we’re still having this conversation.

    • unprovenbreeze@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.

      Valve also has server side anticheat in his games (Counter Strike or Deadlock). They are also against it. Kernel-level anticheats can be bypassed anyways, but they are the easy solution for the corps that want to sell their multiplayer game.

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If you want it to still be steam OS and compatible with games then you couldn’t use kernel.org kernels that’s the point.

          If a person stands to make a lot of money figuring out how to use a regular, non-anticheat kernel then they will do it. It would be a lot less difficult to do when the kernel code is open source.

          For anti-cheats, it isn’t the case, as with Windows, where you can semi-trust that the kernel isn’t lying. If an anti-cheat runs and wants to see what DMA devices are connected it uses the kernel to do that and it trusts that the kernel isn’t lying. You could trivially modify the Linux kernel’s source code to not list a specific card when asked by a kernel module.

  • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 month ago

    Short answer: no

    Long answer: only the most important things should even have such low-level access to the system. A fucking game is not in that category. Nooooooo

    • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Obligatory Fuck Denuvo. If I had virtually infinite money, I’d do a hostile takeover of Denuvo and burn it to the ground.

  • Anna@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    From technical point of view it is possible. eBPF already has almost everything needed for doing that. And I think it can be done with a simple LKM but if they want it included in the main tree I’m sure they’ll get some colorful email from Linus.

  • kadu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Absolutely nothing prevents somebody from writing a kernel level anticheat on Linux.

    Users would throw a fit, and it would be way easier to bypass, but it certainly could be made.

    • dosse91@lemmy.trippy.pizza
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It would need to be open source, distributing proprietary kernel modules is a nightmare that can cause the OS to fail to boot after every kernel update. An open source anticheat kernel module would probably be useless and easy to bypass.

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t “need” to be anything. It could be a DKMS module that is mandatory for playing a game.

        Whether people would like it and use it is a completely different story.

    • bonn2@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      AFAIK the current anticheat systems on Linux only run in userspace not at kernel level. This does mean Linux is theoretically easier to bypass compared to windows, some games just dont seem to want to take that risk. For as you said 3% of the market.

      I personally disagree with that stance though, because all it takes is a hardware device and all software anticheats are useless no matter the os (think a raspberry pi, and capture card). So anticheat is really a losing battle anyways.

      • SmoochyPit@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah… Apex Legends dropped Linux support a while ago and that’s one of the reasons they cited; and tbf, there were publicly available Linux cheats that ran under proton.

        But there’s also loads of publicly available “external” cheats that run the way you described. Some run through a virtual machine even. It’s just not a robust solution for preventing cheating, and mostly hurts the legit Linux players.

    • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      we’re maaaaaybe 3% of the market on a good day, so they say “fuck it”

      So true. And worse than that, we’re probably also the 3% most likely to skip buying a game that requires anti-cheat, anyway. Many of us are famously un-friendly toward closed source code running with invasive permissions.

    • jay@mbin.zerojay.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a lot more than just “a few dev hours”. You need to invest in training your testers on Linux, potentially purchasing new hardware, invest in programmers that can deal with writing for Linux, etc… Just because something like BattlEye has a checkbox for Linux support doesn’t mean that all it takes is to click the button and rebuild your game.

  • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Meanwhile in indie land, I just tried to cheat my way through a Chapter 3 minigame in Deltarune, and Toby Fox himself showed up in his dogsona to blow up the game and make me start the minigame over.

    This is the extent to which anti-cheat measures should go.

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not a programmer or cheater or anything, but I think the answer is yes and no. Yes it could technically be done and even work as intended as long as the device is locked down to prevent the user from replacing the shipped kernel (which would be a bad thing for users). However, savvy people could (in theory) make custom kernels that lie to the kernel module, causing the module to report there is no cheating when there is. It’s my understanding that it’s close to the current situation with Windows and virtual machines and anticheat: you can cheat by running your game in a VM and then have that virtual hardware extract secret information or flip bits in the right spots. Most competitive games will refuse to run in a VM for this reason.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is where TPMs, measured boot, and remote attestation come in.

      You can run whatever kernel you want, but if it is not an approved kernel, you wouldn’t be able to attest to running an approved kernel; allowing whatever DRM scheme the developer put in to active.

      I believe this is how the higher levels of Android’s Play Integrity system work.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    One way I can imagine it being some certified Linux kernel versions that are accepted and worked together with anticheat creators. That way Valve could use the Kernel in Steam Deck or SteamOS, so any game works out of the box. And other distribution users can just install this Kernel too, if their distributions provide it.

    Anyone who don’t want to have Kernel level anticheat systems enabled on their system, do not need to install the Kernel. Therefore they are secure against it. But for anyone else who wants it, they can. At least this option would be a compromise.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      if it’s linux, it has to be open source. If it’s open source, people will code around it immediately. How about not trying to shoehorn this useless crap in the first place?

      • 0xtero@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t have to be open source. There’s plenty of binary firmware and drivers around.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Besides your argumentation that open source is less secure, a driver or program does not need to be in the Kernel to work with it. Does it? Kernel level anti cheat systems are available on Windows too, without being in the Windows Kernel. All it needs is a Kernel module to load it separately. Something like the Nvidia proprietary driver. I don’t know if this would work for Anticheat.

        Back to your point of open source and code around it. Well they code around the proprietary tools too. Reverse engineering stuff is possible. So your argumentation is a bit weak. Open Source means more people are looking into and its actually more secure and up to date (for common and actually developed drivers).

        And you don’t have to use it, if you don’t like. How about letting people give options instead calling something they want or need being useless? It has a use and reason, so its by definition not useless. Instead using Windows, they could use Linux.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          where did i say it’s less secure? I said it will be coded around. as in forked and the changes patched out/worked around. The point is that it’s pointless to even try. Because it won’t work for those who do choose to use it, due to all the ones bypassing it

          • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If the Kernel is not signed, then it does not matter. The whole point of signed Kernels is to only execute that specific code. Its not pointless. But besides that, even if you don’t like Open Source, nobody said the Anticheat software has to be open source. This is something you implied. I don’t think any of the Anticheat companies would Open Source it anyway, so this was not my suggestion at all.