I understand why this might appeal to some gamers, I really do. I promise I sympathize, but if you’re willing to run EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux and what you think you’re getting out of it?
At this point we’re starting to see some better gaming performance due to good compatibility layers and Microsoft just repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, but for me at least a large part of it was escaping that ecosystem that gives them control over your system. Giving them that kernel level access so you can keep playing Fortnite is a devil’s bargain. Seriously, please find a new game and I’m trying to convey that in the least judgmental way possible.
EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux
Why is that even a question? Running EAC doesn’t undermine why you run Linux (which can have many different reasons). It’s not like EAC takes over your PC like on Windows. The Linux implementation is completely different and uses Linux features, controlled by Linux and not the EAC anticheat. EAC cannot do whatever they want and they don’t get root rights (unlike Windows version of the anticheat).
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer and not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
I wanted to play hunger. Even got into the beta. Installed it, then I found I couldn’t play it because it’s using EAC2. Fuck if I’m going to bother jumping through hoops to play it. Or any other game. If Hunt Showdown (another EAC title) forces EAC2 then I’ll quit playing that as well. I’m entirely fucking done with invasive anticheat.
EACv2 isn’t actually invasive in the sense how it works on Windows. It uses features we already have in Linux, without itself getting root rights or being invasive. I assume at the moment most distributions have not yet worked on this. I assume (or better hope) in the future most gaming ready distributions will have this builtin without you worrying, or enable it quickly. I think this implementation as it sounds is the best possible way, much better than how invasive anticheat works on Windows. I’m actually stoked about the way Epic handles this! It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
I’ve written at length elsewhere in the topic about how it’s not just the technical implementation, but what this attestation process signifies about control of these companies over your system.
I understand this is one of the weaker arguments I can make in isolation, but it bears asking the question: why is it Epic that’s doing it and not Valve?
They don’t have control over my system. Its still controlled by the Linux Kernel and the features of it, no direct control from the companies. They can’t do whatever they want.
Because Valve is interested in making anticheat work in Linux. By all companies, I would have expected this from Valve. I’m not talking about working on EAC, but all the stuff how it is implemented, the work on using the Linux Kernel and setting up Secure Boot, talking with all the distributions and vendors to make it happen. And even if it was to make EAC work first, I would have expected this from Valve, because they are the most interested into all anticheats to work on Linux.
I read your comment and I’m familiar with the technology. I’m not insinuating they’re putting anything sleazy in the kernel, in fact I acknowledge there are practical security benefits to it. That’s where a lot of the nuance comes in.
Secure Boot and the TPM help verify the boot process and that it hasn’t been tampered with. I keep mentioning TPM as well because it’s part of the mechanisms already in place with CoD[1], it has remote attestation[2], and has been pitched as a DRM mechanism since at least 2009[3]. This makes a lot more sense in a corporate/enterprise environment where you’re either using a company issued laptop or your BYOD device needs to prove it’s up to a standard worthy of trust to connect and interact with network resources. In this scenario the company has created a secure platform and your device needs to be trusted within it.
But on a consumer level, while you can still argue there’s protection from tampering by malicious parties with the boot process, you have to ask yourself what platform you’re participating in and why. This is the equivalent of allowing the cops to put a camera in your house on the grounds that if everyone is watched it’ll reduce crime. Microsoft (or whatever game developer) wants to know your device can be trusted on their platform and you need to submit to whatever those standards are. Allowing EAC is opening the door to that process. If Microsoft sniffs something out on your PC they don’t like, they can decline to run the software. It gives them right of denial over what your system looks like. They can enforce you to run telemetry scraping services as part of the configuration that must be in place to trust your device.
So while I don’t have any proof that this is being used quite in that manner yet, or even what it might eventually look like, it is well within possibility. And we know the tech industry absolutely has an appetite for it. This is the Sony rootkit scandal from 2005 except now they just tell you they’re doing it instead of trying to hide the fact.
You’re free to make of that information what you will and evaluate how much of a likely threat you perceive any of that to be and if it’s worth the tradeoff. And sorry about the people downvoting you, I’m just trying to get this information out there. It’s complicated and nuanced, I get it.
I couldn’t care less about the downvotes, just like you I’m just interested in having a good conversation and sharing accurate information. So thank you for providing it!
You’re right about all of that. Especially the takeaway that it’s nuanced. Yeah, it really is.
I think what most people, including you, are reacting to is who is doing this rather than what is being done. And rightly so. I don’t want to trust Epic (or Mic🤮soft) with this kind of thing. But anti-cheat is nuanced, and I think I can persuade you (if you don’t agree already) that some kind of anti-cheat that actually works to some extent is needed.
You brought up:
… you have to ask yourself what platform you’re participating in and why.
I think the answer is pretty obvious here. The platform is an online game. Let’s say Fortnite just because it’s the obvious example to use (personally I’ve never played it). The reason you want to participate is for fun, for competition (maybe even professional), or both.
One thing is very clear: if other people playing Fortnite are cheating when playing with you, it prevents you from having fun or winning the competition. Unless you are a cheater yourself, you only want to play with non-cheaters.
So obviously you want there to be some way you can play Fortnite with some level of guarantee that other players aren’t cheating.
So let’s say you, the player, get to decide how this is enforced. The stipulation is that every player including you will be subject to the same level of enforcement, and any player that isn’t will be locked out of the platform. How do you do it?
You and every player will have to somehow credibly convince the game that you’re not cheating. The only way to do that is to reveal some information about the system running the game. The TPM and all those other technologies that you seem to understand much better than I do, are the way to do that credibly. The only question left, then, is which information (or “how much”) would actually be sent to the server to provide this proof.
That’s the trade-off. I agree with you that these companies will almost inevitably exploit this system to extract data about you that has nothing to do with cheating. If not at first, then soon afterwards. And that’s an endless battle that we’ll continue to fight. But it’s also besides the fundamental point.
Cheating in online games is a real problem that actually needs solutions. I think the framework presented by EAC v2 is a good one, and can be used to enforce anti-cheat on Linux without spying on you in any other way. That, I think, is a good thing.
What would be best, of course, is if a more trustworthy organization made a similar anti-cheat solution following EAC v2’s footsteps.
I understand why this might appeal to some gamers, I really do. I promise I sympathize, but if you’re willing to run EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux and what you think you’re getting out of it?
At this point we’re starting to see some better gaming performance due to good compatibility layers and Microsoft just repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, but for me at least a large part of it was escaping that ecosystem that gives them control over your system. Giving them that kernel level access so you can keep playing Fortnite is a devil’s bargain. Seriously, please find a new game and I’m trying to convey that in the least judgmental way possible.
Why is that even a question? Running EAC doesn’t undermine why you run Linux (which can have many different reasons). It’s not like EAC takes over your PC like on Windows. The Linux implementation is completely different and uses Linux features, controlled by Linux and not the EAC anticheat. EAC cannot do whatever they want and they don’t get root rights (unlike Windows version of the anticheat).
I don’t play EAC games, so I don’t really have a stake in this.
There are plenty of reasons to run Linux apart from “I want complete and utter freedom” or something like that.
I would gently remind you that we have been giving kernel-level access to e.g. Nvidia for decades too.
It’s a trade-off, and there are still plenty of actual day-to-day practical benefits of running Linux beyond philosophy.
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
Agreed, I’d rather a family member running Fortnite on Linux than on windows.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer and not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
I wanted to play hunger. Even got into the beta. Installed it, then I found I couldn’t play it because it’s using EAC2. Fuck if I’m going to bother jumping through hoops to play it. Or any other game. If Hunt Showdown (another EAC title) forces EAC2 then I’ll quit playing that as well. I’m entirely fucking done with invasive anticheat.
Steam is full of games that don’t require kernel-level anti-cheat. There’s more than enough to play to not do these companies’ bidding.
EACv2 isn’t actually invasive in the sense how it works on Windows. It uses features we already have in Linux, without itself getting root rights or being invasive. I assume at the moment most distributions have not yet worked on this. I assume (or better hope) in the future most gaming ready distributions will have this builtin without you worrying, or enable it quickly. I think this implementation as it sounds is the best possible way, much better than how invasive anticheat works on Windows. I’m actually stoked about the way Epic handles this! It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
I’ve written at length elsewhere in the topic about how it’s not just the technical implementation, but what this attestation process signifies about control of these companies over your system.
I understand this is one of the weaker arguments I can make in isolation, but it bears asking the question: why is it Epic that’s doing it and not Valve?
They don’t have control over my system. Its still controlled by the Linux Kernel and the features of it, no direct control from the companies. They can’t do whatever they want.
Why in god’s name should it be Valve’s job to implement this? None of Valve’s games use EAC…
Because Valve is interested in making anticheat work in Linux. By all companies, I would have expected this from Valve. I’m not talking about working on EAC, but all the stuff how it is implemented, the work on using the Linux Kernel and setting up Secure Boot, talking with all the distributions and vendors to make it happen. And even if it was to make EAC work first, I would have expected this from Valve, because they are the most interested into all anticheats to work on Linux.
You might be completely devoid of any imagination if you can’t come up with at least a reason.
You probably didn’t read how it works either. Not really an issue 🤷
This isn’t putting anything sleazy in your kernel. Please take a look at my reply to another comment.
I read your comment and I’m familiar with the technology. I’m not insinuating they’re putting anything sleazy in the kernel, in fact I acknowledge there are practical security benefits to it. That’s where a lot of the nuance comes in.
Secure Boot and the TPM help verify the boot process and that it hasn’t been tampered with. I keep mentioning TPM as well because it’s part of the mechanisms already in place with CoD[1], it has remote attestation[2], and has been pitched as a DRM mechanism since at least 2009[3]. This makes a lot more sense in a corporate/enterprise environment where you’re either using a company issued laptop or your BYOD device needs to prove it’s up to a standard worthy of trust to connect and interact with network resources. In this scenario the company has created a secure platform and your device needs to be trusted within it.
But on a consumer level, while you can still argue there’s protection from tampering by malicious parties with the boot process, you have to ask yourself what platform you’re participating in and why. This is the equivalent of allowing the cops to put a camera in your house on the grounds that if everyone is watched it’ll reduce crime. Microsoft (or whatever game developer) wants to know your device can be trusted on their platform and you need to submit to whatever those standards are. Allowing EAC is opening the door to that process. If Microsoft sniffs something out on your PC they don’t like, they can decline to run the software. It gives them right of denial over what your system looks like. They can enforce you to run telemetry scraping services as part of the configuration that must be in place to trust your device.
So while I don’t have any proof that this is being used quite in that manner yet, or even what it might eventually look like, it is well within possibility. And we know the tech industry absolutely has an appetite for it. This is the Sony rootkit scandal from 2005 except now they just tell you they’re doing it instead of trying to hide the fact.
You’re free to make of that information what you will and evaluate how much of a likely threat you perceive any of that to be and if it’s worth the tradeoff. And sorry about the people downvoting you, I’m just trying to get this information out there. It’s complicated and nuanced, I get it.
Thanks.
I couldn’t care less about the downvotes, just like you I’m just interested in having a good conversation and sharing accurate information. So thank you for providing it!
You’re right about all of that. Especially the takeaway that it’s nuanced. Yeah, it really is.
I think what most people, including you, are reacting to is who is doing this rather than what is being done. And rightly so. I don’t want to trust Epic (or Mic🤮soft) with this kind of thing. But anti-cheat is nuanced, and I think I can persuade you (if you don’t agree already) that some kind of anti-cheat that actually works to some extent is needed.
You brought up:
I think the answer is pretty obvious here. The platform is an online game. Let’s say Fortnite just because it’s the obvious example to use (personally I’ve never played it). The reason you want to participate is for fun, for competition (maybe even professional), or both.
One thing is very clear: if other people playing Fortnite are cheating when playing with you, it prevents you from having fun or winning the competition. Unless you are a cheater yourself, you only want to play with non-cheaters.
So obviously you want there to be some way you can play Fortnite with some level of guarantee that other players aren’t cheating.
So let’s say you, the player, get to decide how this is enforced. The stipulation is that every player including you will be subject to the same level of enforcement, and any player that isn’t will be locked out of the platform. How do you do it?
You and every player will have to somehow credibly convince the game that you’re not cheating. The only way to do that is to reveal some information about the system running the game. The TPM and all those other technologies that you seem to understand much better than I do, are the way to do that credibly. The only question left, then, is which information (or “how much”) would actually be sent to the server to provide this proof.
That’s the trade-off. I agree with you that these companies will almost inevitably exploit this system to extract data about you that has nothing to do with cheating. If not at first, then soon afterwards. And that’s an endless battle that we’ll continue to fight. But it’s also besides the fundamental point.
Cheating in online games is a real problem that actually needs solutions. I think the framework presented by EAC v2 is a good one, and can be used to enforce anti-cheat on Linux without spying on you in any other way. That, I think, is a good thing.
What would be best, of course, is if a more trustworthy organization made a similar anti-cheat solution following EAC v2’s footsteps.