• Vieric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    I admit I don’t know a damn thing about this stuff, but is there any chance this could improve cases where anti-cheat becomes an issue?

    • andyburke@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Client-side anti-cheat is a lie that makes your computer less secure.

      No thanks.

      Anti-cheat belongs on the vendor’s hardware, not our untrusted client CPUs.

      • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s not exactly a lie. It does work to some extent, as in it massively increases the effort people have to invest to cheat. However, it’s not a 100% safe solution and the only true anti-cheat can be serverside. However, that’s difficult to implement to companies tend to resort to shitty client-side implementations.

        • andyburke@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          You cannot trust clients to even report reality about what hardware they’re running on.

          Not to mention all the potential cheats that can be done at the input level.

          There is no valid client-side approach that is worth the wasted dev time and cpu cycles.

          All of that focus should be where you have an actual chance of controlling your execution environment and inputs so you can do anti-cheat on trusted hardware: the server.

          • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s not the point of client-side anticheat. The point is to prevent anything from interacting with the game itself. And a lot of input level cheats are also detectable by rootkit … I mean, anticheats with root-level access. It doesn’t prevent it completely, but it certainly heightens the barrier of entry to cheating, so to speak.

      • Ech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Is that true on Wine/Linux? I tried to look this up a little while ago, but the little I found (that I could understand) was fairly vague. The best I could gather is that “kernel level” anti-cheat in a Linux compatible game runs at the same permission level as the game, so it’s not really the same level of concern. Am I misunderstanding that or missing something?

    • hperrin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Probably not. Wine translates Windows kernel calls to their equivalent Linux kernel calls. Kernel level anti-cheat runs in the kernel space, so it’s not compatible with Wine. That being said, there are Linux versions of most kernel level anti-cheat, game vendors just don’t support them.

  • glitching@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    also supports native wayland, without Xwayland translation. start your game with the DISPLAY variable unset to test it (e.g. DISPLAY= mangohud wine ~/Games/TheGame/TheGame.exe