FYI - the owner of this site, gamingonlinux, was a mod on the !linux_gaming@lemmy.ml community until they were caught abusing their moderator powers. Then they deleted their account and complained on mastodon that it's stupid design that mod logs are public. [Screenshot]

Instead, here's a link to the official post https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/4547038620960934857

[–] Jtee@lemmy.world 67 points 7 hours ago

Wow, mad because you can be held accountable. That's sad.

Thanks for the steam link!

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 38 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

4 likes on him complaining that modlogs being public is something bad, cowards that only want to be shitty in the shadows.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm still fairly new. Where do I go for modlog drama?

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 hours ago

There is a sub for sanity checking mod actions, aita-style.
If you keep in mind it is for active unconfirmed situations, and that votes there are not meant to mark the cases of mod abuse, I think it can fill that niche.

!yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 19 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

He used to relentlessly spam the /r/linux_gaming subreddit and argue with people there too until he deleted his reddit account lol

[–] mrvictory1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

He's still on Reddit

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 238 points 10 hours ago (17 children)

Ooh and it's a giant yellow banner you probably won't miss, and not some two-shades-ligher-than-the-background nonsense.

Good job, Valve.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 65 points 9 hours ago

They do this with Early Access and people still lose their shit about empty content and unfinished graphics in a game they paid $10 for.

load more comments (16 replies)

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 91 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (4 children)

However, it's only being forced for kernel-level anti-cheat. If it's only client-side or server-side, it's optional, but Valve say "we generally think that any game that makes use of anti-cheat technology would benefit from letting players know".

I will always love Valve for their ability to use corpospeak against corpos.

Your game has anti-cheat?

Wonderful!

I'm sure that always only results in an improved experience for all gamers, lets let them all know!

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] xep@fedia.io 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I do everything important like banking etc on a separate device that isn't my gaming PC. This has been quite liberating since I worry less about invasive anti-cheat, drm etc. I realize not everyone wants to do this but it's been a nice compromise.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 minutes ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago)

For me anything important is done in the browser (very rarely) and mostly on the phone.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago

That's one way to do it, but I worry less about those things by not supporting them with my time and money.

[–] Woodstock@lemmy.world 32 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Can someone explain like I’m stupid on kernel level anti cheat and why I should watch out for it? Not a dig at all, a genuine question!

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 27 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Making it super simple, it runs with full access on your machine, always. It can fuck anything up, and see everything. It can get your browser history, banking details or private messages you enter, activate your webcam or mic without you knowing, or brick your computer even.

And you can't even check what it's really doing on your computer because it's a crime under US law.

Finally, it can get hacked and other people than the creator can do all these to your computer as well,as it already happened once.

[–] scarilog@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

And you can't even check what it's really doing on your computer because it's a crime under US law.

Is this specifically for kernel level anticheat? Because this isn't a thing for software in general right??

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 78 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (4 children)

To put it very simply, the 'kernel' has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.

It can (but not always) run at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game's publisher can have software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system's activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)

It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.

[–] barlescharkley@lemmy.world 46 points 7 hours ago

More importantly, if traditional anticheat has a bug, your game dies. Oh no.

If kernel level anticheat has a bug, your computer blue screens (that's specifically what the blue screen is: a bug in the kernel, not just an ordinary bug that the system can recover from). Much worse. Sure hope that bug only crashes your computer when the game is running and not just whenever, because remember a kernel-level program can be running the moment your computer boots as above poster said

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 49 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

And it's worth noting that trusting the game developer isn't really enough. Far too many of them have been hacked, so who's to say it's always your favorite game developer behind the wheel?

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 hours ago

Or, even better, when you let a whole bunch of devs have acces to the kernel...

... sometimes they just accidentally fuck up and push a bad update, unintentionally.

This is how CrowdStrike managed to Y2K an absurd number of enterprise computers fairly recently.

Its also why its ... you know, generally bad practice to have your kernel just open to fucking whoever instead of having it be locked down and rigorously tested.

Funnily enough, MSFT now appears to be shifting toward offering much less direct access to its kernel to 3rd party software devs.

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Not all anti cheats run at startup. Some only run when you play a game. I think vanguard for valorant ran all the time at first and people were pissed. Meanwhile easy anti cheat runs only with a game. So it depends. It all sucks though.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

That's definitely true, I probably should have been a little more clear in my response, specifying that it can run at startup, but doesn't always do so.

I'll edit my comment so nobody gets the wrong idea. Thanks for pointing that out!

[–] Woodstock@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Thank you! Really clear and appreciate you taking the time to explain!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

I imagine the alternative way to combat kernel-level cheats would be asking player for all his game state data, validating it on a server?

Wouldn't work on peer-to-peer and you'd have to do a bunch of unnecessary compute(recalculating every tick if player-generated data is possible according to game rules) but its the only way I can think of.

[–] levzzz@lemmy.world 3 points 51 minutes ago (1 children)

Most games already do this lol Cheats usually don't do anything that is technically impossible to do on a vanilla client, just highly improbable

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 43 minutes ago

True, can't think of how would you combat a cleverly written aim-bot.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Or bring server browsers back and let server mods handle it.

I've rarely, if ever, had a bad time using a server browser.

A more modern idea. Put all the chesters into the same lobbies through matchmaking

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 minutes ago

Or bring server browsers back and let server mods handle it.

How will you handle competitive matchmaking? I agree for casual matchmaking though

A more modern idea. Put all the chesters into the same lobbies through matchmaking

Maybe moderm in relative termy but notnreally. One of the articles I could find on the quick is from 4 years ago: https://www.ign.com/articles/cod-warzone-cheaters-are-being-matched-up-together-as-punishment

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That does not detect things like wall hack and aim-bots that don't modify the game state directly.

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 45 minutes ago

Don't tell the client what's going on outside its vision, I suppose? Add a small buffer to compensate for latency, so wall hack would be more of a "corner hack".

[–] Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world 81 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That’s awesome! GTA V just screwed everyone on Linux! What a rug pull.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 108 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (9 children)

Adding kernel malware after the fact should entitle every single owner who requests one to a full refund no matter how long has passed.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

That’s exactly what Valve did. The automated refund system wasn’t available, but you could request a manual review and cite the added anti cheat; Valve was refunding those who did so.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 25 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'd really like Valve to take an official policy on post-release changes that break games, but for what it's worth they have not given me any hassle with refunds in these scenarios.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments