this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
412 points (99.8% liked)

Linux Gaming

15289 readers
90 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 234 points 2 weeks ago (62 children)

The fact that companies think client side anti cheat is a good idea is so insane. Maybe try designing your server better instead of blaming the operating system for not letting you control your users

[–] KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (58 children)

Genuinely curious, because this isn't my area of expertise, but how do you design a server to be "better" if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Example, if the client is compromised - because as they've said, they have no way to "attest" that the kernel is not compromised - how would the server know any better?

If my Apex client tells the server I got a perfect headshot, how would the server know I didn't fake the data? Is there a real answer to this problem or are we just wishing they come up with an impossible solution?

My general understanding is that EA is 100% correct. Now, on the other hand, maybe the should just limit plays between Linux <-> Linux so people can at least still enjoy the game (I'm moving to Linux soon so I'll basically no longer be able to play the game, which is, as my primary gaming addiction, a huge loss I'm willing to take).

There's compromises EA could take, but I think the Linux market share is just too small for them to care to spend any resources - even though they're raking in billions (~$3.4 Billion) and could spare a few resources to find a good middle ground. Capitalism at it's finest.

[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

how do you design a server to be “better” if it has to trust data from a remote client?

Because it doesn’t have to.

[–] KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because it doesn’t have to.

But according to that article it's still trusting the client. It's just validating that the action was within the realm of possibilities, not that it wasn't faked.

From the article (highlighting from me):

Here’s how it works:

  • When you shoot, client sends this event to the server with full information: the exact timestamp of your shot, and the exact aim of the weapon.

The article continues to state:

The enemy may be the only one not entirely happy. If they were standing still when he got shot, it’s their fault, right? If they were moving… wow, you’re a really awesome sniper.

But what if they were in an open position, got behind a wall, and then got shot, a fraction of a second later, when they thought they were safe?

Well, that can happen. That’s the tradeoff you make. Because you shoot at him in the past, they may still be shot up to a few milliseconds after they took cover.

What's stated above already happens in Apex, telling us that they already do everything this article is talking about. This article mentions nothing new and doesn't solve the problem of clients sending fake data that is within the realm of possibilities - e.g. a headshot when you were actually off by a bit.

The question was about client trust, which the server doesn’t. If the shot wasn’t possible, it’s not valid and did not happen.

load more comments (55 replies)
load more comments (58 replies)