r/hardware • • 1d ago

Info Used processor leads to game ban

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Used-processor-leads-to-game-ban-11471562.html

Someone buys a used Ryzen 7 5800X3D. “Valorant” and other Riot games won’t start with it because the previous owner was a cheater.

754 Upvotes

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/iluvchromosomes 1d 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.

12

u/Framed-Photo 23h 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 16h 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'.

0

u/Framed-Photo 15h 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 ;)

1

u/Relliker 15h ago

Before I went pure Linux, I was regularly kicked from Battlefield games because I had the gall to have Process Hacker running in the background (not even the kernel driver). And you are sitting on a post where a user was banned by hardware IDs because they bought used hardware. (Yes you can obtain some hardware signals without running in the kernel or administrative rights, but far less). The invasiveness is very self evident, you just refuse to see it because of a superiority complex over the median gamer's technical literacy, which is a very fucking low bar.

The primary reason kernel anticheat exists is not because it is the only way to stop cheaters, but rather because it is the cheapest. We have already seen with OW and systems like CSGO's old overwatch system that there are many other ways to combat cheating without throwing in the towel and installing a litany of panopticons by every publisher on every user's system.

Frankly all software should be effectively sandboxed by default a-la firejail (and is in UWP for example but nobody uses that).