Linux Gaming

15863 readers

4 users here now

Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.

Recommended news sources:

Related chat:

Related Communities:

Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

Quintus@lemmy.ml

mudle@lemmy.ml

337

Microsoft looking to restrict kernel level access after CrowdStrike incident might help us with our current Anti-Cheat dilemma (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by mudle@lemmy.ml to c/linux_gaming@lemmy.ml

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

CrowdStrike’s Falcon software uses a special driver that allows it to run at a lower level than most apps so it can detect threats across a Windows system. Microsoft tried to restrict third parties from accessing the kernel in Windows Vista in 2006 but was met with pushback from cybersecurity vendors and EU regulators. However, Apple was able to lock down its macOS operating system in 2020 so that developers could no longer get access to the kernel.

Now, it looks like Microsoft wants to reopen the conversations around restricting kernel-level access inside Windows.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 142 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Please, get this garbage out of the kernel. If it isn't there to talk to hardware, third party code has no place in the kernel. The same shit that Crowdstrike did could easily happen with any of these useless anticheats.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 months ago (6 children)

In b4 msft creates a level between kernel and user level for this stuff to sit at. It will have read-only access to all of kernel memory, and will otherwise function the same, but when it crashes it won't take the OS down, just certain programs that rely on it.

What will they call it? "Observer" level? "Big Brother" level? "Overseer" level? Probably just something to do with "Verifying Trust/Integrity". Google will also want to quietly stick something for "Web Integrity" there.

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Is it just me, or does this seem like a reasonable solution? Assuming it's technically feasible.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 months ago

It's still giving third party software kernel level control over your device, so you're still giving up any possibility of privacy and probably leaving yourself wide open to a backdoor attack, but that has been normalized. So to the degree that what people accept as reasonable these days is unreasonable, yeah, that's why I think MSFT will try it.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)