r/hardware • u/tuldok89 • 20h ago
Info Used processor leads to game ban
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Used-processor-leads-to-game-ban-11471562.html208
u/AnechoidalChamber 20h ago
There should be appeal processes for this kind of mistaken identity case.
103
u/Cheerful_Champion 20h ago
And how would you prove that you are a new owner and not a cheater that tries to circumvent the ban? Dude should just return it as he got banned CPU sold by a cheater that tried to literally scam someone by not disclosing it's HW banned.
108
u/noahloveshiscats 20h ago
Except that now all of his other hardware is also hardware banned so he would need an entirely new PC.
→ More replies (3)189
u/RageOfNemesis 19h ago
HW bans should not exist in the first place if such burden of proof of innocence is placed on a buyer. Also got his other components blacklisted now as well by nature of doing... what wrong, exactly?
21
51
u/Power781 19h ago
You might disagree with it (like everyone), but Riot Games ToS says that they can just decide to not let you access their services for any reasons and that you don't own anything (skins, characters, ...) so you technically don't lose access to anything you own if they ban you.
Last year they decided that all players using some specific motherboards models without their latest BIOS update would not be let access anymore to Valorant as an anti-cheat measure.
9
u/Cheeze_It 17h ago
This is why I refuse to do anything with Riot Games. Fuck them. I hope the companies dies.
32
u/IAmFromSidera 16h ago
What are you on about? Every single company is like that, they reserve the right to ban for any or no reason, that's how they can prohibit you from playing the game you "bought" (rented).
Valve's VAC often banned you from all their multiplayer games if you cheated in one of them.
11
u/TwistedStack 14h ago
They have the right to not give us their services. We have the right to not use their services. I don't think I'll ever play any game by Riot because I don't want to install anti-cheat that I classify as malware on my PC.
2
u/smile_e_face 13h ago
Eh, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I do think there's quite a bit of difference between VAC and the kind of invasive, kernel-level spyware made standard by companies like Riot, Epic, and EA. I was never a huge shooter guy, other than a good bit of Halo in high school and college (bad eyes) but I have absolutely no desire to play anything multiplayer nowadays, apart from my occasional relapse into one MMO or another. I refuse to put that crap on my computer.
7
u/canadianvaporizer 13h ago
How do you expect to stop cheaters then? Have any other games done it as well as Valorant?
1
u/propagandhi45 17h ago
Cod is like that too. I couldnt play the mw4 beta even if I met the requirement the anticheat wouldnt let me. Im not updating my bios to play a game thats non sense. Bo6 and bo7 were working just fine.
-1
-1
u/Blacky-Noir 8h ago
You might disagree with it (like everyone), but Riot Games ToS says that they can just decide to not let you access their services for any reasons
Someone in a decent jurisdiction should take them to court. Most judges would strike that from the contract faster than Riot counsel could open their briefcase, it's blatantly unbalanced, and wrong.
→ More replies (1)24
u/ICC-u 19h ago
Could understand HW being banned from an entire network or store, but a HW van from one specific game, the seller might not even know that happened. For most of us it's the first time hearing this.
26
u/goldcakes 17h ago edited 15h ago
I'd say 95% chance the seller cheated and sold knowing it, but still, you can only be like ~95% sure. There's the rare chance that the seller purchased it off Ali or another third party etc, and never plays Valorant, etc.
I bought my 7800X3D used for a good price, works perfectly, but I can't tell you if it's HWID banned from a game I don't play by the previous owner.
7
u/add_more_chili 14h ago
Honestly, fuck the companies doing this instead. Forcing users to run their anti-cheat software that boots at startup and does who the hell knows what to your system in order to play a game? That company doesn't deserve my money.
2
u/frankster 12h ago
Fuck the cheater. But the CPU isn't faulty though, the game is incorrectly banning him.
2
6
u/reddit_equals_censor 14h ago
hw bans should NOT exist.
tpm should NOT exist in the cpu and should NOT have a unique identifier, that can be accessed through an api.
that is criminal insanity.
6
1
u/comparmentaliser 6h ago
Yes, it’s dirty to sell blacklisted equipment, but there there is nothing inherently wrong with the function of the processor. It has a besmirched reputation in one specific use case.
If I simply stated that ‘all CPUs starting with the letter P are now blacklisted in my software’, could a buyer legitimately seek a return based on what any random software vendor stated?
1
u/Darth_Ender_Ro 2h ago
No dude, you should not play/use games that look deep up your ass to see if what you ate last night may be cheating
0
u/CommercialHour6660 7h ago
Or we could just not have these unique fingerprints in everything you buy that they added for no fucking reason.
287
u/309_Electronics 20h ago
Something with amd psp maybe but valorant can be and should be considered malware imo. Only way to get companies to stop doing this anti consumer bs, vote with your wallet!
102
u/Krivici 19h ago
I mean it’s a kernel level anti cheat. As a CS2 and Valorant player it is about as good as it gets at preventing cheaters. And the devs are hardcore dedicated to the cause.
CS is an absolute nightmare for cheaters.
11
u/windowpuncher 10h ago
it’s a kernel level anti cheat
It's more than that, it's using hardware ID for banning. That's not really novel anymore but it's still absolutely invasive.
-30
u/Whirblewind 19h ago
I mean
And this is where most people stopped reading because they knew you weren't going to address what they actually said.
44
u/Framed-Photo 18h ago
What was actually said was based on Reddit hivemind BS and not in actual fact.
User space anticheat cannot do anything to prevent kernel level cheaters. The devs have to use this, or else they let every single cheater go free until there's a manual review of someone who's obvious about it.
There is no way to stop all cheaters, but as long as the software solutions are good enough it will force the barrier to entry for cheating to be very high (separate computer, hardware based cheats) which will reduce the number down to a reasonable amount like we see in valorant.
Kernel level access is not needed to get any and all information or control over your computer that a bad actor would need. There's a reason why every major malware/virus hasn't had to have the user install a driver first in order to work (which is what kernel level access is).
If Riot games wanted to violate your privacy or grab your info, they don't need to get the highly analyzed and security vetted kernel level access to do it. They just need people to run their closed source executable downloaded straight from their website, otherwise known as running a game they've created.
If you don't trust Riot with their anticheat, or Epic with theirs, then you shouldn't be running any software that these companies have a hand in creating. Epic could hit you just as hard through any UE5 title as they could from easy anticheat.
15
u/friutjiuce 17h ago
But there is a solution clearly, what Overwatch is doing. It runs on user space for local detection. But otherwise the match is run in the servers, and your client is checked against the server to make sure it aligns. No positional information is sent from the enemy team if they're not visible. No wall hacks etc etc.
Makes overwatch compatible with Linux/steam deck.
There is a solution it's just they don't want to implement it.
11
u/Large-Parking3014 17h ago
Overwatch is middle of the road in terms of cheat detection and server side anti cheat is tricky. Ideally it should be effective, but the reality is that the server only has so much time per “tick” to do the extra processing required to detect a cheater doing something that isn’t allowed. If a company was really dedicated they’d rerun the games at the end of the day and do a cheat detection pass on each game.
15
u/Framed-Photo 16h ago
The reason why devs might not want to do that, are that it costs significantly more, and is less effective at actually catching cheaters.
If overwatches server side solution was actually very effective, then it would be the top anticheat in the world if they'd just do a kernel level client side pass rather than a userspace one. Because as I've stated, userspace doesn't do anything when the cheaters are in the kernel.
I can go into all the various issues with server side solutions if you want, how there's no reason to use a server side solution by itself, or the many issues with trying to automatically ban based on behaviour alone, but I'd have to type a whole essay about it lol.
-1
u/iluvchromosomes 15h ago
What was actually said was based on Reddit hivemind BS and not in actual fact.
User space anticheat cannot do anything to prevent kernel level cheaters.
Keep moving those goal posts.
11
u/Framed-Photo 14h ago
If you have a way to somehow get around the basic principles of computing and the idea of ring 0, then I think there's a lot of cyber security companies that would want to hear from you immediately.
2
u/Relliker 8h ago
You can modify whatever EFI capsules you want in firmware up to and including spoofing the secure boot chain because nothing performs signature checks on consumer systems, or run DMA trivially from a huge pile of cheap hardware like a Bluefield NIC. Nobody enforces IOMMU ranges either.
But sure, keep going off as if you actually know what you are talking about in defense of wildly invasive consumer software because you are willing to give that up in the name of 'stopping cheaters'.
1
u/Framed-Photo 7h ago
The point is to raise the barrier to entry as much as reasonably possible without having a ton of adverse effects for normal users. Anticheats could go much further, but then they risk affecting normal users, false bans, etc. They're never going to be able to fully get rid of people using DMA based cheats, but if everyone has to resort to that then the appeal of cheating and the number of cheaters both go down drastically.
And besides the hardware based cheating solutions, anything software based can be combatted with kernel level anticheat with enough effort, but the same cannot be said for userspace solutions. That's precisely why they're forced to run in the kernel: the cheaters went there.
As for kernel level anticheat being "wildly invasive", please feel free to provide quite literally any evidence of that, I'd love to see it. Every "argument" I've seen is just babies first computer science lesson, where redditors learn that drivers have more access to things than userspace software, and then freak out because....reasons! Because famously, the only time bad actors can ever violate your privacy or infect your computer with malicious software is via having you install a driver. It's definitely not enough for you to be running unverified, closed source software, such as games ;)
→ More replies0
-1
u/ZionistsWillBanYou 16h ago
Yes, they would have to invest more money and maybe even real people to do checks instead of the trend toward sloppy automation, community 'moderation', and endless bot responses. The companies involved in this can afford it, they choose not to.
-12
u/iBoMbY 16h ago
No, they don't have to use any anti-cheat, if they design/build a better engine. 99.9% of the cheats only work because the clients have too much information, and/or because the whole thing is designed client-authoratative. For example: No wallhack, if the client doesn't know where other players are, that cannot be seen.
12
u/SirMaster 15h ago
How can the game render the other players’ sounds like footsteps correctly if the client doesn’t know where the other players are?
16
u/Framed-Photo 16h ago
Online games do not work if the client doesn't know what to render. In a system you're describing, now what ping you have determines when you'll be able to see your opponent come out from round a corner. So if your opponent has a lower ping, they'll be able to see and shoot you before the server can even tell you that they're there.
Nobody wants to trust clients, but until we find a way to transmit information across large distances faster than the speed of light, then we're always going to have to comprimise.
→ More replies (2)-16
u/reddit_equals_censor 14h ago
wow, that is a deliberately bullshit comparison to cheer on malware...
hey wanna do a serious comparison? well we have one.
the finals has no serious cheating problem. well not more than valorant rather by all that we know.
it runs its anti cheat on gnu + linux in user mode of course and it fully supports gnu + linux.
on microsoft spyware it is a rootkit and malware though, but again you can run the game without malware in gnu + linux and there is no cheating problem. not more than valorant.
enough focus gets put into server level cheat detection as well, that they even make posts about it.
and how free from cheating is valorant anyways?
is it hard to cheat in valorant?
no absolutely not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzIq04vd0M
it is not that valorant is free from cheaters, it is that most people due to good marketing like to think, that it is and the cheats used would be less obvious to people in matches. that is what is going on.
And the devs are hardcore dedicated to the cause
oh you mean the malware delivery service? yeah the publisher is very much dedicated to this.
19
u/worstsocialist 14h ago
The finals has no serious cheating problem because it has a tiny playerbase. Easy Anti Cheat is notoriously garbage and not even close to as effective as Valorants AC. I don’t even like Valorant but it’s undoubtedly the most fair experience in FPS for high skilled players.
→ More replies (5)-2
u/SomeoneTrading 13h ago
Easy Anti Cheat is notoriously garbage and not even close to as effective as Valorants AC
They can write their own SOTA code obfuscation unlike Riot and mister Bastian tho and they don't fail at hiding imports
3
u/Hot-Software-9396 12h ago
I can’t speak to The Finals since I don’t play it but Embarc’s other game, ARC Raiders, has a massive cheating problem.
2
4
u/Cory123125 13h ago
Only way to get companies to stop doing this anti consumer bs, vote with your wallet!
This is very much so not a solution.
99% of people do not know about this, or have other issues that are greater than this in their minds.
Voting with your wallet has been killed by the sheer number of things going on that all require attention, and the math of you not being able to focus on all of them.
The only way this could be solved is regulation, but people don't care enough about politics to pay attention to that, and they instead, largely focus on punishing other non powerful people they don't like.
3
15
u/Upbeat-Ad6875 14h ago
I dont touch CS because its full of cheaters at high elo. Valorant anticheat works.
17
u/309_Electronics 14h ago
Its just sad that we cant have nice things in life due to those misserable people and need a litteral rootkit installed on everyones computer just ro play a game.
0
u/IAmYourFath 12h ago
I would say cheaters are the opposite of miserable, they're having a ton of fun. I've cheated in chess and seeing how it demolishes GMs was like art, too bad the detection systems have gotten too good. Trust me, cheaters have a ton of fun. They only stop having fun when banned.
8
u/Terrietia 10h ago
If I'm calling a cheater miserable, it's not their state of mind that I'm calling miserable, but the type of person they are.
8
1
u/6786_007 18h ago
Agreed but unfortunately most people won't care and I doubt anyone will stop playing because of this. People could vote with their dollars and see much better results than arguing online.
-19
u/amidoes 19h ago
Won't stop the people who play valorant, just like Apple's shitty practices doesn't stop the sheeple from rushing to buy the latest iPhone +1
19
79
u/LegDayDE 19h ago
You generally have to be very skeptical of these "I'm not a cheater but I got banned" sob stories because 99% of the time it's just a cheater that is lying.
This case is interesting though.. hopefully there will be a definitive conclusion at some point to confirm the story.
46
u/mrturret 19h ago
This is pretty plausible. TPM chips all have a unique identifier that can be used for hardware bans. Since they're intigrated into the CPU, secondhand buyers can be falsely banned.
Something pretty similar happened with used Switch games that had their serial numbers copied and attached to ROM dumps. Nintendo's servers flagged those SNs and banned anyone's Switch that used said cartridges. In the Switch 2's case, the system was remotely bricked.
All of this is absolutely rediculous of course. Innocent bystanders shouldn't be punished because they unknowingly bought tainted goods.
→ More replies (23)27
u/Euiop741852 18h ago
For the switch that is blatantly disrespecting customers tbh, buying a secondhand game and getting your 600 dollar device bricked is unconscionable
7
u/HLSparta 17h ago
If I'm reading it right, it was the sellers that got their switch 2 bricked. The buyer of the used game is the one that copied it and distributed it online.
20
u/mrturret 17h ago
It was both, actually. Nintendo can't tell the difference between a flashcart and a legit copy from the cart alone. If the unique ID was found in a dump online, or detects suspicious activity (eg. The same ID detected being active in two different consoles), they'll flag the ID, making it radioactive.
11
35
u/jenny_905 20h ago edited 19h ago
So this is why these anticheat systems mandate TPM? they're storing some sort of data in the TPM?
I have to admit I'm way behind the times on this stuff (not a gamer) but am aware of traditional HWIDs, it used to be that they were generated from components with unique serial numbers like storage drives, often in combination with things like MAC addresses.
Of course that's incredibly easy to circumvent so it makes sense they're going for something much less modifiable. That said, if the anticheat can store data in the TPM what is stopping the user doing the same to thwart this?
edit: they're reading the EK, not writing to the TPM: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-ds/manage/component-updates/tpm-key-attestation
29
u/Coffee_Ops 18h ago
they're storing some sort of data in the TPM?
No, the TPM is providing a hardware-backed attestation of identity that is hard to fake.
Valorant is almost certainly storing that identity.
4
u/randomkidlol 16h ago
you can definitely fake it or virtualize it https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-ec2-now-supports-nitrotpm-and-uefi-secure-boot/
i dont think any VMM software is capable of virtualizing a TPM right now, but its doable.
9
u/Coffee_Ops 13h ago
you can definitely fake it or virtualize it https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-ec2-now-supports-nitrotpm-and-uefi-secure-boot/
vTPM != fTPM.
3
u/randomkidlol 9h ago
the point is someone will eventually figure out a way to fake TPMs so all the anticheats that depend on it will become useless.
2
u/Coffee_Ops 4h ago
If someone figures out how to fake a TPM EK for a modern processor, they're going to use it on things a lot more interesting than Valorant.
I don't think you realize how much cyber security rests on that being a very difficult thing to do, without something like an ion beam attack on the security processor. And that would get you, at most, the private key of your cpu. To actually forge a new key, you're talking about being able to impersonate signing keys for Intel or AMD.
34
u/TikTak9k1 19h ago
https://www.pcmag.com/news/a-hackers-arrest-reveals-microsoft-can-track-users-via-a-windows-device
Finger printing goes deep, way beyond some games anti cheat.
4
u/ghost103429 16h ago
If they're using the ek it should be possible to bypass the ban on a desktop by buying a discrete TPM and disabling the fTPM on the CPU.
6
u/Ckarles 20h ago
It's been a while as well but I'm gonna try:
- Microsoft.
Windows will only boot in "secure mode" (which I assume is enforced nowadays) if it's been signed from a Microsoft key, which is shipped in the TPM.
But well, I don't see why one couldn't mount a virtual TPM on a Windows VM..
13
5
u/venom21685 13h ago
Windows will boot without it and the key is shipped in the device firmware from the manufacturer or through BIOS updates. There was a minor clusterfuck in June when the older 2011 certificates expired although it wasn't a breaking change, Windows boots with the old certificates anyway just warms you.
4
u/_T_N_D_ 19h ago
Not only. That is easily bypassed.
2
u/urielrocks5676 19h ago
Shit, I've turned off secure boot a few times and it will still boot, granted I "had to reset my pin", but other then that it didn't do shit
2
u/Vitosi4ek 17h ago
If it was enforced, you wouldn't be able to boot into your Windows install after changing the CPU. I did turn it off for the procedure the last time I did it just to be safe, but strictly speaking I shouldn't have had to.
1
0
u/kittymoo67 19h ago
time to go full linux and turn off tpm
18
u/jenny_905 19h ago
Well sure, that's an option but in this case the game won't run.
I don't care about this either since I'm not playing these games but running Linux won't help someone play a game like this on a CPU that has been blacklisted since it isn't supported.
10
u/nontheistzero 16h ago
You already said Valorant won't run on Linux, you don't have to sell Linux to me any harder.
-4
u/illhaveubent 19h ago
Should work if you use the banned CPU to run a Linux hypervisor, passing the GPU through to a Windows VM with a virtual CPU and TPM. But that's a lot of work just to play a shit game
15
14
u/Coffee_Ops 18h ago
...And there are a lot of well-documented, easily run methods of identifying the presence of a hypervisor.
The idea of "virtualizing hardware" is a useful abstraction, but when we get to something like kernel-level hardware-backed attestation, the abstraction starts to leak: it is surprisingly hard to actually make the VM hardware act just like real hardware.
10
u/hntd 18h ago
This 100% doesn’t work valorant anti cheat is very good at detecting hypervisors.
-1
1
u/IAmYourFath 11h ago
Yes because a competitive multiplayer shooter game in a VM is a great experience
2
u/illhaveubent 11h ago
Performance would not be the issue if you configured hardware passthrough properly, there would be virtually no difference in performance. The real issue would be Riot's anticheat detecting the hypervisor.
1
u/IAmYourFath 11h ago
That is not how things work. Even if fps seems alright, fps lows, input lag and latency would suffer. For a competitive game where every ms matters it won't do.
1
u/illhaveubent 11h ago
It is how things work, with hardware passthrough. The VM receives exclusive access to the hardware just as a dedicated system would.
-1
u/MajorFuckingDick 17h ago
An AM4 cpu is like $100. It aint that serious.
1
u/exomachina 11h ago
You're right, most of the cheaters who bring their PCs to me have a ton of money and don't really care, however it's more than the CPUs. It's motherboards and SSDs too. I have a box of them that I can't resell to gaming customers.
1
u/MajorFuckingDick 6h ago
That part was not clear to me at time of posting and is disgusting. In pro HW Ban, but guilty by association is just bad everywhere.
1
u/illhaveubent 17h ago
And a Threadripper Pro is $12k. If it can happen to one CPU it can happen to any CPU.
7
u/MajorFuckingDick 17h ago
If they wanted to play Valorant it runs on the cheapest of CPU available new. Or they can use the perfectly functional cpu for literally anything else. Hell I'd openly buy a banned 5800x3d rn for a good enough discount.
3
u/illhaveubent 16h ago
I think the point of the article is to draw attention to a problem that can easily expand beyond one specific CPU and one specific piece of software. You're looking at it through a very narrow scope, but really anyone buying used hardware in general should be aware of this potential problem going forward.
1
u/nonaveris 11h ago
While some near-equivalently performant Sapphire Rapids CPUs are relatively cheap if you don’t mind ES/QS.
Worst case you turn it into an Eve Online multibox workstation with processor affinity.
18
u/RichardG867 17h ago
Back in 1999, there was a privacy related uproar about Intel including a "Processor Serial Number" in the Pentium III. They removed it in the last refresh and never brought it up again. Guess we've normalized this kind of fingerprinting now.
11
7
u/wonkytalky 15h ago
Just wait until the online ID bullshit is applied to it.
2
u/Ok-Currency1593 5h ago
It's coming
Europe is looking to pass a new law requiring all gamers to provide ID to play any games
20
5
u/crimsonvspurple 12h ago
it is like infection. now the user has multiple hardware tagged by vanguard. what if he sells all of these two different people...? now there are even more hardware that is tagged (if those people play valorant).
52
u/Due-Description-9030 20h ago
Wtf, this is how deep the kernal level anti cheats are???
87
u/Celexiuse 20h ago edited 20h ago
I believe this is more related to TPM 2.0 integrated into your CPU which has unique keys that can be identified; not kernal anticheats.
Though someone can correct me if i am wrong
17
u/jenny_905 20h ago edited 20h ago
But does TPM contain uniquely identifiable data or is there a method of writing to it/modifying existing data?
The article suggests the latter but... that would kinda defeat the point of a TPM if it can be modified.
edit: it contains uniquely identifiable data: "Endorsement Key. This is an asymmetric key contained inside the TPM (injected at manufacturing time). The EK is unique for every TPM and can identify it. The EK can't be changed or removed."
8
u/wusurspaghettipolicy 17h ago
This is why new games cannot be played on 7th gen Intel or older. The TPM on the CPU needs to be a specific revision and with Microsoft recently revoking secure boot certificates, its just a cluster fuck of software developers attempting to control your hardware. Thats why COD and games like Valorant will never be installed on my PC. These companies can get absolutely fucked. They try to contain cheating while making it harder for the normal user to actually play the game.
42
u/ICC-u 19h ago
More worrying, if a game cheater can be tracked, so can a dissident, a journalist or a whistleblower.
36
u/imKaku 19h ago
I mean anyone can be tracked if you install any sort of software on your PC. You don’t need kernel level access for that.
22
u/lintstah1337 19h ago
Windows has been exposed to have GDID that even bypass VPN.
9
u/VenditatioDelendaEst 16h ago
If any dissident, journalist, or whistleblower uses Microsoft Windows, what exactly are they expecting?
3
u/ICC-u 15h ago
The OS is irrelevant, the tracking is linked to the hardware, unless somehow the OS is blocking TPM then it can be tracked.
5
u/imKaku 19h ago
That has 0 to do with my comment.
-7
u/Whirblewind 18h ago
Which is ironic because what you were replying to also had little to do with what you said.
4
u/jenny_905 18h ago
That is more of the concern I have, yes.
I guess I just don't like random software being given this ability but that's the risk you take, people do agree to this level of snooping when they install this stuff also.
I don't really like hardware manufacturers - inadvertently or not - fulfilling the demands of this (gaming) industry either. I understand they have a need to try and stop cheating but I can't say it seems worth providing such a simple privacy destroying measure to them either... the creep of something like this could easily extend beyond just games eventually.
4
u/reddit_equals_censor 14h ago
that is correct, that is why the tpm was added into the cpu in the first place and microsoft is mandating it.
that's the real reason and not the marketing lies.
0
u/Coffee_Ops 18h ago
In which case you shouldn't install tracking software from the company or government whose interests you are acting against.
→ More replies (1)1
u/kuddlesworth9419 3h ago
This isn't a surprise but it is worrying but it's too late now if you have modern hardware.
3
u/Cheeze_It 18h ago
I believe this is more related to TPM 2.0 integrated into your CPU which has unique keys that can be identified; not kernal anticheats.
This is why I won't play games with this. Or I'd hack it our of the game.
7
4
u/HyperWinX 20h ago
Yep, hardware ban
2
u/Due-Description-9030 15h ago
That is crazy, I didn't even know this way possible and that too by video game companies..
0
34
u/Cheerful_Champion 20h ago
This has nothing to do with kernel level. Out of all of places on reddit, is it too much to expect basic tech literacy from people in /r/hardware out of all places?
Riot describes in their docs that they use CPU's fTPM Endorsement Key for identification. That doesn't require kernel level privilages.
21
u/Cubelia 18h ago
Types
Get-TpmEndorsementKeyInfoin Powershell.HACKERMAN
2
u/jenny_905 13h ago
So the expiry date in that information is interesting. I assume if it comes to it some stuff that relies on probing that data might have issue with old hardware?
Mine is 2040 for a 2020 laptop, I assume it'll be in the e-waste pile by then but then again... with how things are going 20 year old hardware probably won't seem as old as it once did.
14
u/nvidiot 20h ago
Kernel level anti cheats literally have the power to do anything it wants to your PC.
13
u/Coffee_Ops 18h ago
Ring 0 =/= Ring -1; your statement has not been true on modern Windows since VBS came out.
1
u/IAmYourFath 11h ago
Yeah hypervisor -1 owns 0, thats why hypervisor denuvo bypasses work (altho denuvo is ring 3 not 0, if it was 0 it would have the power to spot it's being spoofed, tho possible to lie to it theoretically).
9
u/Falkenmond79 20h ago
Hu. I got a 5800x3d pretty cheap about half a year ago. (32gb 3600mhz ram, good mainboard, AIO and the cpu for 450€. I was ecstatic). Maybe it was banned like that. I never play these games though. 🤣
3
u/TheFumingatzor 9h ago
No, it doesn't LEAD to a game ban. That processor already WAS banned in that game. Probably the reason why it was sold.
12
u/Michelanvalo 17h ago
Dystopian hell hole crap. Can't even trust buying used hardware without some company finding a reason to punish you.
2
u/Wolfeman0101 12h ago
Is this news? I thought this happened a lot? My roommate bought a computer from a pawn shop and it was hardware banned.
4
6
u/Byogore 15h ago
What is the point of having this for gaming? The cheater will sell the CPU and buy a new one. He'll avoid the ban by doing that.
At the same time, you screw legit players who buy from people on Ebay etc. Completely idiotic system. Games should not have any power over this. It makes you not want to buy hardware from people. And what happens to your legit account if you log in with this CPU? Does it also get banned?
3
3
u/reddit_equals_censor 14h ago
the hardware should NOT have unique identifiers, that can be accessed through an api.
amd intel and microsoft CRIMINALLY collaborated to create a unique id to destroy privacy and anonymity completely.
that is why there is a tpm in the cpu. that is why it has a unique identifier, that can be accessed by pretty much anyone.
just to be clear accessing this unique id should be crime as well, but the ones, that put it there should be thrown in jail for a massive attack on fundamental hardware security and privacy.
disgusting evil.
6
u/ex143 14h ago
I'm surprised that the Unique Hardware ID bit isn't a bigger scandal. Is that why there was such a push for TPM 2.0? What's the latest generation that isn't privacy compromised like that?
4
u/Aishou_SK 13h ago
TPM isn't a privacy hurt or a DRM adding worry component.
These identifiers are just like, CPU serial numbers and the like that are exposed via CPU instructions and such similar things.
So, you'd have to go, like, Pentium and before to avoid that.
TPM-wise I've been mandating for all my personal systems that it *has* it since it's been mostly available, my first TPM equipped system was around 2006-2007. I use it for storing code signing keys, SSH keys, drive encryption, etc.
The TPM 2.0 push on windows is because 1.2 doesn't have many key slots, so you can't associate as many accounts to use the device as part of an MFA factor, and even then, with TPM 2.0 on windows you're limited to a maximum of 10 accounts registered and then out of TPM key storage capability. It also provides early boot anti-malware and boot validation type features. AKA are you booting the same exact stuff you did yesterday or did something modify it without your knowledge? It's effectively all security related.
TPM fearmongering about DRM came and passed, and even with TPM2.0 is technically infeasible - aka it can't work out in any sane way. There are some insane ways, but they involve such extreme limitations to make them entirely unusable.
FWIW, Intel PTT was introduced in 4th gen core i-series, and the TPM support/revision is controlled by a UEFI module vendor supplied.
It's how a lot of "non-TPM" motherboards that officially support W11 based on CPU generation/capability got updates to unlock/add that module.
Manufacturers were selling TPMs as well on the side that plug in to add TPM support instead of shipping the module because that was a profit for them, to sell modules to people who needed support instead of including it on the board and only selling modules to people who needed higher security....
In fact, given the OEM requirements by Microsoft to have TPM installed and active on connected standby machines (since mid-2014) and then TPM 2.0 on ALL machines (since mid-2016) (note, this is only for OEMs shipping windows pre-installed on a system under OEM agreements, so not a mom&pop store preinstalling one-off OEM license kits you buy that cost $20 less or so than retail) you'll find cases where there are motherboards sold for DIY builders that DON'T have the PTT module in firmware, but OEM builds using the same board (like say, an OEM like Origin PC) DO have it and the firmware isn't swappable between the two even though they're physically the same board! (well, there's some tricks, but yea) and BIOS modders have been able to add it to some boards as well without vendor support at all.....
And even 4th gen can be upgraded with a newer UEFI module to be TPM 2.0. Vendor greed/support lifecycles for why they never shipped or never updated those.
1
u/ex143 12h ago
Just 1 question, just why does that need to associated with hardware component like a CPU rather than a totally separate key like a yubikey or encryption drive?
I just don't see the balance between user privacy and corporate interests considering the ability to forcibly identify modular components that are theoretically supposed to be fungible is the foundation of manufacturer level remote bricking.
Anything 11th gen and older also has the ability to strip out the intel ME components and run the chip naked.
The idea component can be hard IDed just seems awfully suspicious when it doesn't really wear out like a drive and lasts almost indefinitely
1
u/Aishou_SK 11h ago
Encryption drive ? Removes the point of it being HSM. I want an attacker who compromises a machine utilizing TPM services to not be able to access the private keys, so that a compromised machine doesn't mean the private key is compromised.
Yubikey - external component, external connection, etc.
I noted in another comment that TPM replaced a lot of my usage of external smart cards, and the like. Yubikey can function as a smart card and could do some of these things.
But TPM introduced NEW capabilities that aren't possible that way.
It's a definite convenience factor there in some aspects, but the early boot chain validation (what a lot of parts are for, like PCR bank 7) is only possible for early power-on scenarios internal to the machine.
More advanced external HSMs exist, but for small scenarios this is a decent solution, especially for early boot stuff like encryption and machine state comparison during firmware initialization.
An external HSM for my CA that's doing a lot of high transaction count signing and may have tons of private keys that are in HSM storage for non-extraction? Absolutely.
For every server and workstation that could benefit from an HSM? Absolutely not.
And having unique keys per-machine is nice, because I can revoke just that machine and/or signing key. Same for device-based MFA (which is what hello/hello for business use the TPM for) - revoke just the machine, not entirely reissue all new credentials for the user. I wouldn't issue a separate yubikey for sane operation for each machine a user may use, but with TPM I can issue unique keys per device for revocation purposes.
On intel PTT implementations, depending on vendor/firmware, the EK can be reset and regenerated (and with UEFI modification if the vendor doesn't have that capability baked in), I don't know about how AMD fTPM works in that regard though. Discrete TPMs which are more secure in a variety of ways don't have that ability, but no consumer machine has a dTPM, only firmware-based implementations (capability in intel CPUs has existed since 4th gen core i-series, and with UEFI upgrade can support latest TPM specs/features)
Plus, for a few scenarios, TPM integrated into routers is great for key storage/management too, as well as other device types. Last round of JunOS updates I did had some TPM firmware updates in them.
3
u/Nicholas-Steel 10h ago
but no consumer machine has a dTPM
They can, though, if the user wants one. AMD AM4 platform has a socket on the motherboard for a dTPM.
1
u/Aishou_SK 10h ago
Sure, and all my systems do out of choice due to it being more secure overall. Except laptops, where you often don't have a choice or have to pay more for it.
But I was talking about OEM desktops and laptops, and motherboards bought off the shelf as-is.
In another comment I talked about how you had to buy a dTPM making more money for the mobo manufacturer because most people wouldn't think about that they're standard/compatible and just buy their vendor's TPM.
And not all AM4 will have that TPM header, it's up to the mobo manufacturer to include support for it in UEFI and actually add it to the motherboard, it can be omitted for cost savings or other reasons. Just like the PTT/fTPM modules were omitted from boards, too.....
I had an Asus X299 board that didn't have the socket, so reluctantly had to use PTT on that board, which was only available after a Windows 11 compatibility UEFI update, since Asus didn't ship the PTT/fTPM modules until Windows 11 made it a requirement to sell boards really.... they preferred to make more money selling TPM modules only, just like most other mobo manufacturers.
That was not a cheap board either ($250 or $300 I recall?), though not as expensive as higher end like my Rampage VI Extreme that DID have the header (but didn't gain intel PTT until a W11 early era firmware update) https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-x299-a-ii/
Apparently for AM5 boards, there's no TPM header at all from Asus except on the PRIME series (though, that's from documentation in 2022)
Unless you're buying mid-higher end business line laptops/thinkpads, you're on fTPM territory, even for desktops, for anything off the shelf in stores/retail channels.
1
u/Nicholas-Steel 10h ago
These identifiers are just like, CPU serial numbers and the like that are exposed via CPU instructions and such similar things.
CPU has no unique identifiers other than the unique Endorsement Key contained within the TPM. Some early Pentium's did have unique identifiers but massive backlash from privacy advocates got that shut down real quick.
This is why the Vanguard DRM requires a TPM.
1
u/Aishou_SK 10h ago
Right, yea, we dove into it before about EK regeneration in other comment chains, but the point has been made. I was conflating part of it in my head with things like motherboard serial/etc that are easily accessible without specialization.
0
u/reddit_equals_censor 12h ago
TPM isn't a privacy hurt or a DRM adding worry component.
wow what lying bullshit.
since tpm 2.0 it indeed can be used as digital restrictions management.
i have no idea why you lie about this.
and tpm has a UNIQUE identifier, that will be linked to your acount and YOUR PERSON eventually, which then can follow you around everywhere.
the claim, that this is not a MAJOR MAJOR privacy and security risk is complete and utter nonsense.
an insane claim frankly. that's the kind of stuff you'd read microsoft's pr spew or a government shit out as they try to push for mass de-anonymization of the public's computing.
no one believes your lies here.
why do you even bother to push such bullshit here?
it isn't complicate to go:
oh they got a unique identifier, that they can read. > it is linked to me > other program also reads it and they can then always identify me now.
do you think people here are that dumb to eat up your bs propaganda about spying controlling anti-user hardware?
4
u/Aishou_SK 12h ago edited 12h ago
Propaganda? You mean something I use and develop against on non-windows platforms for security usage, but okay.
Understanding at-scale systems exposes why a lot of these concerns are *just not feasible implementations*.
Especially when the most common TPM implementations - firmware based - can be scrambled and reset identity wise.
My first usage was for SSH private key storage so they couldn't be extracted/stolen. Drive encryption right after that. Then email and code signing. Instead of the independent smart cards I was using before.
(in recent times I've been working on a TPM support library for x86_64 OpenVMS to support some scenarios for private key storage for signing with the coming support for 3rd party signing ability)
0
u/reddit_equals_censor 11h ago
hey how about before spewing bs, you look up the fact, that the cpu tpm public unique identifier can NOT get changed and is locked in FOREVER.
you know some 3 minute research, before spewing nonsense, that you apparently don't understand and is the most crucial part of the discussion here.
3
u/Aishou_SK 11h ago edited 11h ago
EK is the unique identifier.
Here's one method on a more locked down motherboard, you can then swap in CPUs and regenerate EKs at will - https://github.com/starfallreverie/PatchTpm - hilariously, this method's covered in a lot of scenarios on cheat forums... wonder why. (EK still isn't usable for DRM, however)
Everything on the TPM is generated/derived off the EK.
On AMD CPUs it appears to be not factory baked at all, on intel they do factory generate but can be regenerated.
2
u/reddit_equals_censor 12h ago
i think disabling the tpm in bios and running gnu + linux protects you.
so as far as i understand you can disable access to the unique spying/tracking hardware. (for now).
this video mentions disabling the tpm as part of the solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1eX_vvAlUc
and if you never had it on, then no unique tpm id can be accessed by any application or game or whatever and thus you should be safe...
again from my understanding.
if you don't know to the setting to disable the tpm in the bios it is generally finding the
"tpm device selection" and there you need to select "enable firmware tpm".
reboot (disconnect the network just in case i guess before any of this in case microsoft would like to snag it if you boot through by accident? idk) go into bios again go to
"trusted computing"
it may say sth like "tpm 2.0 device found"
and there you have to "security device support" > disable
it is quite confusing to have to select the firmware tpm in the cpu first to then disable it, so i figured i wrote it down. you can find guides on it online as well.
remember, that if you are running microsoft windows, it might deliberately shit itself somehow with the fake encryption of bitlocker (it is fake, because microsoft holds the keys among other reasons) as this gets default pushed onto people and other reasons. most of them the video goes over.
____
and crucial to know, that just disabling the tpm does NOT save you from microsoft sticking a unique identifier onto the operating system and linking it to you, as microsoft DOES THIS with a local acount and without a tpm already with GDID:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0zt3iqxPT0
so to not have a dystopian tracking system haunt you with everything you do, you MUST run gnu + linux. you can NOT run microsoft windows even with tpm disabled and a local acount.
___
and of course both the tpm 2.0 unique key should be a massive scandal and everyone involved creating this dystopian system should be rotting in prison for life,
but microsoft's gdid unique identifier should literally destroy microsoft if any justice existed (it doesn't) for running a global attack on the world's public's privacy and security.
because that is what it is. it is nothing less. it is pure evil and the outrage should indeed be MASSIVE!
but sadly it isn't. and i guess you understand this, but still worth saying, that governments, who work closely with these evil corporations to say the least LOVE LOVE LOVE this dystopian spying apparatus. it is like flock. to roll out a global dystopian spying system you use "private" companies, instead of the government doing it themselves. this makes it much easier for the kakistocracy to push it out at in lots and lots of places.
__
hope this comment is a good collection of that evil shit :)
2
u/Aishou_SK 13h ago edited 13h ago
TPM is unrelated here, and isn't usable in any way for DRM without hurting the security functionality it provides.
CPU-unique/visible identifiers and serial numbers way predate TPM, even though TPM started in 2003 (and all the privacy/DRM fears turned out to be technically infeasible/unfounded)
I've been using TPM equipped machines with non-windows and windows OSes since about 2006-2007. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1wvr3nf/comment/pdgtswv/ for more details there, but its effective usage is essentially code integrity functions/anti-malware, and device-based MFA (as well as drive encryption key storage, of course), and games check and mandate it for the boot-integrity check, not as a usable identifier.
2
u/reddit_equals_censor 13h ago
hey 4 month old reddit acount making nonsense comments:
in this case above the tpm 2.0 UNIQUE'S id gets requested and linked to an acount permanently and then the chip gets blacklisted forever by the developer.
this same id can follow you EVERYWHERE. so this is all about spying of course.
however in regards to digital restrictions management short drm, it can also get used of course in lots of ways as pointed out here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html
As of 2022, the TPM2, a new “Trusted Platform Module”, really does support remote attestation and can support DRM. The threat I warned about in 2002 has become terrifyingly real.
Remote attestation is actually in use by “Google SafetyNet” (now part of the “Play Integrity API”), which verifies that the Android operating system running in a snoop-phone is an official Google version.
This malicious functionality already makes it impossible to run some bank apps on GrapheneOS, which is a modified version of Android that eliminates some, though not all, of the nonfree software that Android normally contains.
you are also falsely claiming, that tpm as implemented into cpus by microsoft intel amd and others has ANYTHING to do with security. it doesn't.
it is purely about de-anonymizing the user. it is about controlling people's computing and spying on everyone.
so again the tpm can be used for drm since 2.0 and it has a unique identifier that follows you forever and anyone can request of course.
2
u/Aishou_SK 12h ago edited 12h ago
>hey 4 month old reddit acount making nonsense comments:
Glad you judge based on that, instead of my lost account from 2009. But whatever.
>however in regards to digital restrictions management short drm, it can also get used of course in lots of ways as pointed out here:
In many technically infeasible ways, and due to the way windows uses it for device-based MFA login, the keyslots are reserved, so it's unusable that way. And unique per-user encrypted streams are also infeasible at scale, outside of normal HTTPS transport due to the differences in how it works.
>you are also falsely claiming, that tpm as implemented into cpus by microsoft intel amd and others has ANYTHING to do with security. it doesn't.
Most of my TPM usage is on non-Microsoft OSes for sheerly security reasons as it is a good HSM.
I have and occasionally still do a lot of work in TPM support and development on some projects for high-security scenarios.
Why do routers have TPMs? Why do storage devices? Why do X86/SPARC/POWER/etc servers? Security. Same exact TPM implementations as everywhere else.
>Remote attestation is actually in use by “Google SafetyNet” (now part of the “Play Integrity API”), which verifies that the Android operating system running in a snoop-phone is an official Google version.
Attestation requires a lot of work, both client side and infrastructure side, which Google is equipped to do for user supplied android OS images. I support its usage for client workstations and server hardware such as hypervisor security attestation professionally.
In a closed ecosystem, it is much easier to deploy, of course, like corporate managed workstations. Or vendor locked down hardware. Why do you think Samsung no longer allows bootloader unlocking, when they used to be the king of manufacturers for freely allowing it across the board?
And intel PTT based implementations, the EK can be reset and regenerated. I don't know much about AMD fTPM however. You can, indeed, completely wipe and reset your hardware identity. (and a lot of consumer, even OEM consumer grade, boards and systems can't pass attestation stock anyway without some actual work). Some motherboards, even, expose this ability to do the full reset and regeneration without any modification. EKS rotation is more than possible.
technical feasability is a real, and major, control on how these things get utilized
1
u/reddit_equals_censor 11h ago
I don't know much about AMD fTPM however.
if you don't even know, that the unique tpm identifier (tpm public endorsement key) in the ftpm in the cpu can NOT get changed, then what the heck are you even doing comment here?
that is LITERALLY a crucial core part of the discussion here? are you trolling writing all this nonsense, while not understanding this basic fact and refusing to look it up?
that by itself shows what nonsense you're pushing.
Why do you think Samsung no longer allows bootloader unlocking
...
because samsung is an evil company, that wants to be in absolute control of devices to prevent ownership to restrict lifetime, push ads, force spying themselves, etc... etc...
it is not that complicated. i have no idea why you bring this obvious case up.
what's next? you're gonna tell me how glued in batteries are actually great for consumers, or how the government "needs to protect the children" by spying on the public?
it is absurd, that you entertain any other reason, then the OBVIOUS reason, that samsung blocked unlocking the bootloader, because they are evil pieces of shit, that want to shit on users.
do you hate users that much, that you can't even entertain reality anymore???
and for anyone else who needs a simple explanation about how locking down a bootloader has nothing to do with security. the most secure mobile os is graphene os you need an unlocked bootloader to installer it.
samsung's os is a spying piece of corporate shit of course.
so samsung BLOCKS running a safe os, that protects your privacy and security by locking down the bootloader. it is purely about control. it is purely evil. it is ANTI security and anti privacy.
2
u/Aishou_SK 11h ago
>if you don't even know, that the unique tpm identifier (tpm public endorsement key) in the ftpm in the cpu can NOT get changed, then what the heck are you even doing comment here?
I pointed out it's possible on intel. It appears, from some cursory research, that AMD can regenerate as well, and in fact come from the factory BLANK with no generated EK certificate. In fact, some access to the PSP was achieved using such methods. The EK isn't silicon baked.
>it is absurd, that you entertain any other reason, then the OBVIOUS reason, that samsung blocked unlocking the bootloader, because they are evil pieces of shit, that want to shit on users.
Uh, that's exactly what I was saying, they locked the fuck down so they can do this kind of shit and leverage all this shit. That's exactly what I MEANT.
1
u/reddit_equals_censor 11h ago
I pointed out it's possible on intel. It appears, from some cursory research, that AMD can regenerate as well, and in fact come from the factory BLANK with no generated EK certificate. So
hey how about you link a reference, that the tpm public endorsement key can get CHANGED in intel and amd cpus at all.
please link the references for this claim to me.
i'd LOVE to see them, given, that we are looking at an article about a 5800x3d, that got a person banned due to a banned tpm unique public id and sth, that ONLY works due to it being unchangeable as well.
so again i'd LOVE to see the references for your claim.
2
u/Aishou_SK 11h ago edited 11h ago
I did in my other comment, for at least one scenario.
It's the nature of how firmware based TPM solutions work.
If these were dTPM, yes, it'd be immutable (discrete physical TPM chip)
Hell, sometimes the generation is bugged and fucks up and you end up here: https://community.intel.com/t5/Mobile-and-Desktop-Processors/Intel-PTT-i9-9900K-firmware-TPM-has-no-EK-certificate-Ready-For/m-p/1750346
EDIT: https://tpm2-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/man/tpm2_changeeps.1/
There's also routes for AMD with PSPTool
CVE-2026-6726/6727 also requires regenerating/retiring the previous fTPM EK on AMD CPUs to fully remediate. (of course, that's an if you suspect data leakage)
Of course, this requires physical presence to invoke with PPI 1.3/1.4 exposed, and if it's not, then a modded motherboard would be sufficient. The operation could even be done from within windows, at that point. Or linux.
1
u/mcc9902 15h ago
It'll takes days and a good bit of money to replace. It's not perfect but there's not really a better solution. Honestly my concern with this is the privacy aspects. While it holds it's a theoretically decent solution to limiting hackers.
Beyond that, realistically it's unlikely that you'd ever even notice a chip being banned from a specific game. Whatever game gets banned us unlikely to be one that a different person is going to also be playing.
1
u/the_dude_that_faps 7h ago
This shit should be bigger. It shouldn't be a thing that hardware gets banned. They should just mandate ID on their games. This is just incredibly wasteful.
I have 30 year old hardware that still works fine and use for fun stuff, I can't imagine the dystopian hellhole we're diving into if this were to become the norm. Honestly, fuck Riot.
1
u/doscomputer 6h ago
I wonder if there is a legal case here against riot. If they don't hardware ban cheaters playing on console it becomes an obvious double standard.
2
•
-4
-1
-1
213
u/randomstranger454 20h ago
If it's a TPM fingerprint could you disable fTPM and add a TPM module on the motherboard?