5 ms·

I just wish anti-cheat would work on Linux, Windows has become an absolute mess, the search is barely usable now, everything has ads and product placement.

omnimus 1y ago
Which in particular? Many online games run fine.
- evanextreme 1y ago
  areweanticheatyet.com has a good list
- imhoguy 1y ago
  Roblox doesn't work under Linux. There are some workarounds with Wine but they stop working pretty quickly.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    Sober has more or less consistently worked for me. Except for a short time during some special Roblox event.
charcircuit 1y ago
Linux distros could work to create an API for anticheat to use that could verify their program's integrity, then work to have various anticheat to integrate it. This would avoid the issue of Linux not having a stable ABI for kernel drivers. For example Vanguard anticheat doesn't need to be a kernel driver since macos has good enough protection. If Linux could become competitive on security they wouldn't need kernel mode anticheat either. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen though.
- p_ing 1y ago
  Apple doesn't allow kext without the end user jumping through hoops, hence no kext. Riot doesn't really have much of a choice in what direction they take. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-extending-the-kernel-sec8e454101b/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-extending-... But with Linux being open, they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Riot doesn't really have much of a choice True, but the main point of a kernel mode anticheat is the ability to verify that the OS and game isn't being tampered with. If the OS has that capability already built in, then the needed for a kernel mode anticheat diminishes. >they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it It's not realistic for there to be such an install base to support such complexity compared to having them implement a simple API into their game and server.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      The only value kernel mode anticheat manages to bring on Windows is that it puts up a significant work barrier to both modifying the kernel and doing so in a way that doesn't trigger the kernel mode anti-cheat detection. With a kernel made to be easily customized by end users and no kernel mode anti-cheat protection trying to detect such modifications then any verification the kernel could provide would be meaningless. It's not actually the message from the kernel that provides the value, it's the work needed to fake such a message.
- treyd 1y ago
  It's not an issue of getting the act together on "security". Fairly consistently Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity. The issue is that Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users that want to assert control over the software running on their computer. It's very similar to the story with DRM. Linux desktop OSes will never put in place the measures to make a Vanguard-like system work, because it's just unethical for a bunch of reasons, the most basic of which being that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity. This isn't true. And supply chain wise just look at the xz backdoor. A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. Security also is not just supply chain integrity. >Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users I'm not sure what you mean by this. Just because Micrsoft cares about developers, it doesn't mean they don't care about users. >that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1 It's not. Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
    - treyd 1y ago
      > A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed in mainstream release branches, because it's free software. But broadening the scope a bit, the norms of using package managers as opposed to the norm on Windows of "download this .exe" is a much stronger security posture overall. I am aware the Windows Store exists, it's not widely used enough to make exes a marginal distribution pathway. I am aware curl | bash exists, it's more common than it should be, but even in those cases the source is visible and auditable, and that's very uncommon for non-technical users to ever do (unlike downloading random exes). > Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. That's a strawman, I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players. > You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it. And that's the issue, Windows has functionality to impede your ability to run the software as you see fit and modify it to your needs. Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  I don't see how they could do this without violating the principle of user choice. Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >violating the principle of user choice What do you exactly mean by this as right now no users can use Linux and play the game. Allowing more Linux operating systems to be able to play the game is providing users more choice than before. >Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity There is nothing fundamentally wrong with security through obscurity. It's just that for some problems the return on investment (security gained for the resources needed) is not worth it. For anticheat the obscurity can slow down cheat developers and raise the barrier to entry for developing cheats. Cheaters just have to make one mistake to get caught.
    - frollogaston 1y ago
      I think other commenters explained this better, but in Linux, the user is supposed to have full control over their own system. The only way for this kind of anticheat to work is by introducing some part of the kernel that users can't touch. I'm not saying security through obscurity is inherently bad, but Linux isn't about obscuring the system from its owner.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >the user is supposed to have full control over their own system Realistically most Linux users are using a stock kernel and not something custom compiled. You can have both customization and a way to offer a secure environment for apps that need it. Even if you want to allow for custom kernels and drivers, the game could be setup to run in a secure virtual machine. >The only way for this kind of anticheat to work is by introducing some part of the kernel that users can't touch. To be clear, attestation is not anticheat. But yes, there would be components that end users would be unable to modify without removing their ability to attest to there being a secure environment for the game. Either these customizations need to be turned into policy for a trusted component to handle, or the customization needs to itself become trusted. >but Linux isn't about obscuring the system from its owner. Nothing about attestation requires obfuscation.
ok123456 1y ago
Anticheat is always a rootkit by another name. Don't buy software that has rootkits or support it. They are antithetical to secure computing.
- dist-epoch 1y ago
  What do you think about SecureBoot? Is it anti-user DRM?
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    On x86 it's debatable, but on ARM it absolutely is. When ARM PCs first started coming out, Microsoft jumped on the opportunity by forbidding OEMs from letting you disable Secure Boot on them or add your own keys to them. (And when Microsoft signs third-party things like shim, they do so with a different key than they sign Windows with, which isn't one they allow ARM OEMs to trust.)
mystified5016 1y ago
I don't. If Windows suddenly dumps market share, game developers might actually be forced to find a way to solve this problem without installing actual malware into your kernel
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- balanc 1y ago
  If I install it on purpose to guarantee to other players that I am not cheating then it is not malware.
  - reactcore 1y ago
    If you install malware on purpose, it will still be malware.
    - coldpie 1y ago
      Running in kernel space does not automatically make something malware. There are legit reasons for some software to run in kernel space, and anti-cheat is one of them. It performs a useful function for users who want to play online games without cheaters. Running proprietary software in kernel space may not be worth the trade off to you, and that's fine and I agree personally, but that doesn't make it "malware."
zeta0134 1y ago
There is no reason Linux could not support sensible userland anti-cheat protections. What Linux wrappers mostly refuse to actually support is rootkits and exploits. Linux should not support rootkits and exploits, and frankly neither should Windows, but I suppose Microsoft doesn't care all that much about security in a games context. Linux's inability to run specific anti-cheat solutions is a vendor support issue on the anti-cheat maker's part, because they don't care about your security, and they've managed to convince game developers that this practice is acceptable. It's not. Vote with your wallet.
- dist-epoch 1y ago
  Rootkit is defined by intent, not by capabilities. If a user agrees to a kernel level anti-cheat, it's not a rootkit.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    I'm certain most users don't know what they're agreeing to. It's sort of the same argument people make about Meta et. all spying on people. Well, it's not spying, because you agreed to the EULA. Who reads the EULA? Nobody knows what they're agreeing to, ever. Even for computer-savvy individuals, do they know all of what the kernel-level anti-cheat does? Of course not. Even their consent isn't informed. For normal users, they don't know anything about anything.
- coldpie 1y ago
  If you can come up with a better solution, you'll have an entire industry's worth of money coming your way. No one likes the kernel-mode anticheat stuff, but no one's come up with a better solution either. Cheaters suck.
runjake 1y ago
Some anticheats work on Linux, including Easy Anticheat. Which ones are you still having problems with?
eloisant 1y ago
Anti-cheat themselves are not the problem, developers who decide not to block Windows even when the anti-cheat would work is. Fortnite uses EAC which does work on Linux, only they decide to block it.
- coldpie 1y ago
  EAC's Linux implementation is not as robust as the Windows implementation. For a high-profile game like Fortnite, I can understand not wanting to downgrade their anti-cheat protections.
  - ziml77 1y ago
    Respawn enabled Linux support for EAC for Apex Legends and then later turned it back off due to there being too many cheaters. > The openness of the Linux operating systems makes it an attractive one for cheaters and cheat developers. Linux cheats are indeed harder to detect and the data shows that they are growing at a rate that requires an outsized level of focus and attention from the team for a relatively small platform. There are also cases in which cheats for the Windows OS get emulated as if it’s on Linux in order to increase the difficulty of detection and prevention. We had to weigh the decision on the number of players who were legitimately playing on Linux/the Steam Deck versus the greater health of the population of players for Apex. While the population of Linux users is small, their impact infected a fair amount of players’ games. This ultimately brought us to our decision today. https://x.com/PlayApex/status/1852019667315102151 https://x.com/PlayApex/status/1852019667315102151
everdrive 1y ago
Kernel-level anti-cheat is quite bad, and I just wish it would be abandoned altogether rather than extended to Linux. This wasn't a problem when we had private servers rather than random matchmaking.
- ThatPlayer 1y ago
  Modern private servers have this problem too. CS2 private servers like Face-IT and Esea have additional anti cheat. Even Grand Theft Auto V's private servers FiveM has their own custom anti cheat before Rockstar added one Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons like this too, not official support, but admins choose to install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP servers had their anti-hack as they called it.
bee_rider 1y ago
If there’s really a market for linux distros that have been pre-infected by rootkits, it seems one of the major game studios could provide it. Of course the well known gaming company that releases a distro is Valve. But, rootkits don’t seem like they fit their particular ethos (they are well known for their less annoying DRM scheme, right?). TBH, it seems like a rare opportunity to break the hold they have on the “game store” concept.
- surajrmal 1y ago
  Rootkit implies it's trying to hide its presence. DRM software does no such thing. It simply wants to assert greater control over the hardware and restrict the user from executing some action in some way in exchange for access to something you wouldn't be able to have due to lack of trust. In the case of anticheat, many do not find its existence malicious or anti user.
  - a2128 1y ago
    They kinda do hide their presence. You install a game, maybe see a little splash screen with an anticheat logo in a corner. You wouldn't realize that you've just installed something with such great access over your operating system.
prophesi 1y ago
It's not terrible these days, especially with the advent of the Steam Deck. If you're not playing flavor-of-the-month live service games, then I've found that I rarely run into games where DRM/anti-cheat is the issue. A quick glance at protondb will let you know if a game runs fine on linux or not.
frollogaston 1y ago
The only way to leave Windows is to not care about video games. Despite Wine etc, this is basically how it goes. But it's a win-win, you get back your time and focus.

omnimus 1y ago

Which in particular? Many online games run fine.

evanextreme 1y ago
areweanticheatyet.com has a good list
imhoguy 1y ago
Roblox doesn't work under Linux. There are some workarounds with Wine but they stop working pretty quickly.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Sober has more or less consistently worked for me. Except for a short time during some special Roblox event.

charcircuit 1y ago

Linux distros could work to create an API for anticheat to use that could verify their program's integrity, then work to have various anticheat to integrate it. This would avoid the issue of Linux not having a stable ABI for kernel drivers. For example Vanguard anticheat doesn't need to be a kernel driver since macos has good enough protection. If Linux could become competitive on security they wouldn't need kernel mode anticheat either. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen though.

p_ing 1y ago
Apple doesn't allow kext without the end user jumping through hoops, hence no kext. Riot doesn't really have much of a choice in what direction they take. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-extending-the-kernel-sec8e454101b/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-extending-... But with Linux being open, they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Riot doesn't really have much of a choice True, but the main point of a kernel mode anticheat is the ability to verify that the OS and game isn't being tampered with. If the OS has that capability already built in, then the needed for a kernel mode anticheat diminishes. >they certainly would produce a loadable module if there was enough install base to justify it It's not realistic for there to be such an install base to support such complexity compared to having them implement a simple API into their game and server.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    The only value kernel mode anticheat manages to bring on Windows is that it puts up a significant work barrier to both modifying the kernel and doing so in a way that doesn't trigger the kernel mode anti-cheat detection. With a kernel made to be easily customized by end users and no kernel mode anti-cheat protection trying to detect such modifications then any verification the kernel could provide would be meaningless. It's not actually the message from the kernel that provides the value, it's the work needed to fake such a message.
treyd 1y ago
It's not an issue of getting the act together on "security". Fairly consistently Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity. The issue is that Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users that want to assert control over the software running on their computer. It's very similar to the story with DRM. Linux desktop OSes will never put in place the measures to make a Vanguard-like system work, because it's just unethical for a bunch of reasons, the most basic of which being that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than Windows desktops due to better software supply chain integrity. This isn't true. And supply chain wise just look at the xz backdoor. A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. Security also is not just supply chain integrity. >Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of proprietary software publishers against the will of users I'm not sure what you mean by this. Just because Micrsoft cares about developers, it doesn't mean they don't care about users. >that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1 It's not. Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it.
  - treyd 1y ago
    > A random person was able to compromise the supply chain of many Linux distros. The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed in mainstream release branches, because it's free software. But broadening the scope a bit, the norms of using package managers as opposed to the norm on Windows of "download this .exe" is a much stronger security posture overall. I am aware the Windows Store exists, it's not widely used enough to make exes a marginal distribution pathway. I am aware curl | bash exists, it's more common than it should be, but even in those cases the source is visible and auditable, and that's very uncommon for non-technical users to ever do (unlike downloading random exes). > Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat against other players without being banned. That's a strawman, I never claimed you should have the right to cheat against other players. > You can be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled to play with others using it. And that's the issue, Windows has functionality to impede your ability to run the software as you see fit and modify it to your needs. Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different moderation policies.
frollogaston 1y ago
I don't see how they could do this without violating the principle of user choice. Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >violating the principle of user choice What do you exactly mean by this as right now no users can use Linux and play the game. Allowing more Linux operating systems to be able to play the game is providing users more choice than before. >Client-side anticheat is inherently security through obscurity There is nothing fundamentally wrong with security through obscurity. It's just that for some problems the return on investment (security gained for the resources needed) is not worth it. For anticheat the obscurity can slow down cheat developers and raise the barrier to entry for developing cheats. Cheaters just have to make one mistake to get caught.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    I think other commenters explained this better, but in Linux, the user is supposed to have full control over their own system. The only way for this kind of anticheat to work is by introducing some part of the kernel that users can't touch. I'm not saying security through obscurity is inherently bad, but Linux isn't about obscuring the system from its owner.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >the user is supposed to have full control over their own system Realistically most Linux users are using a stock kernel and not something custom compiled. You can have both customization and a way to offer a secure environment for apps that need it. Even if you want to allow for custom kernels and drivers, the game could be setup to run in a secure virtual machine. >The only way for this kind of anticheat to work is by introducing some part of the kernel that users can't touch. To be clear, attestation is not anticheat. But yes, there would be components that end users would be unable to modify without removing their ability to attest to there being a secure environment for the game. Either these customizations need to be turned into policy for a trusted component to handle, or the customization needs to itself become trusted. >but Linux isn't about obscuring the system from its owner. Nothing about attestation requires obfuscation.

ok123456 1y ago

Anticheat is always a rootkit by another name. Don't buy software that has rootkits or support it. They are antithetical to secure computing.

dist-epoch 1y ago
What do you think about SecureBoot? Is it anti-user DRM?
- josephcsible 1y ago
  On x86 it's debatable, but on ARM it absolutely is. When ARM PCs first started coming out, Microsoft jumped on the opportunity by forbidding OEMs from letting you disable Secure Boot on them or add your own keys to them. (And when Microsoft signs third-party things like shim, they do so with a different key than they sign Windows with, which isn't one they allow ARM OEMs to trust.)

mystified5016 1y ago

I don't. If Windows suddenly dumps market share, game developers might actually be forced to find a way to solve this problem without installing actual malware into your kernel

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
balanc 1y ago
If I install it on purpose to guarantee to other players that I am not cheating then it is not malware.
- reactcore 1y ago
  If you install malware on purpose, it will still be malware.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    Running in kernel space does not automatically make something malware. There are legit reasons for some software to run in kernel space, and anti-cheat is one of them. It performs a useful function for users who want to play online games without cheaters. Running proprietary software in kernel space may not be worth the trade off to you, and that's fine and I agree personally, but that doesn't make it "malware."

zeta0134 1y ago

There is no reason Linux could not support sensible userland anti-cheat protections. What Linux wrappers mostly refuse to actually support is rootkits and exploits. Linux should not support rootkits and exploits, and frankly neither should Windows, but I suppose Microsoft doesn't care all that much about security in a games context. Linux's inability to run specific anti-cheat solutions is a vendor support issue on the anti-cheat maker's part, because they don't care about your security, and they've managed to convince game developers that this practice is acceptable. It's not. Vote with your wallet.

dist-epoch 1y ago
Rootkit is defined by intent, not by capabilities. If a user agrees to a kernel level anti-cheat, it's not a rootkit.
- const_cast 1y ago
  I'm certain most users don't know what they're agreeing to. It's sort of the same argument people make about Meta et. all spying on people. Well, it's not spying, because you agreed to the EULA. Who reads the EULA? Nobody knows what they're agreeing to, ever. Even for computer-savvy individuals, do they know all of what the kernel-level anti-cheat does? Of course not. Even their consent isn't informed. For normal users, they don't know anything about anything.
coldpie 1y ago
If you can come up with a better solution, you'll have an entire industry's worth of money coming your way. No one likes the kernel-mode anticheat stuff, but no one's come up with a better solution either. Cheaters suck.

runjake 1y ago

Some anticheats work on Linux, including Easy Anticheat. Which ones are you still having problems with?

eloisant 1y ago

Anti-cheat themselves are not the problem, developers who decide not to block Windows even when the anti-cheat would work is. Fortnite uses EAC which does work on Linux, only they decide to block it.

coldpie 1y ago
EAC's Linux implementation is not as robust as the Windows implementation. For a high-profile game like Fortnite, I can understand not wanting to downgrade their anti-cheat protections.
- ziml77 1y ago
  Respawn enabled Linux support for EAC for Apex Legends and then later turned it back off due to there being too many cheaters. > The openness of the Linux operating systems makes it an attractive one for cheaters and cheat developers. Linux cheats are indeed harder to detect and the data shows that they are growing at a rate that requires an outsized level of focus and attention from the team for a relatively small platform. There are also cases in which cheats for the Windows OS get emulated as if it’s on Linux in order to increase the difficulty of detection and prevention. We had to weigh the decision on the number of players who were legitimately playing on Linux/the Steam Deck versus the greater health of the population of players for Apex. While the population of Linux users is small, their impact infected a fair amount of players’ games. This ultimately brought us to our decision today. https://x.com/PlayApex/status/1852019667315102151 https://x.com/PlayApex/status/1852019667315102151

everdrive 1y ago

Kernel-level anti-cheat is quite bad, and I just wish it would be abandoned altogether rather than extended to Linux. This wasn't a problem when we had private servers rather than random matchmaking.

ThatPlayer 1y ago
Modern private servers have this problem too. CS2 private servers like Face-IT and Esea have additional anti cheat. Even Grand Theft Auto V's private servers FiveM has their own custom anti cheat before Rockstar added one Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons like this too, not official support, but admins choose to install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP servers had their anti-hack as they called it.

bee_rider 1y ago

If there’s really a market for linux distros that have been pre-infected by rootkits, it seems one of the major game studios could provide it. Of course the well known gaming company that releases a distro is Valve. But, rootkits don’t seem like they fit their particular ethos (they are well known for their less annoying DRM scheme, right?). TBH, it seems like a rare opportunity to break the hold they have on the “game store” concept.

surajrmal 1y ago
Rootkit implies it's trying to hide its presence. DRM software does no such thing. It simply wants to assert greater control over the hardware and restrict the user from executing some action in some way in exchange for access to something you wouldn't be able to have due to lack of trust. In the case of anticheat, many do not find its existence malicious or anti user.
- a2128 1y ago
  They kinda do hide their presence. You install a game, maybe see a little splash screen with an anticheat logo in a corner. You wouldn't realize that you've just installed something with such great access over your operating system.

prophesi 1y ago

It's not terrible these days, especially with the advent of the Steam Deck. If you're not playing flavor-of-the-month live service games, then I've found that I rarely run into games where DRM/anti-cheat is the issue. A quick glance at protondb will let you know if a game runs fine on linux or not.

frollogaston 1y ago

The only way to leave Windows is to not care about video games. Despite Wine etc, this is basically how it goes. But it's a win-win, you get back your time and focus.