Quoting: scaineI think I'm right in saying that since everything Steam installed for Proton/Wine goes into a pfx folder, and since Steam starts and stops the associated Proton/Wine processes as the game requires... then there's no way that these "kernel-level" rootkit-style always-on anti-cheat systems really expose you on Linux.

Like, on Windows, GameGuard would install at SYSTEM level and potentially just keep running. But on Linux, it's only running when Steam says it is.

If I'm right, then that's a huge win for gaming on Linux.

You're right.
This is the only security guarantee wine offers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TermyOk, now i'm really confused. Is the missing Rootkit just ignored by the game (which would probably be "fixed" at some point) or did they manage to fake it through proton? O_o

The way they "fake" everything.
They implemented the functions it uses in wine to behave like it expected the windows functions it calls.
Not all Windows kernel function need under all circumstances root permissions to work.
Wine itself doesn't use kernel level stuff, but in some cases it doesn't need it to achieve a comparable result.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Active deck detection that only detects game mode and wine level "kernel mode".
Clearly written by someone without relevant UNIX experience.
If it working on desktop mode doesn't get "patched" I will be pretty surprised.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Blisto

Quoting: ElamanOpiskelijaHey! I had already figured out my workaround for Tekken. Now it comes already fixed. What am I supposed to do? Actually play now?

Silly ElamanOpiskelija. Linux users don't play games. They just tinker with getting them running.

And @ElamanOpiskelija can still do that. They just need to set an extra parameter for it(120 fps/yellow trees/etc.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razzeI'm still really confused by what your saying. Currently every app that gets published to flathub needs to have sources available online and have the manifest pushed to their github.

Sure, binaries are sources too, but that's actually something flathub doesn't like to see, as it mostly means no ARM builds/support, as people usually don't care to provide binaries for both.

Then everything is build on flathub bulidbot in a sandboxed/offline environment https://buildbot.flathub.org/ [External Link] so you need to grab sources first. So what you commited to your manifest, can't be changed after the fact, as you also need to provide hash sums for all downloads and they get checked - so that you can't change them after pushing the manifest.

The verification of authors of flathub packages currently work via domains, so if you install tv.kodi.Kodi and it's verified, you can be sure, that someone having access to kodi.tv is involved.

A. sorry for the late reaction. I didn't get a notification.
B. You seem to know more about the way flathub works than me, so when in doubt assume that I'm wrong.
C. According to your story they verify if something matches its git release with indeed hash checking.
D. A verification purist would argue that doesn't help for binary only releases, because for binary only releases it only proofs that the git and the flathub contain the same possible malware, but there is still no to the binary relatable claim other than the binary(which nobody, but the publisher is supposed to be able to check) over what it does.
D.1. I said "they've nothing to compare it against". With that I meant that they had
E. The work through domains is in essence trick 2.

You can be very certain that the one who uploaded your software uploaded the same stuff they uploaded on git, but what they uploaded to both is an open question for binaries.
Still this is better verification than some might think.
Most if not all of this stuff is uploaded on github and github is enough of a central party that people actively check their website for them for malware(github stars and reporting).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: LoudTechieThere's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

Not really true. The epic launcher DRM is such that games that use it won't launch if you don't start it from the epic launcher. But Legendary managed to replicate its functionality perfectly fine. And presumably without breaking the DRM since Epic is apparently aware of these projects and doesn't seem to object.

Really, wow.
Okay, apparently I'm behind on recent developments.
My excuses for the certainty with which I spoke.
It was always possible to write drm in such a way that duplication wasn't abiding and abetting, but for years drm manufacturers didn't do it.
I'm happy to see this change.

I've been reading the source code and the more I read it the more I question the legal sustainability of legendary launcher although they truly tried.
AES keys, encryption algorithm, install lock detection and paths. I've never before written a crack, but this looks to me like all the information needed to write one for Origin drm.
If it fitted the story it would at least need to explicitly contain some assymeteric cryptographic primitive and I can't find it in their really readable code.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: LoudTechieThere's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

Not really true. The epic launcher DRM is such that games that use it won't launch if you don't start it from the epic launcher. But Legendary managed to replicate its functionality perfectly fine. And presumably without breaking the DRM since Epic is apparently aware of these projects and doesn't seem to object.

Really, wow.
Okay, apparently I'm behind on recent developments.
My excuses for the certainty with which I spoke.
It was always possible to write drm in such a way that duplication wasn't abiding and abetting, but for years drm manufacturers didn't do it.
I'm happy to see this change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tpau

Quoting: CalinouEA app isn't DRM-free (just like Ubisoft Connect). This means Heroic developers would have to bypass it somehow, which is unlikely to happen for many reasons.

What does DRM mean other than the game, launcher and Webservers talk with one another to see if you own the game and are allowed to start it?

It means quite a lot more. It means that the launcher checks if there're other porcesses on the system that might be listen in on their communication with the server(not always web). It means that the game checks that the game can only be started by its launcher. It means that the game checks there've been no changes to the game.

Quoting: tpauIt does not have to be bypassed, as that would be piracy, it has to be replicated like login and downloading.
Never do anything the original wouldn't do or you are getting into trouble with their owners, like ea in this case.

There's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: on_en_a_grosIs there any comparison between the main launchers ( heroic , lutris ect ) ex features , ease of use?

According to reddit [External Link] Lutris has better UI, but heroic better compatibility and Bottles is for people who use Linux, because they want: "pain and suffering".
A more recent reddit question [External Link] adds that NonSteamLauncher has good UI and compatibility, but misses important features like pre-tweaking and prefix handling.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Woot.
My prediction:
The device will come and contain a manjaro distro.
It will have a worse launcher and be incompatible with some steam api's.
It will be more expensive than the steamdeck.
It will have coreboot.
It will sell much worse than the steamdeck.

View this comment - View article - View full comments