- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
Root kernel access isn’t enough for them? Jesus fuck are they greedy.
This isn’t about greed, it’s about the game being riddled with hackers to the point people are leaving.
Yet no other game requires secure boot and plenty of them don’t require kernel level access either. Many of those games have no such cheating problem.
It’s a cop-out because they aren’t good at their jobs and instead want to gobble up more and more access to your computer instead.
Every Riot game requires Secure Boot for Vanguard to work. So does Tarkov and a lot of other games. It’s not unique to those two.
And what the fuck would they want with your computer anyways? Are you afraid they’re gonna steal the porn you stored on it? Secure Boot is literally a few checks on boot and the anti-cheat simply verifies these checks. There’s nothing nefarious here, this is a lot less invasive than Riot Vanguard.
EA Gets hacked and all the extra info they have been storing on me goes right to the hackers. It’s also a huge back door they could sell to shady 3 letter agencies.
Valid concerns, but Secure Boot does not influence that outcome. The root access is the most egregious thing here, not Secure Boot.
They could easily identify the worst hackers just based on the game play data without needing to actually confirm that they have cheats installed.
Snapping between spread out people to get a half dozen head shots in a quarter second? Hacking.
Locking on to someone behind a wall? Hacking.
Hacks that nullify recoil? They should be able to tell by unrealistically precise counter movements.
Sure, games can occasionally have network issues that result in these kinds of things but if someone does it regularly then it isn’t a networking thing.
The problem with this detection method is that you occasionally run into honest players catching bans for being legitimately too good at the game. While rare, there are some players who are accurate enough with their tracking that even professional players would assume they’re cheating, and end up getting banned because the developers decided nobody should ever be that good at the game.
This ends up putting a skill ceiling on a game, which is uhhealthy for a competitive game.
Plenty of people have been banned for false positives for the current anticheat methods due to corrupted files and whatnot, so I’d rather that a few ‘too good for reality’ players were banned instead.
Moderators that actually go trough reports helps quite a lot you know.
I mean I haven’t played one of their games in a few generations now, but like, this defo isn’t helping the chances
Their AC doesn’t work on Linux, so my odds of plying it went to 0 when I found that out. Fuck them anyway. They haven’t made a game worth playing in probably decades. There are better cheaper games not ran by greedy corpos.
Game is just watered down af anyway to appeal to the call of duty crowd as much as possible. BF lost its identity, so you aren’t missing anything.
Yeah the Beta wouldnt even open on Linux. Easy uninstall, thanks goodbye.
The Coming Civil War over General Purpose Computing. Don’t accept their game of “just the tip”
So, not required on Linux then I guess.
No need to require something for an OS they don’t plan to support at all anyways, I suppose. :(
Or they’ll just copy Respawn
I don’t know what that is but you lost me at “Windows”.
Come join the community I made recently specifically for battlefield like games made by indie developers such as the superb ww2 battlefield-like Easy Red 2 !
Fuck EA
Get on Counterstrike, lads,
Well shit, I was looking forward to bf6
I mean, this is fine. Secure Boot is on everything motherboard from the last 12 years, there are very few reasons not to have it enabled and those reasons are usually edge case scenarios.
Would absolutely take this over a kernel level driver.
I don’t see how secure boot is relevant to a video game.
Secure boot requires OS kernel to be digitally signed so that’s just another way to prevent tampering. It’s not like those or any other games will be doing anything other than checking if it’s on because there’s not that much else it can be used for. Secure boot is annoying as hell if you use anything other than Windows though.
You can load your own keys and sign whatever you want. It’s not going to prevent anyone but the most unsophisticated of cheaters. What it does is prevent malicious code from being injected early in the boot, it doesn’t prevent users from loading whatever code they want early in boot.
Can you really sign your own modified Windows kernel or drivers? I don’t think that’s how cryptography works.
I’m not sure about Windows specifically, I just know you can load your own keys onto the mobo. In general, a cryptographic signature is just metadata tacked onto a file, so presumably yes, you could sign the kernel yourself and load your key so Secure Boot works.
The way Linux distros generally work (e.g. Debian) is to use a shim binary and chain load into their own kernel binary. An exerpt:
Starting with Debian version 10 (“Buster”), Debian supports UEFI Secure Boot by employing a small UEFI loader called shim which is signed by Microsoft and embeds Debian’s signing keys. This allows Debian to sign its own binaries without requiring further signatures from Microsoft.
So even if signing the Windows kernel doesn’t work (I don’t see why it wouldn’t), you could use a loader shim like Debian does to not require loading your own keys.
To be fair, I haven’t read the details of Secure Boot specifically to know how it’s done, I’m just going based on my understanding of PGP (about how signing works), early kernel boot, and high level details about Secure Boot. I’m sure someone sophisticated enough to design kernel-level game cheats could figure out how to make Secure Boot happy without a ton of effort from users.
Secure Boot isn’t designed to prevent users from doing things, it merely prevents malicious code from being loaded at boot (i.e. code that doesn’t have access to the keys loaded onto the Secure Boot module).
I’m not sure about Windows specifically
That’s quite an important omission because we’re talking about Windows. Windows won’t run kernel or driver that’s not using expected certificates, what would be the point otherwise?
Again, I don’t know the specifics about Windows, so I can’t say exactly what a cheater could or could not do. I do know that kernel chaining does work w/ Windows, otherwise the GRUB bootloader would be DOA.
Whatever Windows does is a completely separate thing from Secure Boot, since Secure Boot only impacts early boot (i.e. the handoff from UEFI to the kernel). So getting into what Windows does and does not allow isn’t particularly relevant to the discussion about Secure Boot.
You mean this certificate? The one which will expire next year and leave many old machines with Secure Boot enabled, unbootable?
Unbootable w/o changes, yes, assuming hardware vendors actually respect the expiration date.
But that’s completely separate from my point. Regardless of the solution they pick for that particular problem, users can still add their own keys to Secure Boot and do whatever they want.
You can, but it probably needs a key related to Microsoft certificates
Motherboard TPM has been pwnd so many times. I don’t want to enable attack surface and I have other means of verifying my boot
Fuck cheaters. I support this. I have no issues with the potential vulnerability concerns to reduce cheating. I can’t even remember the last time kernel level anti-cheats resulted in data exploitation.
How do you like your boot seasoned?
As a Bf3 and Bf4 player, I can count the number of cheaters I encountered on one hand. I won’t buy Bf6 because they implement this shit instead of giving us self hostable community servers.
