this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
78 points (96.4% liked)

Linux

55025 readers
913 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From both a technical perspective and if the maintainers of these anti-cheat will consider porting or re-writing kernel level anti-cheat to work on linux, is it possible? Do you think that the maintainers of kernel level anti-cheat will be adamant in not doing it, or that the kernel even supports it or will support it. I think that if it ever happens, there will be a influx of people moving to linux, or abandoning their duelboots, and that alot of people will hate that such a thing is available on linux.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] muusemuuse@lemm.ee 16 points 17 hours ago

Short answer: no

Long answer: only the most important things should even have such low-level access to the system. A fucking game is not in that category. Nooooooo

[–] qweertz@programming.dev 14 points 20 hours ago

Every IT-literate person fights kernel-lvl malware disguising as games with everything they got.

Since Linux has a high percentage of those, I hope those "solutions" will never spread

[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can't wait until I am able to give random programs kernel access on my system! That doesn't sound problematic in the least! After all, I have the fullest confidence that for companies developing anticheat, my security is their highest concern! /s

[–] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com -3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

@phantomwise @SpiderUnderUrBed Every program on your system has "kernel access", it's called "syscalls", but actually being able to modify the kernel, that is another matter.

[–] lemmylemonade@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

lol 🤣. Aren't you a tech guy?

[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 6 points 20 hours ago

It's relatively trivial, you just need to write a kernel module. You'd just need/want to make it gpl so everything it does is fully audited and transparent. That's not a problem, is it? Right?

From a technical standpoint, you could argue that someone could create a fork of the kernel that spoofs the interface that the anticheat uses to make it ignore things. You can, of course, also do something similar in Windows, but security theatre never let practicality get in the way.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip 91 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I surely hope they never will, no user program should ever be allowed to run at kernel level, that's what malware does.

I personally avoid those kind of games, but those who won't can dual-boot.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 7 points 1 day ago
[–] AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

From technical point of view it is possible. eBPF already has almost everything needed for doing that. And I think it can be done with a simple LKM but if they want it included in the main tree I'm sure they'll get some colorful email from Linus.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

I really want to see that email.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's the other way around. Windows will stop supporting kernel level anti-cheat because of Crowdstrike

[–] EtzBetz@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago

They want to provide APIs that basically do an equal job but will restrict direct access.

[–] vintageballs@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago
[–] coconut@programming.dev 66 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Sure hope not. If I wanted to run rookits I'd just use Windows. Why bother with Linux?

This is why I don't want more Linux adoption and don't understand people cheering every new user. We're in a sweet spot where a lot of games enable userland anticheat while we don't get kernel level ports (however they may be shipped doesn't matter). The only thing that'll come out of more adoption is kernel level anticheat ports that'll probably work with a few corporate backed distros only and we'll actually lose the games we have today. Because those will switch over the kernel level alternatives too.

The only way I'd like Linux to be a generic multiplayer platform is server side anticheats. It is very obviously the way to go and we are seeing extremely slow adoption (e.g. Marvel Rivals).

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I think the more people who aren't using corporate operating systems, the better.

I'm firmly against Microsoft, Red Hat, and Ubuntu.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

On one side, I'm one of those glad for people coming to Linux because Linux is truly fantastic and it can make your life easier on many things, I'm happy for them.

On the other side, I share your concerns, because everything that gets adopted by the masses is inevitably subject to enshittification, I would never want that to happen to Linux.

We should find a sweet middle-point tho I have no idea what that would be.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 23 points 1 day ago

I sure hope not. Play on someone else's pc if you want them to have control.

[–] dan@upvote.au 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

AFAIK Microsoft have plans to block kernel level anti-cheat on Windows. After the CrowdSec issues last year, they're rethinking which types of programs should even be allowed to run in kernel space.

Edit: I was wrong. They actually want to increase what can be done in user mode, to reduce reliance on kernel mode code.

They actually want to increase what can be done in user mode, to reduce reliance on kernel mode code.

That's basically what Apple did with macOS 11. They deprecated kernel extensions and replaced them with "system extensions", and created new APIs so security tools, VPNs and such could function without kernel-level privileges.

[–] coconut@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don't. One article lied, people never read anything but the title and here we are this getting mentioned every once in a while.

[–] dan@upvote.au 8 points 1 day ago

Thanks. I looked into it a bit more and it looks like they actually want to increase what can be done in userland, to reduce the reliance on kernel mode. That's still a good solution, if things the anti-cheat code needs to do can be moved into userland.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I think its less a question of the technical feasibility, and more of an issue that we, as users, don't want more closed-source blobs in our kernels. Meanwhile, the publishers insist that they can't open-source their anti-cheat code; Their idea being that if we know what's in it, it will be easier to bypass.

Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.

They could go the rought of kernel modules, I would think, but for whatever reason, we're still having this conversation.

[–] unprovenbreeze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Basically, one distro or a few(at most) may get anti-cheat integrated one day(like, say, SteamOS), but it will likely never be in your standard Linux kernal.

Valve also has server side anticheat in his games (Counter Strike or Deadlock). They are also against it.

Kernel-level anticheats can be bypassed anyways, but they are the easy solution for the corps that want to sell their multiplayer game.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kadup@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Absolutely nothing prevents somebody from writing a kernel level anticheat on Linux.

Users would throw a fit, and it would be way easier to bypass, but it certainly could be made.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Doesn't Splitgate 2 have kernel level anti cheat that works on Linux? Maybe it is "trapped" inside wine/proton but they explicitly made it work and people are thanking them on steam discussions.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

Helldivers 2 works (or at least used to when I played it) as well, while requiring kernel access on windows

[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I'm not a programmer or cheater or anything, but I think the answer is yes and no. Yes it could technically be done and even work as intended as long as the device is locked down to prevent the user from replacing the shipped kernel (which would be a bad thing for users). However, savvy people could (in theory) make custom kernels that lie to the kernel module, causing the module to report there is no cheating when there is. It's my understanding that it's close to the current situation with Windows and virtual machines and anticheat: you can cheat by running your game in a VM and then have that virtual hardware extract secret information or flip bits in the right spots. Most competitive games will refuse to run in a VM for this reason.

[–] coconut@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Kernel level anti cheats require secure boot. You can't just "lie" and load an unsigned kernel.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

You can add your own signing keys to the UEFI and boot an modified bootloader and Kernel that you have signed yourself. So yes, it is possible to "lie"

For such a locked down system, akin to game consoles or smartphones, would be needed. And even those get jail broken and manipulated, so "total security" on there is not complete but easier to check and ensure. Another way to make sure that the code is not manipulated would be to put all those games into the cloud and have every player only play via streaming. All the code would then run on secured, locked down and verified machines.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One way I can imagine it being some certified Linux kernel versions that are accepted and worked together with anticheat creators. That way Valve could use the Kernel in Steam Deck or SteamOS, so any game works out of the box. And other distribution users can just install this Kernel too, if their distributions provide it.

Anyone who don't want to have Kernel level anticheat systems enabled on their system, do not need to install the Kernel. Therefore they are secure against it. But for anyone else who wants it, they can. At least this option would be a compromise.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

if it's linux, it has to be open source. If it's open source, people will code around it immediately. How about not trying to shoehorn this useless crap in the first place?

[–] 0xtero@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago

It doesn’t have to be open source. There’s plenty of binary firmware and drivers around.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 day ago

No Wine/Proton cannot translate calls that run too deep into the Kernel

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It is probably actually easier to create on linux as it is foss and there are also good projects like eBPF which can maybe even simplify and make it more secure.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago
[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It already works, but studios using anticheats that DO support Linux CURRENTLY don't bother implementing it because we're maaaaaybe 3% of the market on a good day, so they say "fuck it" and don't expend a few dev hours to enable it because they see it as a pain to deal with v users who need it.

[–] bonn2@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

AFAIK the current anticheat systems on Linux only run in userspace not at kernel level. This does mean Linux is theoretically easier to bypass compared to windows, some games just dont seem to want to take that risk. For as you said 3% of the market.

I personally disagree with that stance though, because all it takes is a hardware device and all software anticheats are useless no matter the os (think a raspberry pi, and capture card). So anticheat is really a losing battle anyways.

[–] SmoochyPit@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah… Apex Legends dropped Linux support a while ago and that’s one of the reasons they cited; and tbf, there were publicly available Linux cheats that ran under proton.

But there’s also loads of publicly available “external” cheats that run the way you described. Some run through a virtual machine even. It’s just not a robust solution for preventing cheating, and mostly hurts the legit Linux players.

[–] jay@mbin.zerojay.com 5 points 1 day ago

It's a lot more than just "a few dev hours". You need to invest in training your testers on Linux, potentially purchasing new hardware, invest in programmers that can deal with writing for Linux, etc... Just because something like BattlEye has a checkbox for Linux support doesn't mean that all it takes is to click the button and rebuild your game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

I hope to fuck not.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What does it even mean? People can recompile the kernel to turn the crap off.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›