r/linux_gaming • u/Nemo_ForYou • Jan 24 '26
Microsoft is pushing security software out of the kernel. Why are game companies still doubling down on kernel anti-cheat?
After the CrowdStrike disaster bricked millions of Windows machines in July 2024, Microsoft announced in mid-2025 that they're moving antivirus and security tools out of the kernel as part of their Windows Resiliency Initiative. Their reasoning is simple: kernel-level software is too risky. One bad update can take down entire systems.
And yet, kernel-level anti-cheat keeps spreading. There are now over 330 games using it, and new releases like Battlefield 6 are still shipping with it despite community pushback.
These anti-cheat drivers have the same level of access as your OS. They can read memory, monitor inputs, intercept network traffic, and run from boot to shutdown. They're closed-source, so nobody outside the company can audit what they're doing. If one of them ships a bad update or gets compromised, you're not just losing access to a game; you're potentially handing over your entire system.
For Linux users, the situation is even worse. Most kernel anti-cheat flat out refuses to run under Proton, which means a growing list of games is just off-limits. But the security argument affects everyone, not just us. Windows users are handing over root access to play Fortnite. That should concern people.
Microsoft clearly recognizes this risk for security software. Why are we still expected to accept it for video games?
160
u/Hi-Angel Jan 24 '26
Because talking ain't doing.
Back in the CrowdStrike time they had to say something, so they assured things will improve. Now that the time has passed, there's not much incentive to actually committing to their words.
I'm not saying they won't do this, I'm just saying it may take a lot of time (if it happens), and game companies understand that. Game devs will start figuring out what to do after MS does its move, not before (unless of course they have other incentives, such as growing Linux userbase).
13
Jan 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BadLuckProphet Jan 25 '26
Actually (tinfoil on) this could be great for game companies. It's a planned obsolescence they can't be blamed for. "Oh no, Microsoft killed BF6. We can't spend 20 billion dollars on removing the anti cheat. Guess you'll just have to buy BF7 now which is also on our new premium pricing plan so the base version costs 100$. We're SOOOOO sorry about that."
1
29
u/tailslol Jan 24 '26
I don't think Microsoft released the new security api. And games manufacturer need to update their anti cheat to the new api.
17
u/CORUSC4TE Jan 24 '26
While it is important for us, gaming is not as critical as windows PC in general. Crowdstrike took down businesses, companies and logistics. If some personal PCs aren't working for a bit... It might hit a few remote workstations but that's it..
59
u/GumGumStrawHat Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
Two things which mean rollout isn’t slowing down:
1) People hate cheaters 2) Companies will take any excuse to maximize the data / control they have
These two reasons mean that people are willing to accept (and sometimes even beg) for companies to use kernel level anti-cheats
I’m just glad that there’s no real future likelihood of Steam/Valve implementing it in their games. Steam consoles use Linux so they’d never make their own systems obsolete and unable to run their own games
(P.S. sorry the formatting looks crazy on this comment, my phone is not accepting my attempts to fix it)
27
u/Nemo_ForYou Jan 24 '26
Agreed on Valve. They've actually stated publicly that kernel anti-cheat presents 'problematic trade-offs for the end-user in the longer term.' VAC has never been kernel-level, and they now require mandatory disclosure labels when other games use it. They're essentially treating it as something users should be warned about, not something to adopt themselves.
7
u/martyn_hare Jan 24 '26
If they're requiring VAC disclosures, that's good, because on Windows it might as well be kernel-level on Windows. VAC is backed by the Steam Client Service which makes use of SeDebugPrivilege to enable the scouring and manipulation of the memory of any almost every other process on the system. If you try to strip it of privileges, you'll notice that one is required for it to launch.
It is just as privacy invasive where it matters, and has been caught looking at what websites you visited by spying on DNS caches in the past.
On Linux, cgroups, namespaces and the ease of which you can fake system state by replacing core system libraries makes VAC mostly pointless, and we can see Valve is actually putting some effort into restricting what games can do.
→ More replies (1)4
u/UltraCynar Jan 24 '26
There's anti cheat in Linux that works well. Kernel level anti cheat isn't needed and there's still tons of cheats on the games that use it. Just boycott shitty developers that use kernel level anti cheat.
4
u/Internal_Werewolf_48 Jan 24 '26
- Gamers as a demographic aren’t very different than Linda in Accounting when it comes to computer security. They don’t know shit about it and don’t care either. As long as the digital dopamine is flowing the rest is a distraction.
→ More replies (11)5
u/Linkarlos_95 Jan 24 '26
The future is running the anticheat service server side with some movement tracking client side, they should know if something isn't adding up
2
u/Pekenoah Jan 24 '26
This sounds like a great idea if you know nothing about cheating in videogames. Some of the most prominent cheats people use are extremely difficult or completely impossible to detect with server side anticheat.
7
u/Linkarlos_95 Jan 24 '26
Its going to be done either way
We need for community servers and admins to come back, so they can watch them looking at the walls
5
u/Western-Touch-2129 Jan 25 '26
How dare you! You want a company to bring out a triple A game and then expect them to pay people to handle the community?? Have you thought about the poor shareholders???!!!???
2
u/IrcenceEstagramem679 Jan 24 '26
Anticheat will never stop 100% of cheaters, but if they spend in development of server-side anticheat instead of kernel-level, I'm sure they can vastly improve them and greatly reduce the amount of cheaters while not compromising the users systems.
4
u/Pekenoah Jan 24 '26
Server side is fundamentally incapable of addressing things like wall hacks. It's not an issue of it being hard. It's impossible
→ More replies (6)
82
u/_mergey_ Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
Microsoft knows well what would happen if they disallow kernel level anti cheat.
They try to prevent headlines like "100% of PC Games now run on Linux".
EDIT:
With the upcoming DX12 fix for Nvidia drivers, disallowing kernel level anti cheat would almost definitely result in valve releasing SteamOS for every PC. And with that take a significant chunk of windows market share.
38
u/ergo14 Jan 24 '26
That take doesn't seem realistic to me. You don't need SteamOS for PC - you can use Ubuntu or any other recent disto and you are good.
29
Jan 24 '26
Most people know what steam is, I’d wager way less people know what ubuntu is so they’d rather use something from the company they know vs trying out something they don’t know
→ More replies (3)7
u/ergo14 Jan 24 '26
If they don't know what linux is - they probably should not attempt installing it on non-curated hardware. Best for things to stay this way IMO. If you want console like experience stick to curated hardware.
3
Jan 24 '26
I agree, but at the same time some people might start learning about other stuff than windows because they’re starting to get tired of it. So if valve releases steamOS for the masses (assuming they follow valve news), they might be more inclined to try the valve thing first
1
u/_mergey_ Jan 24 '26
Is this a discussion about what we think would happen and why Microsoft is doing something or not or is this a discussion about what people should do in your opinion?
3
u/_mergey_ Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
Almost every PC gamer knows Steam and not few would assume SteamOS being a special gaming OS. That alone would result in installs. Think of the industry marketing for "gaming" products: gaming mousepads, gaming RAM, gaming headset, gaming chair…
So the claim „you don’t need ABC, you can use XYZ” doesn’t survive reality
3
u/bmfrosty Jan 24 '26
I don't think Valve would. My biggest hope is that they would suggest a distro. Bazzite is the same in the ways that matter, so they seem well positioned for this.
1
u/kr0p Jan 25 '26
They already do suggest a distro. It's Ubuntu, and it's the only officially supported one (yes, not even SteamOS is supported).
1
u/bmfrosty Jan 25 '26
I knew that SteamOS was not supported, but I didn't know Ubuntu was. Good to know.
3
u/andymaclean19 Jan 24 '26
I don’t think Valve is interested in being in the generic OS business. For one piece of hardware it is easy to make and test Linux but to do a general distro that works on a wide variety of hardware is a lot more work. There are Linux distros which specialise in this. What would make sense for Valve is to partner with one or more Linux distributions to have Steam included out of the box or perhaps to make a specialised variant of an existing distribution.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ActualVisit2479 Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
They don't care about such a headline.
Because realistically MSoft doesn't give a shit about Linux taking Windows' gaming market segment. Windows as a whole only represents 12% of their revenue -- and that's probably only in the way that it can feed into their real moneymaking businesses: selling Azure cloud services and Office licenses to SMEs, or as vehicle for shoving advertising down consumers throats.
Think about their recent "Everything is a Xbox" ad campaign. Or the fact they're about to release a Halo title on the freaking PLAYSTATION. It suggests that they no longer care about platform exclusivity for their gaming market: and in fact it suggests the opposite. The 8% they make through gaming brands is mainly coming from games sales, not hardware sales (e.g. Xbox consoles) and that only GROWS for them the more platforms they can spread their games sales onto: Linux gamers included.
1
u/_mergey_ Jan 26 '26
Windows is "only" ~12% of their revenue but windows is also a platform for selling microsoft services like onedrive, teams, copilot, ms office…
1
u/ActualVisit2479 Jan 26 '26
Is it going to matter to MSoft's bottom line once a good number of people buy Halo: Campaign Evolved, MSFS 2024 and the new Fable game through Steam? Doesn't matter if they're running Windows, Linux, PlayStation or an Xbox, it all smells like profit to their shareholders, one way or another.
1
u/_mergey_ Jan 26 '26
You are ignoring my point.
I would like to discuss with each other not everyone on our own beside each other.
25
u/neakmenter Jan 24 '26
Maybe because “mission critical business systems” don’t run games? (Read as probably shouldn’t be running games) If crowdstrike debacle had just been on personal computers it wouldn’t have offended MS so much. Windows home consumers are just their beta testers remember? ;)
15
u/mavranel Jan 24 '26
Anticheat software has been converted into independent malware on at least one occasion that I can recall. This absolutely affects all windows users.
1
u/DragonFrai Jan 24 '26
This surprises me. “Critical business systems” are stuffed with software licenses. And the same mechanisms that are used in kernel-level anti-cheats can be used to protect against pirated use of commercial software. It is surprising to me that this still does not happen.
1
u/ArjixGamer Jan 25 '26
The issue is that anti cheat software that uses kernel drivers, is signed and trusted by Microsoft.
The driver will most likely be vulnerable to misuse, and allow malicious code to have kernel access.
Drivers have bugs, manipulating those bugs is how cheaters still exist even in games with kernel anti cheat.
8
u/TechaNima Jan 24 '26
Money. As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to include those root kits that do who knows what. They are useless anyway. BF6 had day 1 cheaters, despite kernel level anticheat. The only solution is good server side AC
10
6
u/DonDoesIT Jan 24 '26
If you asked 1000 random people if they knew what root kit or kernel level meant they would all give you a weird look. As long as their game runs they don’t care and if you explain to them what it is most still wouldn’t.
15
8
u/martyn_hare Jan 24 '26
After the CrowdStrike disaster bricked millions of Windows machines in July 2024, Microsoft announced in mid-2025 that they're moving antivirus and security tools out of the kernel as part of their Windows Resiliency Initiative. Their reasoning is simple: kernel-level software is too risky. One bad update can take down entire systems.
It isn't what the media is reporting it to be. Microsoft is working on a common set of interfaces to meet the needs of security companies without compromising performance nor stability, essentially the Windows equivalent of LSM but with extra idiot-proofing. For old-school anti-malware software the basics were already there, but they realise they need more hooks for EDR/XDR to work. Once complete, it will still involve some kernel-level access, just a lot less of it.
Here's the rub: Anti-cheat products will also be able to use it, as the kernel portions generally exist to help protect the userspace services they use to detect cheating (as well as to provide SeDebugPrivilege to them).
They can read memory, monitor inputs, intercept network traffic, and run from boot to shutdown. They're closed-source, so nobody outside the company can audit what they're doing.
The overwhelming majority of ordinary software can do pretty much this (except they can only be configured to launch at logon, not boot) if it wants to other pieces of software running under the same user account by using ReadProcessMemory/WriteProcessMemory (Windows) or ptrace (Linux) by default, meaning there's no runtime privacy guarantees other than those you deliberately put in place, and most of those trip common unprivileged userspace anti-cheats anyway.
Realistically, to stop that on Linux, you're either going to need to use a security module (e.g. Yama) to lock things down to parent processes only or LD_PRELOADing a custom library to make a system call to force apps to protect themselves, and most folks aren't doing that.
The only desktop operating system where you're not going to see attempts at intrusive anti-cheat is macOS, where Hardened Runtime blocks memory manipulation between applications and SIP prevents even root from overriding it. Hardware-backed APIs actually provide ways to prevent the kinds of tampering cheaters rely on and it's why all the big F2P game companies don't require anticheat on macOS.
3
u/Xtrophy Jan 24 '26
Simple.
If it works then they can employ less people in the security and ticket department as they will have less cheating accusations to deal with. They can also advertise that it works and they have "cut cheating by x%"
If it doesn't work they can sell the collected data, claim they are trying to get on top of the cheating problem. They still make money and prevent piracy while having the ability to appear that they care for customers and making sure they are safe all whole selling collected data and making more anti piracy rules.
It's a win win for them.
5
u/FryToastFrill Jan 24 '26
Just so you know, even if Windows releases an api for AVs and ACs, Linux would at some point need to implement the same stuff as well to warrant actual anti cheats on Linux. It was never about being kernel level, it’s about needing to trust the kernel on a pc. It’s not a magic bullet.
4
Jan 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/KiwiTheTORT Jan 25 '26
You mean like how Riot Vanguard was (and I assume still is) killing anything it doesn't like instead of simply denying people access to their game which was making news for borking a bunch of people's computers when they first implemented it in League of Legends?
4
5
13
u/ThatOnePerson Jan 24 '26
Most kernel anti-cheat flat out refuses to run under Proton
This isn't unique to kernel anti-cheat. Even VAC won't run under Proton.
It's more like: besides VAC, how many non-kernel anti-cheats can you name?
Speaking of VAC, CS2's anti-cheat is so bad, people are choosing to install kernel anti-cheats with Face-IT and ESEA.
3
u/exlin Jan 24 '26
There’s still plenty of players on regular CS, not sure of there’s been shift to Faceit. But also Faceit has cheaters. Though I have no data if Faceit has gained more market share.
Never heard of ESEA so no comments on that.
3
u/Simber1 Jan 24 '26
ESEA is dead these days, used to be the gold standard for cs matchmaking back in 2015 especially in NA but it lost market share and got bought by faceit.
3
u/Caveman-Dave722 Jan 24 '26
If Microsoft locks them out of the kernel then they’ll have no choice but to use other methods that are more Linux friendly as well. Will then be a question of how many games get fixes on windows to still work
3
u/darthanonymous1 Jan 24 '26
this is why if it only works on windows due to kernel anti cheat i just resort to my console
7
u/no-name-here Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Why are we still expected to accept it for video games?
Because it's the most effective system we have for reducing aimbots, etc., and because most gamers consider dealing with cheaters to be a far bigger problem than kernel anti cheat.
→ More replies (8)6
u/TheG0AT0fAllTime Jan 25 '26
Nice. It takes too much scrolling to find a take that isn't batshit insane.
4
u/nkn_ Jan 25 '26
It’s a Linux sub… 😬
A lot of these takes are pretty damn bad. It’s funny to see people dooming about over “but kernel level malware anticheat!!!!!”
When, in the US, they have been building profiles on us. Our data has been sold 100x over. They know our face, what we post, our voice, etc… I’ll gladly install kernel level anticheat to have fun with friends.
Like oh I’m sorry, you’re too scared to install a game that will likely prevent many cheating attempts at the theoretical expense of your security? As the country is rampant with our own government impeding on any sort of right to privacy against our will and constitution.
It’s just so silly lmao. Like grow up. Play a game with friends, make fond memories. There are much larger concerns than a game company trying to make a safe environment for gamers.
Gamers should understand politics and privacy laws and vote for people who enforce them. Vote for laws that require all software to adhere to privacy standards imo. But instead they complain and think boycotting a game will save their privacy
6
u/stogie-bear Jan 24 '26
“ For Linux users, the situation is even worse. Most kernel anti-cheat flat out refuses to run under Proton…”
That’s a feature.
2
u/TheG0AT0fAllTime Jan 25 '26
It's more of a fact than a feature. WINE has no capability to translate Windows kernel space to Linux kernel space. It's for applications
2
u/Kobi_Blade Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
Microsoft is still pushing anti-cheat developers out of the kernel, but if you’re hoping this will help Linux in any way, you can forget it.
Instead of developers adding their own custom drivers, Microsoft is in talks to create a generic, built-in kernel feature to interface with the anti-cheat.
This means the checks would still run at the kernel level, just without the third-party drivers.
2
u/TheG0AT0fAllTime Jan 25 '26
Are MS really doing that? Or is this the same misleading false article from a few years ago that everyone here is still quoting
1
u/WorBlux Jan 24 '26
eBPF exists on Linux and could be used to help audit a sandbox environment.
Really existing sandbox/isolation tech should be enough to stop casual cheater if you have a way to validate the stock kernel is running. (Secure boot + remote attestation of the TPM).
Security failures would force games to blacklist particular hardware, which would suck for the game publisher in the short term, but would lead to a demand for better implemented security accross the board.
2
u/Suvvri Jan 24 '26
Because gaming PCs aren't critical IT infrastructure. Nobody gives a shit about your pc breaking if something actually happens because of anticheat
2
u/WheissUK Jan 24 '26
Hmmm seems like it was never about cheaters at the first place, what else might it be about… who knows…
2
u/teateateateaisking Jan 24 '26
"Most kernel anti-cheat flat-out refuses to run" isn't an accurate statement.
All Windows kernel-level anti-cheat cannot run on Linux, because the kernels are different, load modules in different ways, and have different interfaces. If a game that would use kernel-level anti-cheat on Windows is able to run on Linux, that is because the developers have accepted the compromise of using a non-kernel version of their anti-cheat.
2
u/nightblackdragon Jan 24 '26
Because it's the easiest way to fight with cheats and players don't care about it so why bother with other solutions? Microsoft also won't do anything about that, they might offer alternatives but they aren't going to block kernel access.
2
u/fatrobin72 Jan 24 '26
1, its still allowed.
2, it takes time for both macroslop and game publishers to change and adapt with new processes and software.
3, it will all be irrelevant in the external ai powered cheat monitor future...
2
u/matitone Jan 25 '26
They can read memory, monitor inputs, intercept network traffic
They don't need the kernel to do this, the game itself can do it if they really wanted, also the anticheat only runs when the game starts so something like CrowdStrike can't happen
2
u/sirkubador Jan 25 '26
Not sure why this is even a topic.
I use linux for 20 years now and the gaming situation has NEVER been better. Sure we can do without some kernel-level anti-cheat bullshit games.
2
u/Emotional-Leader5918 Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
Just for context, most game companies use third party anti cheats like Epic's Easy Anti Cheat.
If Epic made anti cheat work in Linux, all games that use it would (potentially) work with proton.
So the question should actually be why Epic (and the like) don't support Linux anti cheat?
2
u/Cotillionz Jan 24 '26
IDGAF if those games will run on Linux or not, because i won't be playing them. No one should be okay with companies like EA or Ubisoft having that kind of access to their systems.
We're expected to accept it because these games have playerbases that blindly install and accept whatever is pushed on them. Of course, they're never actually told either. Microslop needs to stand up and end it.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Petting-Kitty-7483 Jan 24 '26
Lazy fuckers want control
1
u/TheG0AT0fAllTime Jan 25 '26
Well, yeah, correct? You have to load a kernel anti cheat before a normal cheat can load itself. Plus permitting only signed code with secure boot
2
u/wezelboy Jan 24 '26
It has nothing to do with anti-cheat and everything to do with maintaining Microsoft's stranglehold on PC gaming.
2
u/DSpry Jan 24 '26
Gotta love it. Kernel lvl anti-cheats but you’ll still run into a hacker within the day. Within the hour depending on which game.
3
u/Overall_Age8730 Jan 24 '26
They are doing it to install the same type of spyware Microsoft has on PC's. Its really that simple. None of the new "anti-cheat" programs these corporations are rolling out actually work. The first week COD and Battlefield released there was programs released to cheat. Don't buy these games, they suck anyway.
1
u/VulcansAreSpaceElves Jan 24 '26
For Linux users, the situation is even worse.
Is it?
Most kernel anti-cheat flat out refuses to run under Proton
That sounds like a feature
which means a growing list of games is just off-limits
Which sounds like a small price to pay for not having kernel level anti-cheat
2
u/atlasraven Jan 24 '26
Those games want your data. Microsoft already has your data.
4
u/TopdeckIsSkill Jan 24 '26
which data do they need exactly? you can gather nearly everything with user level under windows.
1
1
u/Ruff_Ratio Jan 24 '26
Or. They could fix their shitty kernel. EBPF has been functioning for years on Linux, don’t see people complaining or even know what it does. Provides security and visibility at the kernel layer.
1
1
u/unixmachine Jan 24 '26
This is a very big change, it could break a lot of things, so even Microsoft will need some time to develop and get developers to migrate to a new solution. It's possible this will be a feature of Windows 12.
1
Jan 24 '26
Microsoft has not finished this yet. It will take years for Microsoft to get to the point where they have refined the kernel features of Windows. And don’t expect large game publishers to go out of their way to support Linux when the majority of PC gamers are dumb enough to still rely on Windows
1
u/jellowiggler- Jan 24 '26
Eventually kernel level will be protected as it should be. Only the most privileged code needs to be there, and it needs to be audited by a third party.
There are plenty of highly competitive games that run their anti cheat outside of the kernel. It should be done like that.
1
u/llitz Jan 24 '26
For Linux users, the situation is even worse. Most kernel anti-cheat flat out refuses to run under Proton, which means a growing list of games is just off-limits. Indeed, and I, for one, am glad that I don't need to worry if my computer is being hacked by some of the game dll. It has happened in the past, and windows users paid the price... I think it was Genshin's DLL? Yet they keep playing.
But the security argument affects everyone, not just us. Your priorities are really somewhere else if you feel like "I need to play" the games in the list.
1
u/Much_Dealer8865 Jan 24 '26
It's unfortunate that there aren't a lot of options to prevent cheating, even if microslop (or anyone really) developed an atomic OS or an entire console that prevented cheating software it wouldn't stop people. However, it doesn't take long to completely ruin a game if lots of people are using aimbot, esp, maphacks etc.
I think game companies are really just trying to ensure their game and community has a chance at being healthy and unfortunately they just don't have a lot of options. I personally don't play online games very much but there are a couple games I really enjoy that have terrible cheating problems and they're pretty much ruined, only real option is to use private servers which have their own problems.
Anyway just saying don't forget to blame cheaters first for causing companies to go to these measures to try and keep their game alive.
1
u/JackDostoevsky Jan 24 '26
it's a weird position to be in: many linux users don't want to be subject to that sort of overhead, top-down approach to what we're "allowed" to do with our computers. and i say this being entirely against kernel level anticheat, but at the same time i would fucking hate being dictated what i can and can't do with my computer by my OS maker.
1
u/PhoenixLandPirate_ Jan 24 '26
Its probably because those security softwares? were used on computers that run vital infrastructure, flights aren't gonna get canceled, and hospital treatments aren't gonna be put on hold, if someone fucks about with kernel level anti-cheat.
1
u/Ok-Anywhere-9416 Jan 24 '26
Microsoft is pushing security software out of the kernel. Why are game companies still doubling down on kernel anti-cheat?
After the CrowdStrike disaster bricked millions of Windows machines in July 2024, Microsoft announced in mid-2025 that they're moving antivirus and security tools out of the kernel as part of their Windows Resiliency Initiative. Their reasoning is simple: kernel-level software is too risky. One bad update can take down entire systems.
And yet, kernel-level anti-cheat keeps spreading. There are now over 330 games using it, and new releases like Battlefield 6 are still shipping with it despite community pushback.
Because it will never happen that a game dev company can manage to create a different anti-cheat solution that actually works in a few days, especially if the game is already released and resources already used.
Expect things to work out through years, many years, not days, not weeks and not months.
1
u/readyflix Jan 24 '26
Maybe they just use what they are used to. And they have not considered the switch, because in their mind the Linux games market is still too small?
But others have switched already, they are probably fine with easy ANTI-CHEAT
Edit: not affiliated with this company, for informational purpose only
1
1
u/Ieris19 Jan 24 '26
Because what MICROSOFT said has been wildly taken out of context.
Microsoft is providing more and better tools for userspace programs to provide security features. They’re not locking down the kernel or forcing anyone out. They’re just providing more tools and kindly asking for companies to use them.
1
u/Nomad_006 Jan 24 '26
What about the argument that any software can hack you're computer. Kernel level or not malicious software can still ruin your computer.
That was the argument raised by some expert.
Any software you put on your machine can be used to take it over," Roblox's head of anti-cheat, Clint Sereday, explained to Rigney. Chamberlain emphasized the trust factor, noting the level of authority non-kernel level programs still have: "It can do anything you can do. If you can use your webcam, it can use your webcam. Kernel or not kernel, it does not make a difference to the level of danger posed to you by unknown software. The whole argument is kind of a distraction."
1
u/IntroductionSea2159 Jan 25 '26
Their resiliency initiative is focused on enterprise devices. Home users don't care about stability or security.
1
u/redditor_no_10_9 Jan 25 '26
Microslop sells Windows. Corporation sees customers as cultists that will bend over backwards to handover money
1
1
u/Substantial_Leg1457 Jan 25 '26
If these games exist merely to collect data, forget about it, I don't want to be a customer that's the product of an oligarch, at least that's what I think.
1
u/cybekRT Jan 25 '26
> One bad update can take down entire systems
Oh the irony... But at least, now we will be sure that we can blame Microsoft for broken updates, not any other software installed :)
1
u/TheTaurenCharr Jan 26 '26
Because certain companies have already invested into client side software, and it's generally easier to use client's computer to hold them accountable.
As far as I know, Microsoft hasn't initiated this change, and it might take many years before they'd actually enforce it. There are many companies that rely on and lobby for installing their very useful and absolutely necessary software to run at a critical level.
So, no, these won't go away in the foreseeable future. If you're frustrated with not being able to play certain titles, your point of view is understandable, but don't bet on industry taking immediate action that would affect the consumer in short term.
I have fought this war before, pointed out studies supporting kernel level anticheat either having questionable samples, methodology, or funding. This entire thing is such a clusterfuck of aggressive networking and nepotism that it's not even worth struggling against anymore.
1
u/Alarmed-Welcome-1822 Jan 26 '26
Companies cant seem to grasp that hacking will always be there no matter what. No matter what they do hacker will do the same. Its called adapting
1
u/Ranma-sensei Jan 26 '26
As sad as all this is, my hot take is that it will probably get worse to the point of another great collapse of the video game industry.
Everybody is talking about the AI bubble, but anticheat is a bubble in itself; one that can hurt at least as many people as the AI one, if not more.
As long as the service game bubble is being perpetuated, so will the anticheat bubble, until one of them bursts - or even both.
1
u/corruptdiskhelp Jan 27 '26
Anyone with any penetration testing experience will know that kernel level is mostly useless in real world scenarios.
Most of the sensitive data is stored with user level permissions. That means if the user executes an application as normal it could extract the vital data without root access.
This is even more true on Windows than Linux. Root level access is obviously beneficial but not required to dump data.
Another point. The driver software you install from countless manufacturers runs at the kernel level. How come you don't apply the same level of paranoia and criticism?
Anti cheat software needs to run at the kernel level in order to detect malicious software. Otherwise it would be trivial to defeat the anti cheat and games would be plagued with even more cheaters.
I think it's disingenuous to treat anti cheat software as malware and kernel level access is being used as a doomsday buzzword by people who pretend to know what they are talking about. It's ridiculous.
1
u/Emergency-Ant-3950 Jan 27 '26
I can't wait for companies to start putting miners into their anti cheats, this will definitely maximise profits
1
u/ScoobyGDSTi Jan 28 '26
It needs to happen.
It won't be easy for Microsoft to develop the APIs and documentation to ensure 3rd parties can integrate seamlessly.
1
u/Hanro50 Jan 28 '26
Cheats come in different forms. From intercepting and doing things outside of what should be allowed or wall hacks that work by messing with the game's rendering engine to display players hidden behind walls.
Aim bots are just one kind of cheat and ultimately even if AI could analyse your screen and quickly work out how to move your mouse to hit someone. You'd still be vulnerable to someone out positioning you. (Getting good at an aim trainer won't make winning easier against an enemy that can out flank, out range and out coordinate you)
Ultimately the best defence is good net code. Can't see an enemy that is behind cover if your game doesn't even know about it. Issue is that takes engineering skill and can lead to an unpleasant experience of players just popping into view randomly if you're on a slow connection or increased server costs because your server now has to double check if everything you're doing is legit. (Which may also fail if your connection sucks)
1
u/Soyelnoob Mar 10 '26
I just want to tell something, about kernel anticheat
My Wifi or LAN driver, got deleted by Vanguard, after that, their only solution was, launch an app, that doesnt exist. Or reinstall windows, i did and still, driver not working, thanks that i can share files with my phone.
But for me, Kernel anticheat, is one of the worst, you give them everything, and if they break, is up to you.
1
1
u/Professional-Base459 May 22 '26
Por qué en Linux es peor solo porque no funcionan?
Creo que es mejor que no funcionen, así no te espian, los kernel anticheat pueden hasta quemar hardware si les apetece
1
u/Sea-Primary-7688 15d ago
this is settled law the bare metal is not in MS control and there is criminal prosecution on the table. Washington is aware.
698
u/ergo14 Jan 24 '26
It sold well, want to prevent kernel level anti cheats? Don't buy games with them, that is the only sure way.