4 ms·
Are you saying that the solution here is to sell computers so locked down that no user can install anything other than verified software?
by stavros 8mo ago
Are you saying that the solution here is to sell computers so locked down that no user can install anything other than verified software?
- torginus 8mo agoNo. I'm saying we should all drink the blood of babies to stay eternally youthful. You didn't read between the lines deeply enough.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- pta2002 8mo agoThat’s not really incompatible with this? That’s just how secure boot works. You can re-enlist keys for a different root of trust, or disable it and accept the trade-off there.
- alkonaut 8mo agoThat’s what I want as a gamer. I want a PC that works as a console. Whether I want that for other use cases or this machine doesn’t matter. I’m happy to sandbox _everything else_, boot into a specific OS to game etc. The thing about gaming is that it’s not acceptable to leave 5% performance on the table whereas for other uses it usually is.
- maccard 8mo agoQuestion for you - why don’t you buy a console? (I agree with you by the way, it’s why I have a ps5)
- alkonaut 8mo agoI never played using a controller and I never will. And I do want a high end PC for other use cases.,
- LtWorf 8mo agoThose use cases don't work with completely locked down OS. Also you can plug a mouse in a console… that's a weird excuse.
- alkonaut 8mo agoI don’t need to game in the same OS that I do other things. But having two sets of hardware seems like a waste.
- maccard 8mo ago_most_ games now do KBM on console and matchmake separately for it. It's still not perfect, but it's gotten much better. > And I do want a high end PC for other use cases., Right, you don't want two devices (that's fair). How can you _possibly_ trust the locked down device won't interfere with the other open software it's installed side by side with?
- Fizz43 8mo agoMid range hardware can run majority of games at high fps. You can easily leave performance on the table.
- zbentley 8mo ago> it’s not acceptable to leave 5% performance on the table whereas for other uses it usually is. I think that’s an incredibly rare stance not held by the vast majority of gamers, including competitive ones.
- alkonaut 8mo agoI don’t think a sandbox like a VM would work even if it could be done with only 5% perf hit? Wouldnt any game run in a VM be possible to introspect from the hypervisor in a way that is hard to see from inside the VM? And that’s why these anticheats disallow virtualization? That would mean those who are concerned about the integrity would want to sandbox everything else instead. And even if people are ok with giving up a small bit of perf when gaming, I’m sure they’re even more happy to give up perf when doing online banking.
- pooloo 8mo agoJust know that it will still get cracked and cheats will exist. I suspect this is Microsoft's next "console" as they have been developing "anti-cheat" for quite some time.
- 2postsperday 8mo agoMicrosoft will shoehorn their Anti-Cheat into the next Xbox project and force it down the throats of Windows 11/Windows 12 users. This will cause game developers to gobble this technology up. This is the only defense Microsoft has against the growing Linux Gaming crowd. Microsoft forgot how to make good, consumer friendly software.
- gzread 8mo agoGet a console then.
- charcircuit 8mo agoThe idea is that it would require a verified hypervisor, and verified operating system for the game, but you could still at the same time be running an unverified operating system with unverified software. The trusted and untrusted software has to be properly sandboxed from one another. The computer does not need to be locked down so you can't run other hypervisors, it just would require that the anticheat can't prove that it's running on a trusted one when it isn't. The security of PCs is still poor. Even if you had every available security feature right now it's not enough for the game to be safe. We still need to wait for PCs to catch up with the state of the art, then we have to wait 5+ years for devices to make it into the wild to have a big enough market share to make targeting them to be commercially viable.
- stavros 8mo agoBut if you can get in before the OS, you can change what it does. You'd need attestation in the hardware itself so the server can know that what's running isn't signed by Microsoft's key, for example.
- charcircuit 8mo agoAttestation is how the user mode anticheat would prove that it is running on a secure system / unmodified game.
- sigseg1v 8mo agoI'm still not seeing how that would solve it. These are all multiplayer games. You could intercept the network traffic before it reaches the machine and then use a separate device to give you audio or visual cues. In StarCraft, reading the network traffic with a pi and hearing "spawning 5 mutalisk" is gonna completely change the game.
- stavros 8mo agoYou can't do anything with a locked-down computer. It can encrypt all its traffic and you can't see anything.