3 ms·

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

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.

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.