Congrats CachyOS. Now you get to wait for Epic to approve any new release or risk losing all your users who will come to depend on EAC.
Hell yeah let’s BACKDOOR ALL USERS to accommodate a single PRIVATE CORPORATION HELL YEAH
Hmmm… do I want to run unverified code in my kernel from the “Programming is too hard!” guys?
That’s not what this is doing. From my understanding, the kernel doesn’t include any new code made by Epic. It just needs to support Secure Boot and a bunch of other requirements, all of which are already possible with existing Linux solutions.
The anti-cheat wants to verify that you haven’t fucked with your system, there are ways to do that and EAC requires that your setup can credibly after attest to it.
Video going over the requirements (with timestamp): https://youtu.be/3Xi7m0CYk5s?t=7m39s
Source: https://onlineservices.epicgames.com/news/introducing-easy-anti-cheat-linux-v2
On Windows, we rely heavily on a kernel driver to protect the games. This driver isn’t always on, it starts when a game is launched and stops when the player exits. For EAC Linux v2 we will not leverage an equivalent kernel module, and instead we’ll take full advantage of existing Linux platform security features like measured boot, the kernel lockdown LSM, and IOMMU support, plus our own eBPF logic to maintain integrity and detect cheaters. These security features are not available on every distro and may require configuration changes to activate.
I agree with your sentiment though. But somehow, against all odds, the “programming is too hard” people landed on a solution that sounds pretty good to me.
eBPF does run in kernel mode.
Maybe better than a module, but I wouldn’t say “the kernel doesn’t include any new code”
It’s also why they have to use “integrity” mode of kernel lockdown
If they used “confidentiality” mode, their eBPF code would be untrusted by the kernel and couldn’t be loaded
The problem is not the high-level solution. If the anti-cheat does what they claim – great.
If.
The problem is that EACv2 itself is unverified machine code running with elevated privileges. Unless the source code is released, it will be impossible to know what kinds of shenanigans it engages in. It demands that users trust it implicitly, along with the people and clankers that wrote it, the mistakes they made, and the people and interests they are beholden to.
Trust should be earned, and the fact that people have been indoctrinated to give it away freely should be deeply concerning to everyone.
If you wanted to test it, you could try sandboxing it to run as an unprivileged user with access to nothing else on the operating system. They claim it will run without needing sudo or root.
I’m not gonna test it though. I’m not willing to use a distro that doesn’t let me compile and install my own kernel modules.
[edit] I read a bit more, looks like they are allowing unprivileged code into the kernel. That’s apparently what eBPF does.
Stay far away from this project.
what eBPF does
Holy shit, that’s like
curl | sudo bashon steroids. Fucking hilarious.
I don’t care how good the solution is, I’m not having my shit get attested for no good reason. If needed I’ll just wait for a game to get cracked. I’m not installing any anti-cheat enabling bullshit.
Someone on reddit wondered if this is the embrace phase of embrace, extend, extinguish.
This is what most people arguing in favor of this don’t get. This changes the entire ecosystem via some kind of peer-pressure once more and more game developers implement EACv2 (from the side of both developers as well as players). And other AC vendors like BattlEye will likely also follow suit. Imagine letting Tim into your kernel… I’m not even letting Gabe into my kernel.
Also RIP custom kernel modifications/tweaks for the sake of performance or new features if you want to play any future game which will implement EACv2. Also RIP applying in-development or bugfix patches, especially AMDGPU ones. And RIP OOT modules for niche hardware that’s not packaged by the distro.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1xgm7qi/comment/19rq81f8dnsyt/?context=3
…modules for niche hardware that’s not packaged by the distro.
…like the current Nvidia drivers that you need to build (and sign in case of secure boot) the kernel module for ?
There’s a reason people recommend AMD over NVIDIA for Linux use.
Personally, I don’t even play any competitive multiplayer games so I generally have no interaction with anticheat one way or another. For that reason, I don’t see myself doing the steps required to get EAC v2 working.
But, given that there are loads of people who:
- Want to play and enjoy these competitive multiplayer games
- Don’t want cheaters to ruin the game for them
- Acknowledge that cheaters will ruin the game if nothing is done to prevent that
Then, some trade-offs are inevitable. Anti-cheat is required for that, there’s no getting around it. That is the “good reason” for which the attestation is needed.
Maybe for you that’s not a good reason - that’s fine, it’s the same for me, I just don’t play those kinds of games and so the games I play don’t need anticheat. There’s really no reason to get angry with a solution that DOESN’T AFFECT YOU if you’re not interested in it, but actually serves a purpose for others.
Competitive multiplayers aren’t the only game that use anticheat but coop too. And who’s to say that drm doesn’t take the opportunity to start requiring EAC v2 type protections for single player games.
you still shouldn’t use it and support these asshats. i don’t care if this one thing is good by chance. that’s a single living tree in a forest of rot
I understand why this might appeal to some gamers, I really do. I promise I sympathize, but if you’re willing to run EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux and what you think you’re getting out of it?
At this point we’re starting to see some better gaming performance due to good compatibility layers and Microsoft just repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, but for me at least a large part of it was escaping that ecosystem that gives them control over your system. Giving them that kernel level access so you can keep playing Fortnite is a devil’s bargain. Seriously, please find a new game and I’m trying to convey that in the least judgmental way possible.
EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux
Why is that even a question? Running EAC doesn’t undermine why you run Linux (which can have many different reasons). It’s not like EAC takes over your PC like on Windows. The Linux implementation is completely different and uses Linux features, controlled by Linux and not the EAC anticheat. EAC cannot do whatever they want and they don’t get root rights (unlike Windows version of the anticheat).
I don’t play EAC games, so I don’t really have a stake in this.
There are plenty of reasons to run Linux apart from “I want complete and utter freedom” or something like that.
I would gently remind you that we have been giving kernel-level access to e.g. Nvidia for decades too.
It’s a trade-off, and there are still plenty of actual day-to-day practical benefits of running Linux beyond philosophy.
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
Agreed, I’d rather a family member running Fortnite on Linux than on windows.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer rather than not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
I wanted to play hunger. Even got into the beta. Installed it, then I found I couldn’t play it because it’s using EAC2. Fuck if I’m going to bother jumping through hoops to play it. Or any other game. If Hunt Showdown (another EAC title) forces EAC2 then I’ll quit playing that as well. I’m entirely fucking done with invasive anticheat.
Steam is full of games that don’t require kernel-level anti-cheat. There’s more than enough to play to not do these companies’ bidding.
EACv2 isn’t actually invasive in the sense how it works on Windows. It uses features we already have in Linux, without itself getting root rights or being invasive. I assume at the moment most distributions have not yet worked on this. I assume (or better hope) in the future most gaming ready distributions will have this builtin without you worrying, or enable it quickly. I think this implementation as it sounds is the best possible way, much better than how invasive anticheat works on Windows. I’m actually stoked about the way Epic handles this! It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
I’ve written at length elsewhere in the topic about how it’s not just the technical implementation, but what this attestation process signifies about control of these companies over your system.
I understand this is one of the weaker arguments I can make in isolation, but it bears asking the question: why is it Epic that’s doing it and not Valve?
They don’t have control over my system. Its still controlled by the Linux Kernel and the features of it, no direct control from the companies. They can’t do whatever they want.
Why in god’s name should it be Valve’s job to implement this? None of Valve’s games use EAC…
Why in god’s name should it be Valve’s job
Because Valve is interested in making anticheat work in Linux. By all companies, I would have expected this from Valve. I’m not talking about working on EAC, but all the stuff how it is implemented, the work on using the Linux Kernel and setting up Secure Boot, talking with all the distributions and vendors to make it happen. And even if it was to make EAC work first, I would have expected this from Valve, because they are the most interested into all anticheats to work on Linux.
You might be completely devoid of any imagination if you can’t come up with at least a reason.
You probably didn’t read how it works either. Not really an issue 🤷
Your hostility is so unwarranted. Be better next time.
This isn’t putting anything sleazy in your kernel. Please take a look at my reply to another comment.
I read your comment and I’m familiar with the technology. I’m not insinuating they’re putting anything sleazy in the kernel, in fact I acknowledge there are practical security benefits to it. That’s where a lot of the nuance comes in.
Secure Boot and the TPM help verify the boot process and that it hasn’t been tampered with. I keep mentioning TPM as well because it’s part of the mechanisms already in place with CoD[1], it has remote attestation[2], and has been pitched as a DRM mechanism since at least 2009[3]. This makes a lot more sense in a corporate/enterprise environment where you’re either using a company issued laptop or your BYOD device needs to prove it’s up to a standard worthy of trust to connect and interact with network resources. In this scenario the company has created a secure platform and your device needs to be trusted within it.
But on a consumer level, while you can still argue there’s protection from tampering by malicious parties with the boot process, you have to ask yourself what platform you’re participating in and why. This is the equivalent of allowing the cops to put a camera in your house on the grounds that if everyone is watched it’ll reduce crime. Microsoft (or whatever game developer) wants to know your device can be trusted on their platform and you need to submit to whatever those standards are. Allowing EAC is opening the door to that process. If Microsoft sniffs something out on your PC they don’t like, they can decline to run the software. It gives them right of denial over what your system looks like. They can enforce you to run telemetry scraping services as part of the configuration that must be in place to trust your device.
So while I don’t have any proof that this is being used quite in that manner yet, or even what it might eventually look like, it is well within possibility. And we know the tech industry absolutely has an appetite for it. This is the Sony rootkit scandal from 2005 except now they just tell you they’re doing it instead of trying to hide the fact.
You’re free to make of that information what you will and evaluate how much of a likely threat you perceive any of that to be and if it’s worth the tradeoff. And sorry about the people downvoting you, I’m just trying to get this information out there. It’s complicated and nuanced, I get it.
Thanks.
I couldn’t care less about the downvotes, just like you I’m just interested in having a good conversation and sharing accurate information. So thank you for providing it!
You’re right about all of that. Especially the takeaway that it’s nuanced. Yeah, it really is.
I think what most people, including you, are reacting to is who is doing this rather than what is being done. And rightly so. I don’t want to trust Epic (or Mic🤮soft) with this kind of thing. But anti-cheat is nuanced, and I think I can persuade you (if you don’t agree already) that some kind of anti-cheat that actually works to some extent is needed.
You brought up:
… you have to ask yourself what platform you’re participating in and why.
I think the answer is pretty obvious here. The platform is an online game. Let’s say Fortnite just because it’s the obvious example to use (personally I’ve never played it). The reason you want to participate is for fun, for competition (maybe even professional), or both.
One thing is very clear: if other people playing Fortnite are cheating when playing with you, it prevents you from having fun or winning the competition. Unless you are a cheater yourself, you only want to play with non-cheaters.
So obviously you want there to be some way you can play Fortnite with some level of guarantee that other players aren’t cheating.
So let’s say you, the player, get to decide how this is enforced. The stipulation is that every player including you will be subject to the same level of enforcement, and any player that isn’t will be locked out of the platform. How do you do it?
You and every player will have to somehow credibly convince the game that you’re not cheating. The only way to do that is to reveal some information about the system running the game. The TPM and all those other technologies that you seem to understand much better than I do, are the way to do that credibly. The only question left, then, is which information (or “how much”) would actually be sent to the server to provide this proof.
That’s the trade-off. I agree with you that these companies will almost inevitably exploit this system to extract data about you that has nothing to do with cheating. If not at first, then soon afterwards. And that’s an endless battle that we’ll continue to fight. But it’s also besides the fundamental point.
Cheating in online games is a real problem that actually needs solutions. I think the framework presented by EAC v2 is a good one, and can be used to enforce anti-cheat on Linux without spying on you in any other way. That, I think, is a good thing.
What would be best, of course, is if a more trustworthy organization made a similar anti-cheat solution following EAC v2’s footsteps.
I’ve made this comment before, but to reiterate, I think that consoles are generally a better solution for competitive multiplayer games.
Consoles were designed from the ground up to be locked down. PCs were designed to be open and modifiable. Trying to figure out ways to jury-rig a PC to act locked-down is always gonna be an uphill battle.
Also, since this is for competitive multiplayer games, consoles also provide a level playing field on hardware. No pay-to-win “buy this hardware to get an edge” stuff. There’s a whole industry of PC “gamer” hardware sold using basically “pay to win” marketing.
PCs are nice because they’re open. That lets you make one faster or prettier or use any input device or rig up macro software or mod games, fiddle with memory or whatever. And that’s a good thing for games that aren’t competitive multiplayer games. You can play the game however you want, and it’s not like it negatively affects anyone else. But that same characteristic that’s an advantage for non-competitive-multiplayer gaming is a drawback for competitive multiplayer gaming.
For competitive multiplayer gaming, you want a platform that provides equal footing for all players as much as possible and is hard to modify, and that’s what consoles do well.
You don’t need to force competitive games to console to do this, just have the tournament or league provide the hardware for tournaments. If a “pro” shows up and suddenly sucks when playing on the league machine then you figure out pretty quick they are getting help from something.
Also, consoles doesn’t stop cheating. This is the same mentality that thinks EAC or Vanguard stops cheating. Hardware cheat tools can work on console exactly as well as they do on a PC. There are already plenty of options for people that really want to cheat that the host computer doesn’t even know about, just sees a standard mouse and/or keyboard plugged in. This can do the exact same thing with a console and a controller.
Regular players suffer from cheating way more.
I am not against all anti-cheat, just kernal level anti-cheat.
Stopping cheating doesn’t require exclusive zero-ring access to a device. Some people are going to get around any anti-cheat you put in place short of actual human review (which is nearly impossible to do at scale). There are plenty of online competitive games that don’t use kernal anti-cheat and don’t have their community ruined by constant cheating. Anti-cheat was a “solved” problem ages before kernal anti-cheat hit the scene.
All Kernal anti-cheat is doing is giving access to everything you do on your device to a game publisher and making you feel warm and fuzzy that you lost because of a skill reason and not someone paying for an edge when both are true. Sometimes you lose to a cheater, sometimes you lose to someone vastly better than you, and in many cases you will never know which is which. It’s like magic vs science, the end result feels the same whether you understand it or not.
Yeah but that’s expensive. It’s a whole lot cheaper to get the players to bring their rigs. Plus you’re not liable for any damages machines or security. Play at your own risk.
It’s expensive? That’s the problem? Let them fucking cheat then I guess. I feel like they can either take themselves seriously or not, but how something “hurts” the professional competitions shouldn’t be taken into account for the general public trying to enjoy games. Kernal Anti-Cheat is a fucking plague that needs to end.
Playing on console sucks. I think the best way to play competitive multiplayer games is on Linux with anticheat support. We are currently not there, but this EACv2 implementation might be the best way in the future.
I agree but I have a big issue with this if it’s being the reason for what makes a company release on a console vs a pc
I mean, why wouldn’t they? Like, say you’re making, oh, a deathmatch shooter. Cheating kinda ruins gameplay for players. If the competitive multiplayer crowd winds up on console, then…shrugs that’s where you do game development.
The PC world really pioneered a lot of competitive (remote) multiplayer game genres because PCs with network connections were widespread before consoles with network connections were. And to some extent, genres adapted to PC hardware rather than console hardware. High-speed twitch mouse+keyboard—PC hardware—first-person shooters dominated in the late '90s and early 2000s. That’s what players who could play the games had. MOBAs are often (unless things have changed recently) adapted to the mouse.
But I don’t think that there’s any fundamental link between PC hardware and competitive multiplayer games. You could make games adapted to console hardware just as well. And if it’s more important to prioritize a level playing field and avoiding cheating for competitive multiplayer games…I mean, sure, I’d focus on console releases too.
The flip side of that is that I think that in general, the PC is a better platform than consoles for non-multiplayer-competitive games, and if those don’t make it to consoles…shrugs I mean, same thing, just cutting the other direction.
Shooters are the best possible example of consoles not being ideal for certain games. Give me a keyboard and mouse and I’ll potentially beat the best shooter champion trying to struggle through playing an fps with a controller.
To be fair a console is just a locked down pc these days. There’s no reason technically why you couldn’t use a mouse and keyboard. The only reason is because they’re focused on couch play and lack of interest I think.
they’re focused on couch play
Right, exactly. It’s definitely possible for some games to be playable on console with mouse and keyboard, but given that it’s not the norm you definitely may have issues. A serious fps player likely would not want to switch to a console without some convincing.
I agree. I mean, SteamOS also exists now. Maybe valve could introduce some lockdown mode where you get no kernel access as the user for these types of games or something. I don’t know.
Either way, there has to be a way to solve this problem without kernel level anti cheat.
there has to be a way to solve this problem without kernel level anti cheat.
My understanding is that the solution is and always has been to write a good network subsystem for your game/engine. That’s not easy, so most developers would rather spend time on the gameplay and outsource the cheating concerns to the ultimate sledgehammer against cheating: full freaking kernel access. It’s honestly terrifying what could happen granting random companies that access, and it’s probably a miracle we haven’t seen a million users have their data leaked, deleted, corrupted, etc.
Give me a keyboard and mouse and I’ll potentially beat the best shooter champion trying to struggle through playing an fps with a controller.
that heavily depends on the game. the majority of professional Apex Legends players use gamepads because of the aim assist advantage.
would golf tournaments be improved if the ball had a strong magnetic attraction to the hole? lol I don’t think so
I’d rather the tournaments banned aim assist
Yeah, I don’t doubt that. But it’s funny that the reason for it being preferred on console is that you don’t actually have to aim well lol. Making it, imo, a shitty shooter.
oh, I’m talking about PC players using the controllers.
some argue that the stupidly strong aim assist is a way to give the console players (since there’s PC/console crossplay) a chance against KB+M users who get to use some movement techniques that aren’t possible on a controller and that make it much more difficult to hit them, but tons of people started using controllers on PC just for the aim advantage, so it’s definitely been an overkill.
Ohh, wow. Yeah that is crazy. I get that reasoning, but I would agree it’s overkill to go ahead and give the controller a leg up! The only shooter I ever could stand on a controller was Halo and that was after a lot of practice (and not having a choice, playing against friends on their xboxes). Still kinda hated it in the back of mind lol
Why is cheating bad?
In full competition you’re in a LAN, using pre-approved hardware. Just let server mods decide if they want to ban cheaters or not.
This seems worse than just dual booting Windows, which you’d end up having to dual boot Linux if the reason you got into Linux was to get away from sketchy permissions.
I don’t like the normalization of this type of anticheat for Linux, and if other games adopt this it seems like this would lead to a worse situation than having games not support Linux if more Linux games start adopting this EACv2 requirement.
This isn’t putting anything sleazy in your kernel. Please take a look at my reply to another comment.
Your reply doesn’t make me sure if it is running on a similar privilege level to root.
I don’t use Linux to give that level of trust to anticheat, and I don’t see the benefit at that point of dual booting Windows instead.
So are you saying it doesn’t get root type privileges? And can be as trusted to not be as invasive as anticheat is on windows being able to look through your entire system?
So are you saying it doesn’t get root type privileges? And can be as trusted to not be as invasive as anticheat is on windows being able to look through your entire system?
From my understanding, that’s right. My understanding is very shallow though, so you should look into it yourself if you really care enough. I think the links I posted are enough of a starting point.
There’s some more comments I’ve been reading on /r/linux_gaming and there has been some saying it is getting root type privileges and skepticism behind it.
Even assuming what you said is right: fucking link the other comment, no one is gonna hunt another random comment that we don’t even know it’s right
I didn’t because linking to a post or comment on Lemmy (or the fediverse at large) is awful. Does this work? https://vger.to/discuss.tchncs.de/comment/29001869
I suggest to disable the voyager redirect in the settings, idk where it is tho
The alternative is to link to a specific instance. In which case if you open it you’ll be logged out.
Really? Even Microsoft is working to get this crap out of the kernel…
EAC v2 is technically not in the kernel, it uses existing Linux security features to get the same level of control over your computer AFAIK. Which is probably what Microsoft is aiming for too
are multi kernel os the solution for anti cheat on Linux?
NixOS could be one way to easily manage switching back and forth using Cachy’s kernels.
r/fuckepic /s
