• Vittelius@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s bazzite with a custom UI instead of Steam Big Picture and no desktop mode. Their big claim seems to be that they say that they have solved anti cheat on Linux: the system generates a checksum of the kernel space, the anti cheat then compares this checksum with the one on file. No custom kernel module needed on the part of the anti cheat dev. At least in theory.

      • priapus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m interested in them finding a way to get AC working, but I really dislike this method of doing so. There are a ton of kernel variations, so this would really only work on specific distros and devices. This becoming standard would likely mean being unable to use optimized kernels, different schedulers, and other kernel modules like the ZFS drivers.

      • chellomere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m having a hard time understanding how this would work. udev will load kernel modules depending on your hardware, and these modules run in kernel space. Is there an assumption that a kernel module can’t cheat? Or do they have a checksum for each possible kernel module that can be loaded?

        Also, how do they read the kernel space code? Userspace can’t do this afaik. Do they load a custom kernel module to do this? Who says it can’t just be replaced with a module that returns the “right” checksum?

        • Vittelius@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Here is the quote I paraphrased in my comment (I’m sure I got something wrong):

          The immutable file system from Fedora Silverblue will be very helpful in implementing our anti cheat system but it is not our anti cheat system. We are planning to generate signatures for each version of our OS (easy with Silverblue) as well as all the DLLs we install dynamically. Basically using our SDK, a game developer will be able to obtain a signature of the current config on the device then call our backend to verify that this is a genuine Playtron version.

          https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/19/24106356/playtron-explains-how-immutable-file-systems-are-not-but-could-help-with-linux-anti-cheat

        • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Anti-cheat doesn’t actually need to eliminate cheating, it just needs to make the masses think it works by slightly raising the bar for entry into cheating. Cheating is still rampant, players just feel better about it and complain about smurfs more because they dont think its possible to get around kernal level anti-cheats.

          Honestly I’d be much happier if the industry moved away form terrible anti-cheat software in general.

          • lorty@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I wish more people understood this: Riot’s anti-cheat isn’t perfect and you can find how to cheat online fairly easily actually, but you have to jump over so many hoops and spend a fair amount of cash to do it (depending on method) that it’s basically an exercise for motivated hackers that want to prove a point, not your script kiddie that wants easy wins.

            • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Exactly. The average Joe sees he can’t just download hacks and suddenly be good, assumes the anti-cheat works, and then when they still get owned complains about something else instead of cheaters and is happily giving shady game publishers the highest level access to their computer like its nothing.