690
Begun the kernel wars have (feddit.uk)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
166 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Battledield now throwing an error because Valorant is already sitting in kernel memory. Time to buy your EA Battlefield PC but don't forget your Valorant PC

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 53 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

Nope. They’re developing an alternative set of APIs for userspace in conjunction with security vendors for their products to use but it’s all still a long way off and will be optional to start with.

Given the volume of mission-critical devices security products are installed on (which the CrowdStrike fuckup highlighted), getting them out of kernel space would be a huge risk reduction for the world. And security vendors would love to get away from that risk as pulling a CrowdStrike costs a lot of money setting things right with customers.

But an anticheat used by consumers on their personal devices for a game, not such a big deal.

While I’m sure MS will eventually deprecate and then kill off third party kernel drivers, it could take a decade since MS has so much business (both internal and within their customer base) that relies on legacy crap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yep, they're planning to create a new way to do it, not disable the old way.
    And I think that a decade for disabling the old way is optimistic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I have a feeling you’re right about this. I do wish Microsoft would take the Apple approach as Apple steamed ahead with deprecating kernel-mode access.

    Love them or hate them, Apple take security a lot more seriously than Microsoft these days and it’s a real shame MS see security architecture as a nuisance rather than a core responsibility of their business.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    it’s a real shame MS see security architecture as a nuisance rather than a core responsibility of their business.

    I'm pretty sure the reason behind this is that they treat backwards compatibility as a higher priority in a lot of cases. There are so many odd choices I see in my day to day that I can only explain away by backwards compatibility. It's part of the reason you see them take forever to depreciate old and insecure protocols until they get an encouragement from a vuln hitting the news.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And it's not like the companies will update old stuff, either. They've shown a willingness to forget about old games as soon as the revenue dips too much. The result will be that those games will be unplayable in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent