5 ms·

That is just telling me that Windows Defender should start flagging Riot executables used as part of this malware injector. This does not, and cannot lead, to a

That is just telling me that Windows Defender should start flagging Riot executables used as part of this malware injector. This does not, and cannot lead, to an improved user experience.

dangrossman 5y ago
Not having cheaters ruin my online games is an improved user experience.
- jevoten 5y ago
  Are you being glib, or do you genuinely believe the OS should subvert its user to appease a different group of people? For many artists, not having their art copied would be an improved user experience, so should the OS prevent you from copying files tagged as copyrighted? Windows Defender already removes torrent software and gives scary warnings for LibreOffice [1] so it's not a big step. [1] https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-leads-the-user-to-assume-free-and-open-source-software-is-malicious-with-scary-red-warnings/ https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-...
  - ejj28 5y ago
    This is not a case of the OS subverting it's user, the user is installing Riot's anticheat of their own will. If you'd like Windows Defender to stop that, then you should be fine with the warnings it gives with those other apps too.
    - jevoten 5y ago
      But that's just it - Riot's anti-cheat gets far fewer warnings than FOSS software, because MS has tilted the system to favor corporate entities willing to pay MS for certificates. If a "trusted developer" is one of the heuristics, then any kind of honest anti-virus should trust major free software developers/apps to at least the same degree as someone like Adobe or Riot.
  - dangrossman 5y ago
    I'm choosing to install anti-cheat software into MY OS, on MY hardware, to improve MY gaming experience. The OS isn't subverting anything by allowing me to do that. I can't see how that's anything like your hypothetical. The anti-cheat software isn't being rolled into Windows for everyone in the globe, it's part of a voluntary, user-directed game installation on a specific computer.
    - jevoten 5y ago
      Are you being deliberately obtuse? You can still choose to install a rootkit on YOUR hardware after clicking through the antivirus warning. What is subverted is the expectation that the antivirus won't whitelist rootkits without even informing the user of what is happening. Don't you think users have a right to know, to make an informed decision, instead of Microsoft deciding for them that Riot is so trustworthy they can have root on the user's device, without requiring so much as an "Are you sure?" clickthrough?
    - nyuszika7h 5y ago
      If it's voluntary, then obviously cheaters are not going to install it. You choosing to install the anti-cheat software on your own computer will not magically stop people you play with from cheating. Therefore your whole argument goes out of the window.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        It’s voluntary as installing the game is voluntary. You can’t opt out of the anti cheat tech yet opt into playing the online game. One might disagree with a part of the product (the anticheat part) but then one has to choose not to buy or use the product at all. It’s voluntary.
- onelovetwo 5y ago
  I'm sure you don't want Apple allowing people to have illegal images on their phones, are you willing to have all your photos constantly scanned to improve that?
  - dangrossman 5y ago
    I don't see how this is related. I'm installing a game with anti cheat software on my computer to improve my experience. This is my choice, my hardware, and is for my own benefit.
    - gruez 5y ago
      It really isn't when you're forced to install the anticheat software to play the game. The corresponding phone analogy would be saying that it's "your choice" to have your pictures scanned for CSAM, because you made the choice to buy apple instead of a pinephone or whatever.
      - dangrossman 5y ago
        The anti-cheat code is an integral part of an online game. I can choose not to install and play that game if I don't want the anti-cheat code on my computer. I can't choose not to run iOS on an Apple phone. These are not analogous situations.
        gruez 5y ago
        So you draw the line at hardware/software? Why there? Can you not treat iOS as a bundle of software + hardware?
        randy408 5y ago
        Obviously you haven't played online video games.
- sweetbitter 5y ago
  What about communities of gamers and hackers who get their fun in environments where everyone spends their time hacking away at game code to use against each other? This is pretty common in many Minecraft servers, for example- hundreds of people developing the best cheats to use against opposing factions in said communities.
  - ejj28 5y ago
    Those people don't play on the same servers as regular players.
judge2020 5y ago
Malware is subjective, as everyone who's made any new executable and sent it to a friend knows as Defender immediately destroys the program and quarantines it. Surely many, many people are willing to pay the price of running this anti-cheat that 'runs in the background' (not consuming many resources, mind you - the vgc executable isn't constantly running, only vgtray which is the tray icon and it's sitting at 640K), so this obviously isn't malware to them.
- syspec 5y ago
  At 640k it's using all the available ram any computer would ever need
- jevoten 5y ago
  > Malware is subjective Torrent programs get silently deleted, LibreOffice and other FOSS installers get big scary warnings [1], installing an open-source audio package pops up no less than seven warning screens [2], but Riot can install a literal rootkit to only a single "this program will make changes to your computer" notification, in a friendly blue color. It's painfully obvious Microsoft is looking out for its own interests, and those of its corporate partners, instead of their users, when they subjectively determine what is malware. [1] https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-leads-the-user-to-assume-free-and-open-source-software-is-malicious-with-scary-red-warnings/ https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-... [2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/windows_10_microsoft_defender_smartscreen/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/windows_10_microsoft_...
  - judge2020 5y ago
    It's not a rootkit, it's a kernel-level driver. The same goes for any other driver that can be installed via just UAC - for example, Corsair installs their kernel driver[0] and cpu-z as well[1]. 0: https://i.judge.sh/illegal/Tempest/InstalledDriversList_HbYVoId9Nd.png https://i.judge.sh/illegal/Tempest/InstalledDriversList_HbYV... 1: https://i.judge.sh/fickle/Aloe/InstalledDriversList_7NIthyI6dM.png https://i.judge.sh/fickle/Aloe/InstalledDriversList_7NIthyI6...

That is just telling me that Windows Defender should start flagging Riot executables used as part of this malware injector. This does not, and cannot lead, to an improved user experience.

dangrossman 5y ago

Not having cheaters ruin my online games is an improved user experience.

jevoten 5y ago
Are you being glib, or do you genuinely believe the OS should subvert its user to appease a different group of people? For many artists, not having their art copied would be an improved user experience, so should the OS prevent you from copying files tagged as copyrighted? Windows Defender already removes torrent software and gives scary warnings for LibreOffice [1] so it's not a big step. [1] https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-leads-the-user-to-assume-free-and-open-source-software-is-malicious-with-scary-red-warnings/ https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-...
- ejj28 5y ago
  This is not a case of the OS subverting it's user, the user is installing Riot's anticheat of their own will. If you'd like Windows Defender to stop that, then you should be fine with the warnings it gives with those other apps too.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    But that's just it - Riot's anti-cheat gets far fewer warnings than FOSS software, because MS has tilted the system to favor corporate entities willing to pay MS for certificates. If a "trusted developer" is one of the heuristics, then any kind of honest anti-virus should trust major free software developers/apps to at least the same degree as someone like Adobe or Riot.
- dangrossman 5y ago
  I'm choosing to install anti-cheat software into MY OS, on MY hardware, to improve MY gaming experience. The OS isn't subverting anything by allowing me to do that. I can't see how that's anything like your hypothetical. The anti-cheat software isn't being rolled into Windows for everyone in the globe, it's part of a voluntary, user-directed game installation on a specific computer.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? You can still choose to install a rootkit on YOUR hardware after clicking through the antivirus warning. What is subverted is the expectation that the antivirus won't whitelist rootkits without even informing the user of what is happening. Don't you think users have a right to know, to make an informed decision, instead of Microsoft deciding for them that Riot is so trustworthy they can have root on the user's device, without requiring so much as an "Are you sure?" clickthrough?
  - nyuszika7h 5y ago
    If it's voluntary, then obviously cheaters are not going to install it. You choosing to install the anti-cheat software on your own computer will not magically stop people you play with from cheating. Therefore your whole argument goes out of the window.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      It’s voluntary as installing the game is voluntary. You can’t opt out of the anti cheat tech yet opt into playing the online game. One might disagree with a part of the product (the anticheat part) but then one has to choose not to buy or use the product at all. It’s voluntary.
onelovetwo 5y ago
I'm sure you don't want Apple allowing people to have illegal images on their phones, are you willing to have all your photos constantly scanned to improve that?
- dangrossman 5y ago
  I don't see how this is related. I'm installing a game with anti cheat software on my computer to improve my experience. This is my choice, my hardware, and is for my own benefit.
  - gruez 5y ago
    It really isn't when you're forced to install the anticheat software to play the game. The corresponding phone analogy would be saying that it's "your choice" to have your pictures scanned for CSAM, because you made the choice to buy apple instead of a pinephone or whatever.
    - dangrossman 5y ago
      The anti-cheat code is an integral part of an online game. I can choose not to install and play that game if I don't want the anti-cheat code on my computer. I can't choose not to run iOS on an Apple phone. These are not analogous situations.
      - gruez 5y ago
        So you draw the line at hardware/software? Why there? Can you not treat iOS as a bundle of software + hardware?
        randy408 5y ago
        Obviously you haven't played online video games.
sweetbitter 5y ago
What about communities of gamers and hackers who get their fun in environments where everyone spends their time hacking away at game code to use against each other? This is pretty common in many Minecraft servers, for example- hundreds of people developing the best cheats to use against opposing factions in said communities.
- ejj28 5y ago
  Those people don't play on the same servers as regular players.

judge2020 5y ago

Malware is subjective, as everyone who's made any new executable and sent it to a friend knows as Defender immediately destroys the program and quarantines it. Surely many, many people are willing to pay the price of running this anti-cheat that 'runs in the background' (not consuming many resources, mind you - the vgc executable isn't constantly running, only vgtray which is the tray icon and it's sitting at 640K), so this obviously isn't malware to them.

syspec 5y ago
At 640k it's using all the available ram any computer would ever need
jevoten 5y ago
> Malware is subjective Torrent programs get silently deleted, LibreOffice and other FOSS installers get big scary warnings [1], installing an open-source audio package pops up no less than seven warning screens [2], but Riot can install a literal rootkit to only a single "this program will make changes to your computer" notification, in a friendly blue color. It's painfully obvious Microsoft is looking out for its own interests, and those of its corporate partners, instead of their users, when they subjectively determine what is malware. [1] https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-leads-the-user-to-assume-free-and-open-source-software-is-malicious-with-scary-red-warnings/ https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-... [2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/windows_10_microsoft_defender_smartscreen/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/windows_10_microsoft_...
- judge2020 5y ago
  It's not a rootkit, it's a kernel-level driver. The same goes for any other driver that can be installed via just UAC - for example, Corsair installs their kernel driver[0] and cpu-z as well[1]. 0: https://i.judge.sh/illegal/Tempest/InstalledDriversList_HbYVoId9Nd.png https://i.judge.sh/illegal/Tempest/InstalledDriversList_HbYV... 1: https://i.judge.sh/fickle/Aloe/InstalledDriversList_7NIthyI6dM.png https://i.judge.sh/fickle/Aloe/InstalledDriversList_7NIthyI6...