this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
64 points (89.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14748 readers
555 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Riot Games‘ kernel-level anti-cheat, Vanguard, has received an update that is allegedly altering system firmware to remove the ability of the user to access certain hardware associated with cheating.

Riot Games quoted one post discussing the anti-cheat, replying “congrats to the owners of a brand new $6k paperweight.” But how exactly does Vanguard’s new system make “paperweights” out of hardware?

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It doesn't brick any hardware at all.

They're using the IOMMU page table enforcement hardware (VT-d/AMD-Vi) to block DMA access to specific areas of memory.

This press coverage is largely just Valorant tooting their own horn. It will block the current generation of DMA hardware but there are several ways to bypass the IOMMU enforcement via hardware.

So, they simply rendered the current generation of DMA hardware obsolete. There will be new DMA cheats pretending to be Thunderbolt 4 controller devices (which are trusted to do their own IOMMU enforcement) or a PCI-e ATS device.

[–] roteradler@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

(if you're a cheater) [or if the algorithm gets something wrong]

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

Even if I am not a cheater, knowing what powers Riot have over my PC would be unacceptable. Its like saying the government is allowed to look what you are doing on PC, and you I need to worry because I am not a criminal. No game and its company should have this much power over my system. It's just a fucking videogame!

[–] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cheating or not, if they destroy property, it's illegal and unethical.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Good thing they didn't then. Nothing was actually bricked, people are misusing the term.

[–] ne0n@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Still way too much access. Lock them out of the fucking kernel.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree. I'm not saying kernel level anti-cheat is acceptable, but the reporting on this has been a disaster. Making things up to try to make them look worse doesn't actually help anyone.

[–] xep@discuss.online 1 points 5 days ago

This is what cheaters do, unfortunately. Misreporting about Vanguard happened even on the first day of its release.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

does non-kernal level anticheat work anymore if basically all cheaters operate at the kernel level at this point?

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Just another reason for me to avoid these types of games. These systems are notorious of false positives and bricking a users system, cheating or not, is going away too far and why they should never be allowed that level of access.

[–] iltoroargento@startrek.website 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they brick your system, is it a fair response to brick their CEO and company property? I feel like that's the recourse here.

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'd like a CEO paperweight. Literally just a chunk of its body as weight.

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

I’d like a CEO paperweight

So just a CEO?

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 17 points 1 week ago

if I'm reading this right there's no hardware damage at all, the "paperweight" comment just means they've successfully mitigated against a specific device, rendering it useless for this purpose, but it still works as intended against vulnerable games.

Kind of a nothing burger honestly, if I'm understanding right. Scary that they have that much access tho, which is the real problem, since they're leaving a whole bunch of other peoples' front doors wide open

[–] DrMartinu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago

I didn't want to play these games anyway. You dont have to keep convincing me not to, riot.

[–] mrfriki@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Why the fuck would anyone install kernel level back doors on their systems just baffles me.

[–] christopher@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago

No, because it's misreported. Nothing was bricked.