everybody disliked that
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
613 points (99.2% liked)
Linux
10196 readers
848 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You can keep your kernel-level shit off my CPU.
Spend money on servers. Verify your players. I don't care how you do it, but you don't get kernel-level access to my machine because some asshole script kiddies are aimbotting. You can never trust the client. This is basic shit that game devs will make up a whole host of bullshit to try to justify. (FWIW: I spent a solid decade as a professional game dev and I was as disappointed in this horseshit then as I am now. At least players are starting to figure it out now, too.)
Kernel level anticheat still can't detect all possible cheats, like Neuromuscular Aim Assist.
load more comments
(2 replies)
People say "kernel level" anticheat as if that would be necessary for some reason, but I don't really see it catching on in the linux world. Steam doesn't even have root normally. Even if it did, not everyone runs exactly the same linux kernel and the only practical way to distribute a module that's going to work for most people is through dkms, which means you build it from source, which means proprietary super-obfuscated shit is not going have its intended effect (assuming it ever does.)
There's nothing stopping them from doing all the same bullshit in userspace instead.
Microsoft even sees it as a big mistake. They're creating APIs that won't require anti-cheat to be in the kernel like that. There shouldn't be any reason it needs to be in the Linux kernel.
That said, "don't trust the client" is a nice thing to say, but it's basically impossible to make games work like that. There are certain protocol design considerations that are needed for fps games to work in multiplayer with somewhat laggy connections, and they're not completely compatible with "don't trust the client". If we all had the fiber optic connections and IPv6 that we were promised in the 90s, things would be different. The wack-a-mole game against cheaters is the best that can be done otherwise.
What on earth would ipv6 have to do with it?
It can be routed more efficiently and has generally lower latency. Though how much it matters in practice is debatable, and real world data has fluctuated.
One thing it definitely enables is easier setup of home servers for games without NAT nonsense.
Kernel Level Anticheat needs to die. We have memory security, virtualization and antitampering features in operating systems now. All the games in Linux run in user space, none require system access because they are already sandboxed to an extent - every Wine/Proton game runs in a sandbox, since very older games often required admin permissions to run. Build your netcode with "never trust the client" as your first rule, E2E encrypt your network packets, learn to lag hide, and you'll eliminate 90 percent of the haxors.
Build your netcode with "never trust the client" as your first rule
I wish this were more prevalent. Server side anti cheat is a problem that money can be thrown at and solved but its cheaper at face value to lease that labor from anti cheat service contracts.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Money talks! I'm planning on buying it when launched.
We hope so too