This seems worse than just dual booting Windows, which you’d end up having to dual boot Linux if the reason you got into Linux was to get away from sketchy permissions.
I don’t like the normalization of this type of anticheat for Linux, and if other games adopt this it seems like this would lead to a worse situation than having games not support Linux if more Linux games start adopting this EACv2 requirement.
Your reply doesn’t make me sure if it is running on a similar privilege level to root.
I don’t use Linux to give that level of trust to anticheat, and I don’t see the benefit at that point of dual booting Windows instead.
So are you saying it doesn’t get root type privileges? And can be as trusted to not be as invasive as anticheat is on windows being able to look through your entire system?
From what I have found, the main difference between an eBPF program (which is what EACv2 contains) and an actual kernel module, seems to be that other parts of the kernel will be protected from EACv2. However, an eBPF program can spy on all your user space programs, read memory belonging to other processes, etc. They’re also saying that the anti-cheat is going to include a systemd service, which I assume is going to run as root.
So are you saying it doesn’t get root type privileges? And can be as trusted to not be as invasive as anticheat is on windows being able to look through your entire system?
From my understanding, that’s right. My understanding is very shallow though, so you should look into it yourself if you really care enough. I think the links I posted are enough of a starting point.
There’s some more comments I’ve been reading on /r/linux_gaming and there has been some saying it is getting root type privileges and skepticism behind it.
This seems worse than just dual booting Windows, which you’d end up having to dual boot Linux if the reason you got into Linux was to get away from sketchy permissions.
I don’t like the normalization of this type of anticheat for Linux, and if other games adopt this it seems like this would lead to a worse situation than having games not support Linux if more Linux games start adopting this EACv2 requirement.
This isn’t putting anything sleazy in your kernel. Please take a look at my reply to another comment.
Your reply doesn’t make me sure if it is running on a similar privilege level to root.
I don’t use Linux to give that level of trust to anticheat, and I don’t see the benefit at that point of dual booting Windows instead.
So are you saying it doesn’t get root type privileges? And can be as trusted to not be as invasive as anticheat is on windows being able to look through your entire system?
From what I have found, the main difference between an eBPF program (which is what EACv2 contains) and an actual kernel module, seems to be that other parts of the kernel will be protected from EACv2. However, an eBPF program can spy on all your user space programs, read memory belonging to other processes, etc. They’re also saying that the anti-cheat is going to include a systemd service, which I assume is going to run as root.
From my understanding, that’s right. My understanding is very shallow though, so you should look into it yourself if you really care enough. I think the links I posted are enough of a starting point.
There’s some more comments I’ve been reading on /r/linux_gaming and there has been some saying it is getting root type privileges and skepticism behind it.
Even assuming what you said is right: fucking link the other comment, no one is gonna hunt another random comment that we don’t even know it’s right
I didn’t because linking to a post or comment on Lemmy (or the fediverse at large) is awful. Does this work? https://vger.to/discuss.tchncs.de/comment/29001869
I suggest to disable the voyager redirect in the settings, idk where it is tho
The alternative is to link to a specific instance. In which case if you open it you’ll be logged out.
The alternative seems better, especially because some clients just point at the comment regardless of the instance