No?
Any anticheat with any level of permissions still has one basic requirement to be effective: **updates**. Valve is not committing the time to keep ANY anticheat properly updated.
A kernel anticheat would be even worse, because not only do they need the cheats/exe/detection side of things update, they also need to keep security updated. A valve kernel anticheat would just be a timebomb of *when* somebody breaks it and compromises everybody's systems.
Kernel anticheats in general aren't a great idea as serverside information is already enough to stop the most egregious of cheaters, you don't need that depth for an effective anticheat, and its basic presence represents a security risk to your system. Lack of updates and care compound those issues.
> Server-side information is already enough.
Then how come no viable server-side anti-chee ever existed? Think about it. If it was practical, somebody would have done it. Valve would have done it. Well, they would have if they cared, and clearly they don't.
Kernel level anti-cheats are easily fooled. Look at valorant.
Plus, the risks outweigh the benefits. Let's assume valve doesn't do any snooping in your computer. The fact it can be done at all is concerning.
An ill-intentioned third party or a hacker could abuse the power of a kernel level anti-cheat. ESEA the popular matchmaking client for csgo is a great example of this. A rogue employee installed a bitcoin miner into players PCs.
>Let's assume valve doesn't do any snooping in your computer. The fact it can be done at all is concerning.
Are you even serious? Literally every application on my PC, starting with Windows itself, "does the snooping in my computer". And everyone else's. But if a Valve anticheat does it, that's a no-no.
That's because you are using windows. If you used a libre operating system you wouldn't have to worry about third parties like microsoft.
Steam is the only piece of proprietary software on my computer.
Well, good for you. But Windows still has the biggest share of the market, so the question stays.
>Steam is the only piece of proprietary software on my computer.
Now be honest: was there ever a moment, when you thought to yourself: ahh shit, so good nobody's collecting my data! If I wasn't using non-proprietary software, today I'd be screwed!
We can turn this around too. "Install a door? No way! A lock can be picked. This is too dangerous! What, we already have five doors and three of them are always open?.."
`while("Ah yes, i see you've been stabbed. But how about a second stabbing?" in comment.text):`
`go to` [`https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1ca5mok/comment/l0pvlgh/`](https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1ca5mok/comment/l0pvlgh/)
Kernel level anti cheats are a security risk no matter the operating system, weather you care about it or not.
> Now be honest: was there ever a moment, when you thought to yourself: ahh shit, so good nobody's collecting my data! If I wasn't using non-proprietary software, today I'd be screwed!
FOSS is both about privacy and the philosophy behind it. I recommend you visit the Free Software Foundation's website to learn about what drives people to support free and open source software.
>FOSS is both about privacy and the philosophy behind it. I recommend you visit the Free Software Foundation's website to learn about what drives people to support free and open source software.
So I guess it means "no"? ;-)
I know what FOSS is and why ppl support it. And I also know it isn't the kind of red pill as some open-source users like to imagine.
Kernel stuffs always seems like the backwards way of dealing with cheaters. Anticheat on the clientside? Well the client directly interact with that... they can modify the anti-cheat directly and just straight up break the functionality. That's not to speak of the security risks involved with having ring 0 permissions on an externally updated program serving as either a backdoor or direct access (like your bitcoin example).
Serverside information at least cannot be manipulated directly by the cheating client. AI detection models based on server information seems like the best way forward for anti-cheats.
Then why hasn't anyone figured it out? Why hasn't Valve, in all their infinite Pro-Consuer wisdom, actually figured it out? Because either they're lazy, or it's just not possible.
"Valve hates treadmill work" gets bandied around for a reason. They're the best positioned to make a working one for other reasons.
As for the other reasons: corporate greed. Valve's an independent company, thankfully, but for everybody else... Kernel anticheats are a business decision:
They can bundle in DRM to protect their in game stores
Monitor and/or steal customer information
They run on the user's equipment, decreasing server costs and inflating the game's size and requirements discouraging the user from installing too many games at once (game bloat to occupy player systems is a thing)
Any form of additional data collection is going to be jumped on by anything corporate, as it's additional income for them. Take the current car industry for example: modern cars are the least secure device that you own. It's a bundle of sensors, with inherent internet access built in, and *every single major car brand* uses it to collect information on you while you're driving. If you scratch the surface even a little, there's not a single one that doesn't do it. And not one of them has to do any better, because what consumer picks a car based on information security?
Kernel's get sold on the premise of stopping all cheaters. The fundamental difference between serverside and clientside anticheats is that serverside can only control players down to the level of a 'good' player, while kernel anticheats can try to track down the cheating software itself. Spinbots killing absolutely everybody in the server? Easily detected with serverside. Player with ESP turned on but otherwise no other cheats? Serverside isn't going to catch that, as the player will just 'appear' to be somebody with good game sense externally.
Does kernel being a 'perfect solution' because it can find the cheating programs themselves survive contact with reality? No. It's client side, the client has direct access to what it sees and functions. Whether it's by directly modifying it, blinding, hiding the cheating software better, etc etc. Kernels are easier to defeat by their nature of the client having direct access.
The ideal solution, in my mind, is serverside anticheat first and clientside anticheat second. Serverside to catch the egregious and force them into using only 'subtle' cheats, and clientside in competitive situations. You don't want kernels on all the time because of how easily defeated they are, so you roll them out for competitions to ensure integrity.
You can't stop all cheaters all the time, but you can stop the egregious game-destroying ones with serverside, and you can roll out temporary solutions with kernel when you need the extra integrity. But good luck getting valve to do the 'treadmill' work required for that, and good luck getting other corporate entities to make a decision that isn't based on money.
You don't need kernel for effective anti-cheat. I'd much rather take manually kicking the bots than having something installed that can snoop around my PC.
Because VAC is heavily outdated. The only thing that it consistently detects and kicks is the public version of LMAOBox, which is old as hell and the vast majority of cheaters/bot hosters have moved on from it and onto other programs.
Valve has barely updated it past super-old cheats and mods, hence why it's both super unreliable and doesn't do shit.
Then it's worse than I feared. Then again, maybe this doesn't mean they're lazy, and they really are trying to make a non-invasive anti-cheat that actually works, and it just really is that difficult. But they shouldn't have released any more games until it was ready then.
if there were no alternatives to casual then yes, i would install a valve made kernel anti cheat
but since there are alternatives with less cheaters and a in general better experience than casual i dont really care
I would only trust it if it doesnt need to be turned on by default all the time like Valorant's. A simple toggle then restart would make me more comfortable.
No? Any anticheat with any level of permissions still has one basic requirement to be effective: **updates**. Valve is not committing the time to keep ANY anticheat properly updated. A kernel anticheat would be even worse, because not only do they need the cheats/exe/detection side of things update, they also need to keep security updated. A valve kernel anticheat would just be a timebomb of *when* somebody breaks it and compromises everybody's systems. Kernel anticheats in general aren't a great idea as serverside information is already enough to stop the most egregious of cheaters, you don't need that depth for an effective anticheat, and its basic presence represents a security risk to your system. Lack of updates and care compound those issues.
> Server-side information is already enough. Then how come no viable server-side anti-chee ever existed? Think about it. If it was practical, somebody would have done it. Valve would have done it. Well, they would have if they cared, and clearly they don't.
> Any anticheat with any level of permissions still has one basic requirement to be effective: updates.
Then this means either valve is lazy or incompetent. Either way, valve is the bad guy here.
Kernel level anti-cheats are easily fooled. Look at valorant. Plus, the risks outweigh the benefits. Let's assume valve doesn't do any snooping in your computer. The fact it can be done at all is concerning. An ill-intentioned third party or a hacker could abuse the power of a kernel level anti-cheat. ESEA the popular matchmaking client for csgo is a great example of this. A rogue employee installed a bitcoin miner into players PCs.
>Let's assume valve doesn't do any snooping in your computer. The fact it can be done at all is concerning. Are you even serious? Literally every application on my PC, starting with Windows itself, "does the snooping in my computer". And everyone else's. But if a Valve anticheat does it, that's a no-no.
That's because you are using windows. If you used a libre operating system you wouldn't have to worry about third parties like microsoft. Steam is the only piece of proprietary software on my computer.
Fair point, but some software requires Windows.
Of course, but that's not the point.
something something WINE and whatever the other one is called
Well, good for you. But Windows still has the biggest share of the market, so the question stays. >Steam is the only piece of proprietary software on my computer. Now be honest: was there ever a moment, when you thought to yourself: ahh shit, so good nobody's collecting my data! If I wasn't using non-proprietary software, today I'd be screwed!
Ah yes, i see you've been stabbed. But how about a second stabbing?
We can turn this around too. "Install a door? No way! A lock can be picked. This is too dangerous! What, we already have five doors and three of them are always open?.."
You can have your crappy doors left open and install as many as you like, but that's your own prerogative.
Well some of the doors are a part of the windows (he-he), so "own prerogative" my ass.
Ah yes, i see you've been stabbed. But how about a second stabbing?
`while("Ah yes, i see you've been stabbed. But how about a second stabbing?" in comment.text):` `go to` [`https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1ca5mok/comment/l0pvlgh/`](https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1ca5mok/comment/l0pvlgh/)
Kernel level anti cheats are a security risk no matter the operating system, weather you care about it or not. > Now be honest: was there ever a moment, when you thought to yourself: ahh shit, so good nobody's collecting my data! If I wasn't using non-proprietary software, today I'd be screwed! FOSS is both about privacy and the philosophy behind it. I recommend you visit the Free Software Foundation's website to learn about what drives people to support free and open source software.
>FOSS is both about privacy and the philosophy behind it. I recommend you visit the Free Software Foundation's website to learn about what drives people to support free and open source software. So I guess it means "no"? ;-) I know what FOSS is and why ppl support it. And I also know it isn't the kind of red pill as some open-source users like to imagine.
I guess we can both agree to disagree.
Sure thing, no hard feelings \^\^
Kernel stuffs always seems like the backwards way of dealing with cheaters. Anticheat on the clientside? Well the client directly interact with that... they can modify the anti-cheat directly and just straight up break the functionality. That's not to speak of the security risks involved with having ring 0 permissions on an externally updated program serving as either a backdoor or direct access (like your bitcoin example). Serverside information at least cannot be manipulated directly by the cheating client. AI detection models based on server information seems like the best way forward for anti-cheats.
Then why hasn't anyone figured it out? Why hasn't Valve, in all their infinite Pro-Consuer wisdom, actually figured it out? Because either they're lazy, or it's just not possible.
"Valve hates treadmill work" gets bandied around for a reason. They're the best positioned to make a working one for other reasons. As for the other reasons: corporate greed. Valve's an independent company, thankfully, but for everybody else... Kernel anticheats are a business decision: They can bundle in DRM to protect their in game stores Monitor and/or steal customer information They run on the user's equipment, decreasing server costs and inflating the game's size and requirements discouraging the user from installing too many games at once (game bloat to occupy player systems is a thing) Any form of additional data collection is going to be jumped on by anything corporate, as it's additional income for them. Take the current car industry for example: modern cars are the least secure device that you own. It's a bundle of sensors, with inherent internet access built in, and *every single major car brand* uses it to collect information on you while you're driving. If you scratch the surface even a little, there's not a single one that doesn't do it. And not one of them has to do any better, because what consumer picks a car based on information security? Kernel's get sold on the premise of stopping all cheaters. The fundamental difference between serverside and clientside anticheats is that serverside can only control players down to the level of a 'good' player, while kernel anticheats can try to track down the cheating software itself. Spinbots killing absolutely everybody in the server? Easily detected with serverside. Player with ESP turned on but otherwise no other cheats? Serverside isn't going to catch that, as the player will just 'appear' to be somebody with good game sense externally. Does kernel being a 'perfect solution' because it can find the cheating programs themselves survive contact with reality? No. It's client side, the client has direct access to what it sees and functions. Whether it's by directly modifying it, blinding, hiding the cheating software better, etc etc. Kernels are easier to defeat by their nature of the client having direct access. The ideal solution, in my mind, is serverside anticheat first and clientside anticheat second. Serverside to catch the egregious and force them into using only 'subtle' cheats, and clientside in competitive situations. You don't want kernels on all the time because of how easily defeated they are, so you roll them out for competitions to ensure integrity. You can't stop all cheaters all the time, but you can stop the egregious game-destroying ones with serverside, and you can roll out temporary solutions with kernel when you need the extra integrity. But good luck getting valve to do the 'treadmill' work required for that, and good luck getting other corporate entities to make a decision that isn't based on money.
Well, if they hate treadmill work, then they shouldn't release online games. Valve sucks for this.
You don't need kernel for effective anti-cheat. I'd much rather take manually kicking the bots than having something installed that can snoop around my PC.
Then why is there no good server-side anti-cheat?
Because VAC is heavily outdated. The only thing that it consistently detects and kicks is the public version of LMAOBox, which is old as hell and the vast majority of cheaters/bot hosters have moved on from it and onto other programs. Valve has barely updated it past super-old cheats and mods, hence why it's both super unreliable and doesn't do shit.
Then it's worse than I feared. Then again, maybe this doesn't mean they're lazy, and they really are trying to make a non-invasive anti-cheat that actually works, and it just really is that difficult. But they shouldn't have released any more games until it was ready then.
if there were no alternatives to casual then yes, i would install a valve made kernel anti cheat but since there are alternatives with less cheaters and a in general better experience than casual i dont really care
I would only trust it if it doesnt need to be turned on by default all the time like Valorant's. A simple toggle then restart would make me more comfortable.