Anti cheats on linux
Anti cheats on linux
Absolutely, most of these titles can still be exploited, though it’s trickier. You’re right about the challenge, and while you’re aware that anti-cheats are tougher to implement without kernel access, many developers still rely on workarounds. These kinds of games tend to be more popular for cheating, but I personally avoid them because unlocking feels less satisfying compared to other ways.
I believe this would be a positive move. Even if only one distribution offers anti-cheat features for most games, we’d have a genuine competitor for gaming on Windows. Currently, many people avoid Linux for gaming due to weak anti-cheat support. Proton Windows ensures titles run flawlessly (at least for me), and considering the effort Valve has invested, I’m eager to see SteamOS take the lead. Observing how much progress Linux gaming has made in recent years suggests this could very well happen, especially with continued third-party Linux backing from Valve.
Recently Microsoft made a announcement about moving certain components back into the kernel. Their focus was largely driven by the crowdstrike incident. One possible approach to maintain "kernel level" game access while still offering anti-cheat features would be for Microsoft to develop their own anti-cheat system embedded in the kernel. This system could interact with user-level anti-cheat via an API, allowing developers to verify the system's security state without exposing random programs to the kernel. This method would likely focus on ensuring the system remains secure at all times. Such a setup could also simplify translation layers like WINE by making integration easier.
Many are claiming this new Microsoft initiative will introduce anti-cheat support for Linux. I believe this misunderstands the situation. The statement likely reflects a 80% inaccuracy. Microsoft is focusing on securing the kernel, restricting user applications from loading kernel modules. They aim to integrate kernel module functionalities directly into the core, creating an API—though I’d prefer to call it system calls instead of an interface provided by the kernel. This approach would allow Linux to adopt similar measures. However, that’s probably still incorrect. Microsoft can secure the kernel, while Linux remains open source. Anyone can modify the kernel, whether through modules or disabling them. This is why anti-cheat systems distrust Linux. The kernel’s flexibility means malicious changes could be made easily. If Linux implements what Microsoft does—locked kernel and a restricted anti-cheat API—why would anyone feel confident? With Microsoft, trust comes from closed-source control, letting them add safeguards after the fact. For Linux, anything implemented stays open source, leaving significant risks of undetected modifications. The challenge is real, but it’s far from insurmountable. There might be opportunities to develop more secure locked kernels, though no solution is foolproof. This doesn’t mean better anti-cheat won’t emerge on Linux, but the scale of this move appears much smaller than claimed.