boo

  • 40 Posts
  • 64 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 7th, 2024

help-circle

  • You have a point, but if Microsoft completely locks down the kernel, preventing any third party software/driver from running at the kernel-level, Anti-Cheat developers will have to find a new way to implement Anti-Cheat. This may open up the possibility of some newer form of Anti-Cheat being user-space; or at the very least NOT ring 0, which in-turn may open up the possibility of this new form of Anti-Cheat working underneath Linux.

    Or maybe we’re all still screwed because this new form of Anti-Cheat will perform on a basis that trusts that there is no third party access to the Windows kernel because of how restricted it is, therefore nullifying the need to be ring 0, but it still might not work under Linux due to the freedom/access users have to the kernel.

    But then again, in order to implement any third party driver into the Windows kernel, it has to be signed and/or approved by Microsoft first (IIRC). But cheaters get around this through various means. So maybe nothing changes; but if Microsoft DOES restrict kerne-level access, this leads me to think that Anti-Cheat will have to change in some form or another, which may lead to it working on Linux.

    TBH, The only way(s) I see Anti-Cheat moving forward at all, is:

    • Hardware level Anti-Cheat (similar to a DMA card. Maybe it requires a certain type firmware that is universally used across all/most major video game companies)

    • Some form of emulated environment. Maybe like a specific kernel that is used for each game.

  • Why do certain security software require access to the kernel? To keep malware from getting to the kernel or something?

    Security software doesn’t necessarily NEED access to the kernel, but kernel-level access provides the maximum amount of access and visibility to the rest of the system. The only thing higher then kernel-level is hardware-level.

    In the case of CrowdStrike, kernel-level access provides their software to have the highest privileges which yields in the most effective defense against malware (in theory). However third-party, kernel-level access is never a good idea. Software that has kernel-level access can be, and has been, exploited before. In the case of CrowdStrike, it was a faulty update that screwed over Windows systems. The more access you have in a system, the more you screw it over when something fails.

    Doesn’t restricting access to the kernel offer more security?

    Yes! You are correct. If implemented correctly of course, restricted access to the kernel provides a higher amount of security.

    Wouldn’t malware also be unable to access the kernel?

    In theory, the more restricted the kernel is, the more difficult it is for malware to access the kernel.

    Kernel is what connects software and hardware, correct?

    Yes. A function of the kernel is providing a way for software and hardware to communicate with each other.




  • mudle@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlHow FOSS is your setup?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Excluding hardware (microcode, UEFI, etc); within my Linux system, the only proprietary software I have installed are Nvidia drivers and Steam (installed via flatpak). When I first made the switch to Linux, I was actually shocked at the minimal amount of proprietary software I actually used/needed.






























  • For those curious about the “Memory on Package”; this isn’t soldered on RAM. The RAM is integrated into the CPU package itself. This can be a good thing; improved performance and power efficiency, increased memory bandwidth which allows the CPU to talk to the RAM at insane speeds due to how close the RAM and CPU are to each other . The downside to all of this, is you can’t upgrade the RAM. Intel’s probably gonna pull an Apple, and charge you an insane amount for more RAM. Also, currently they only support memory capacities of 16GB and 32GB.