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.
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
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.
Same
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.
I really want to see that email.
I sure hope not. Play on someone else’s pc if you want them to have control.
It’s the other way around. Windows will stop supporting kernel level anti-cheat because of Crowdstrike
They want to provide APIs that basically do an equal job but will restrict direct access.
Good one
Doesn’t Splitgate 2 have kernel level anti cheat that works on Linux? Maybe it is “trapped” inside wine/proton but they explicitly made it work and people are thanking them on steam discussions.
Helldivers 2 works (or at least used to when I played it) as well, while requiring kernel access on windows
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.
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.
They don’t. One article lied, people never read anything but the title and here we are this getting mentioned every once in a while.
Thanks. I looked into it a bit more and it looks like they actually want to increase what can be done in userland, to reduce the reliance on kernel mode. That’s still a good solution, if things the anti-cheat code needs to do can be moved into userland.
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
Yes, linux does not work exactly because they require this kernel level anticheat. But guess which os is supported without this anticheat… MacOs…
I guess it’s easier to dual boot Linux than osx for cheaters and I think most of them wouldn’t buy apple hardware just to get out of bronze.
I just itch my moba itch with dota
I tried Dota but it feels too different :(
Fair enough
Sure hope not. If I wanted to run rookits I’d just use Windows. Why bother with Linux?
This is why I don’t want more Linux adoption and don’t understand people cheering every new user. We’re in a sweet spot where a lot of games enable userland anticheat while we don’t get kernel level ports (however they may be shipped doesn’t matter). The only thing that’ll come out of more adoption is kernel level anticheat ports that’ll probably work with a few corporate backed distros only and we’ll actually lose the games we have today. Because those will switch over the kernel level alternatives too.
The only way I’d like Linux to be a generic multiplayer platform is server side anticheats. It is very obviously the way to go and we are seeing extremely slow adoption (e.g. Marvel Rivals).
I think the more people who aren’t using corporate operating systems, the better.
I’m firmly against Microsoft, Red Hat, and Ubuntu.
On one side, I’m one of those glad for people coming to Linux because Linux is truly fantastic and it can make your life easier on many things, I’m happy for them.
On the other side, I share your concerns, because everything that gets adopted by the masses is inevitably subject to enshittification, I would never want that to happen to Linux.
We should find a sweet middle-point tho I have no idea what that would be.
TBH I’m not sure wider adoption would worsen things ? Gaming distros would probably ship bullshit anticheat modules by default while the others would not, or at most provide some documentation on how to opt in.
I think it’s quite similar to the situation with NVIDIA proprietary drivers? (I don’t own a graphics card so I’m not super aware on this topic)
My point is you would either have to run those modules on Linux or not play the games. Which is the same as running them on Windows or not play the games with the exception that you’d lose the games that run on Linux with userland anticheat now.
No Wine/Proton cannot translate calls that run too deep into the Kernel
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.
Shite is still shite, even if it’s open source shite.
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.
@MachineFab812 @SpiderUnderUrBed even if you have steamOS, what keeps you from downloading kernels from kernel.org and building?
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.
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.
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.
No.
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.
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?
It doesn’t have to be open source. There’s plenty of binary firmware and drivers around.
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.
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
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.
I have 3 kernels installed anyway, what’s one more?
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.
Kernel level anti cheats require secure boot. You can’t just “lie” and load an unsigned kernel.
You can add your own signing keys to the UEFI and boot an modified bootloader and Kernel that you have signed yourself. So yes, it is possible to “lie”
For such a locked down system, akin to game consoles or smartphones, would be needed. And even those get jail broken and manipulated, so “total security” on there is not complete but easier to check and ensure. Another way to make sure that the code is not manipulated would be to put all those games into the cloud and have every player only play via streaming. All the code would then run on secured, locked down and verified machines.
Another technique that helps is to limit the amount of information shared with clients to need to know info. This can be computationally intensive server-side and hard to get right … but it can help in many cases. There are evolving techniques to do this.
In FPS games, there can also be streaming input validation. eg. Accurate fire requires the right sequence of events and/or is used for cheat detection. At the point where cheats have to emulate human behaviour, with human-like reaction times, the value of cheating drops.
That’s the advanced stuff. Many games don’t even check whether people are running around out of bounds, flying through the air etc. Known bugs and map exploits don’t get fixed for years.
And then your keys will be rejected by the anticheat. Just because you can sign your kernel and load it does not mean a kernel module can’t verify who signed it.
Yes, but with a modified Kernel you can fake what the anticheat reads when it checks the key, so you just feed it the key it wants to see instead of your own. The anticheat module would need run on a higher level then the Kernel itself to prevent that, for example alongside the CPU (like the Intel Management Engine).
I am not an expert on secure boot so I can’t tell whether that’s possible or not. But if it is, what stops people from doing that with Windows now?
You can’t really change the code of the windows Kernel and boot your own, that’s one of the things stopping people now
Linux secure boot was a little weird last I checked. The kernel and modules don’t need to be secure boot signed. Most distros can use shim to pass secure boot and then take over the secure boot process.
There are dkms kernel modules that are user compiled. These are signed using a machine owner key. So the machine owner could for sure compile their own malicious version and still be in a secure boot context.
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.
When Microsoft first proposed something like that a couple decades ago, it was widely seen as the nightmarish corporate power grab it was. Even mainstream, non-techy publications were critical.
I believe this is how the higher levels of Android’s Play Integrity system work.
It is.
How the fuck did this become acceptable?
It is probably actually easier to create on linux as it is foss and there are also good projects like eBPF which can maybe even simplify and make it more secure.
