3 ms·

>trying to lock out Linux Only because desktop Linux will be behind on security. Macs already got this ability in 2023 which allowed for a user mode anticheat

>trying to lock out Linux Only because desktop Linux will be behind on security. Macs already got this ability in 2023 which allowed for a user mode anticheat for Riot Games to be made that successfully prevented cheating. Now Windows is getting attestation that is the game running on a secure system. If desktop Linux ever gets around to this then a anticheats can add support for it and it will be much easier then them needing to make a kernel anticheat for a platform that few people use.

beeflet 10mo ago
it will be behind on security gimmicks
- eddythompson80 10mo ago
  It’s not a gimmick feature. It’s just the “user” is always, inherently, in “control” of the kernel itself when it comes to Linux. That’s not true with NT or Darwin. You (a 3rd party) can always verify NT or Darwin’s “integrity” by checking it’s cryptographically signed by Microsoft or Apple. Other than assuming that Valve (or Sony, Nintendo, Debian, SUSE, RedHat, etc) is the “trusted kernel” for your game, you can’t do that with Linux. And the moment you say “My application only runs on Kernels signed by {insert organization}, are you really “Linux”?
  - Alupis 10mo ago
    The reality is the overwhelming majority of desktop linux users are probably using a kernel shipped by their distro, be it Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Valve, whatever. Those kernels could be attested. I agree with your sentiment though. It's a wild future we're considering, just so some people can play video games and complain less about supposed cheaters (or often, skill issues, but I digress).
    - eddythompson80 10mo ago
      Yeah, I agree. Majority of people running any OS are expecting a vendor that manages their OS. Even those running Arch are rarely patching things by hand and just following whatever is in the official repos or wiki. However, I believe part of the huge positive sentiment about “Linux gaming” online is that, so far, it’s been truly “Linux gaming”. Once it becomes “Valve’s Gaming” it’s really no different than PS5 or Switch using Linux for its base OS but it’s really Sony or Nintendo’s device.
eddythompson80 10mo ago
> If desktop Linux ever gets around to this I don’t really understand what that means. Are you, or anyone, expecting a signed Linux kernel by some organization (say Valve or Debian or whatever) that will be the “Gaming Kernel”? If not, no Linux kernel feature is safe from 1 patch and a custom build.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  I mean the approach the article is talking about. Creating a safe hypervisor and safe kernel that games can get an attestation to in order to trust that they are running on a secure platform.
  - eddythompson80 10mo ago
    Yeah, then the “safe kernel” is Valve’s kernel.
- wmf 10mo ago
  Many people would be happy with a Valve gaming kernel.
  - eddythompson80 10mo ago
    Many are happy with a Sony gaming kernel as is.
- oneshtein 10mo ago
  Stock Linux kernel in Fedora, for example, is signed by MS, so SecureBoot allows to boot it without modification. Kernel booted by SecureBoot is locked down by default. To unlock it, you need to patch kernel source, rebuild it, sign it with your own key, and install this key via UEFI to boot it in SecureBoot mode. Your custom key will not pass remote attestation.
  - eddythompson80 10mo ago
    They are not signed by MS they are dual signed by a CA that MS runs as a service for UEFI secure boot as well as the distro’s CA. If you were around in the late 2000s when UEFI SecureBoot was being proposed, you’d remember the massive hysteria about how “SecureBoot is a MS plot to block Linux install”. Even though the proposal was to just allow the UEFI to verify the sig of the binary it’ll boot, and to allow the user to provide the UEFI with the keys to trust, the massive fear was that MB manufacturers will just be too lazy (or be bought by MS) that they will only allow MS keys, or that the process to enlist a new key would be too difficult to sufficiently discourage people from installing Linux (because you know, I’m all for the freedom and fuck-Microsoft camp, until its expected that I verify a signature) so Microsoft offered a service for CA service, like https CAs, but for boot signing. Assuming you’re a good Linux user, you can always just put your favorite distro signing key in your UEFI without accepting MS CA n there.
raincole 10mo ago
I absolutely won't call client side anti-cheat a "security" feature and I find the framing very questionable.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  This is specifically an integrity feature. And integrity is typically classified under security.
  - barrkel 10mo ago
    It is however integrity on behalf of a third party, and possibly antagonistic to the user.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Proving my device's integrity is for me. If I want to modify the code on my device and don't want you to know that I did, that's my right. Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation, and a freedom violation if there's no way for me to spoof what I'm running on my device and they block me based on that.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      The whole point of remote attestation is to prove integrity of remote machines. >that's my right. It's common for states to make fraud unlawful due to being an antisocial behavior. I similarly believe that lying about your the integrity of an app running is similarly antisocial behavior. >Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation How does it break your security model? >a freedom violation It turns out that such freedom when given to bad actors turns into the freedom for them to ruin games by cheating. People still have the freedom to do whatever they want on their own computer, but they just can't hack a game and then fraudulently claim they aren't using hacks.
    - compsciphd 10mo ago
      no one is saying that you can't modify the system in this world. they are saying you can't run multiplayer on this system. Running multiplayer games isn't a right. Now, your issue is extended for instance when people are locked out of their banking apps for running modified systems, and I'm much more sympathetic to you there. But just because a technology can cause bad things in one circumstance, doesn't mean its bad in all circumstances. It's up to society to say, its good to use this here, but bad to use it there. If one believes that society can't do that well, then all technology should be considered problematic.
esseph 10mo ago
Kernel anti cheat in windows has already been used to deploy malware. It was inevitable when this even started.

beeflet 10mo ago

it will be behind on security gimmicks

eddythompson80 10mo ago
It’s not a gimmick feature. It’s just the “user” is always, inherently, in “control” of the kernel itself when it comes to Linux. That’s not true with NT or Darwin. You (a 3rd party) can always verify NT or Darwin’s “integrity” by checking it’s cryptographically signed by Microsoft or Apple. Other than assuming that Valve (or Sony, Nintendo, Debian, SUSE, RedHat, etc) is the “trusted kernel” for your game, you can’t do that with Linux. And the moment you say “My application only runs on Kernels signed by {insert organization}, are you really “Linux”?
- Alupis 10mo ago
  The reality is the overwhelming majority of desktop linux users are probably using a kernel shipped by their distro, be it Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Valve, whatever. Those kernels could be attested. I agree with your sentiment though. It's a wild future we're considering, just so some people can play video games and complain less about supposed cheaters (or often, skill issues, but I digress).
  - eddythompson80 10mo ago
    Yeah, I agree. Majority of people running any OS are expecting a vendor that manages their OS. Even those running Arch are rarely patching things by hand and just following whatever is in the official repos or wiki. However, I believe part of the huge positive sentiment about “Linux gaming” online is that, so far, it’s been truly “Linux gaming”. Once it becomes “Valve’s Gaming” it’s really no different than PS5 or Switch using Linux for its base OS but it’s really Sony or Nintendo’s device.

eddythompson80 10mo ago

> If desktop Linux ever gets around to this I don’t really understand what that means. Are you, or anyone, expecting a signed Linux kernel by some organization (say Valve or Debian or whatever) that will be the “Gaming Kernel”? If not, no Linux kernel feature is safe from 1 patch and a custom build.

charcircuit 10mo ago
I mean the approach the article is talking about. Creating a safe hypervisor and safe kernel that games can get an attestation to in order to trust that they are running on a secure platform.
- eddythompson80 10mo ago
  Yeah, then the “safe kernel” is Valve’s kernel.
wmf 10mo ago
Many people would be happy with a Valve gaming kernel.
- eddythompson80 10mo ago
  Many are happy with a Sony gaming kernel as is.
oneshtein 10mo ago
Stock Linux kernel in Fedora, for example, is signed by MS, so SecureBoot allows to boot it without modification. Kernel booted by SecureBoot is locked down by default. To unlock it, you need to patch kernel source, rebuild it, sign it with your own key, and install this key via UEFI to boot it in SecureBoot mode. Your custom key will not pass remote attestation.
- eddythompson80 10mo ago
  They are not signed by MS they are dual signed by a CA that MS runs as a service for UEFI secure boot as well as the distro’s CA. If you were around in the late 2000s when UEFI SecureBoot was being proposed, you’d remember the massive hysteria about how “SecureBoot is a MS plot to block Linux install”. Even though the proposal was to just allow the UEFI to verify the sig of the binary it’ll boot, and to allow the user to provide the UEFI with the keys to trust, the massive fear was that MB manufacturers will just be too lazy (or be bought by MS) that they will only allow MS keys, or that the process to enlist a new key would be too difficult to sufficiently discourage people from installing Linux (because you know, I’m all for the freedom and fuck-Microsoft camp, until its expected that I verify a signature) so Microsoft offered a service for CA service, like https CAs, but for boot signing. Assuming you’re a good Linux user, you can always just put your favorite distro signing key in your UEFI without accepting MS CA n there.

raincole 10mo ago

I absolutely won't call client side anti-cheat a "security" feature and I find the framing very questionable.

charcircuit 10mo ago
This is specifically an integrity feature. And integrity is typically classified under security.
- barrkel 10mo ago
  It is however integrity on behalf of a third party, and possibly antagonistic to the user.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Proving my device's integrity is for me. If I want to modify the code on my device and don't want you to know that I did, that's my right. Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation, and a freedom violation if there's no way for me to spoof what I'm running on my device and they block me based on that.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    The whole point of remote attestation is to prove integrity of remote machines. >that's my right. It's common for states to make fraud unlawful due to being an antisocial behavior. I similarly believe that lying about your the integrity of an app running is similarly antisocial behavior. >Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation How does it break your security model? >a freedom violation It turns out that such freedom when given to bad actors turns into the freedom for them to ruin games by cheating. People still have the freedom to do whatever they want on their own computer, but they just can't hack a game and then fraudulently claim they aren't using hacks.
  - compsciphd 10mo ago
    no one is saying that you can't modify the system in this world. they are saying you can't run multiplayer on this system. Running multiplayer games isn't a right. Now, your issue is extended for instance when people are locked out of their banking apps for running modified systems, and I'm much more sympathetic to you there. But just because a technology can cause bad things in one circumstance, doesn't mean its bad in all circumstances. It's up to society to say, its good to use this here, but bad to use it there. If one believes that society can't do that well, then all technology should be considered problematic.

esseph 10mo ago

Kernel anti cheat in windows has already been used to deploy malware. It was inevitable when this even started.