Microsoft calls for Windows changes and resilience after CrowdStrike outage
www.theverge.com
Microsoft drops subtle hints about the future direction of Windows security.

Kernel anti-cheat systems are currently the bane of Linux/Steam Deck gaming, haven’t actually proven to be effective at stopping cheaters (see Valorant for an example), and lead to various security concerns from giving 3rd parties full access to your machine to being used to install ransomware and malware.

Windows tried to restrict kernel access years ago, but backed down under pressure from various companies. However Crowdstrike’s outages have shown the sever consequences of leaving kernel access open, and we might finally see kernel access to be cut off.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    what kills me is we Solved Cheating in the 90s and early 00s. It’s called dedicated servers. People would buy a game someone would setup a server and if you were a dick or cheat you would get kicked and each sever was like a community just like it is here.

    But the companies want control they want to be able to shut download the game on their timetable and get you to buy the next game. A tool or system is never going to fix this people and breaking communities into manageable chunks can.

    Hell back in the day servers were hacked on purpose to create new types of games. Anyone remember CS Surfing and Sniper only maps in TFC.

    the point is people can hack away break the game beyond recognition but they can do that off in their own space.

    Now I know that breaks global leader boards and other ego driven things but I’m just talking about having fun with games.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    If stopping any and all cheating 100% perfectly and forever is your only metric on “stopping cheating.” Then you have a distorted view on the effectiveness of current anti-cheat tools.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyzOPMEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      I mean Valorant has a lot of cheaters, it doesn’t really seem like kernel anti-cheat has been more effective than other forms of anti-cheat. There’s also an increasing number of hardware peripherals that offer cheating assistance, and these can’t be detected by kernel anti-cheat because the cheating happens on separate hardware.

      My point is that kernel anti-cheat has major privacy and security tradeoffs, which is a steep cost to pay. A steep cost is only worth it if it has a significant benefit to the users, and in practice it doesn’t.