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 ( ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • coconut ( coconut@programming.dev ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die ( ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Bogasse ( Bogasse@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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)

      • coconut ( coconut@programming.dev ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • phantomwise ( phantomwise@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year 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

  • dan ( dan@upvote.au ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

      • dan ( dan@upvote.au ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • 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 ( sibachian@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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

  • 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 kernel.

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

    • 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.

  • muusemuuse ( muusemuuse@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year 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

  • Anna ( AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • Every IT-literate person fights kernel-lvl malware disguising as games with everything they got.

    Since Linux has a high percentage of those, I hope those “solutions” will never spread

  • 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.

      • 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.

    • bonn2 ( bonn2@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • 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.

    • jay ( jay@mbin.zerojay.com ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • 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.

  • HelloRoot ( HelloRoot@lemy.lol ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • SavvyWolf ( savvywolf@pawb.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s relatively trivial, you just need to write a kernel module. You’d just need/want to make it gpl so everything it does is fully audited and transparent. That’s not a problem, is it? Right?

    From a technical standpoint, you could argue that someone could create a fork of the kernel that spoofs the interface that the anticheat uses to make it ignore things. You can, of course, also do something similar in Windows, but security theatre never let practicality get in the way.