Ah yes, it’s a cat and mouse game so we should just stop trying huh? Maybe we should stop testing for doping in professional sports completely because people beat the test haha.
It’s a nice straw man you put up there. Nobody said to stop trying other than you. So far I’ve only been pointing out all the negatives that come with kernel-level anti-cheat software. The cat and mouse phrase was specifically used to demonstrate that the ongoing struggle leads to the need to update the anti-cheat software resulting in the potential for more bugs, in turn increasing the odds of running into security and stability problems. I’m arguing for other, less invasive anti-cheat measures which don’t put the end user under general suspicion and force them to grant absolute control over their system to a third party.
But while we’re at it, you raise a good point. Doping in professional sports is done only at a high level. If we were to compare kernel-level anti-cheat measures to doping tests: Imagine you join a tiny local sports club in the middle of nowhere. Not only would they require you to take doping tests, but they would also gain permanent entry to your home and install cameras and microphones everywhere, promising - fingers crossed - to only use their tools to see if you’re above board and not doping.
Having a third party have permanent entry to your home and constant surveillance sure sounds like a big security risk to me, especially when you consider that their measures aren’t 100% safe and can breached and abused by malicious actors. And yes, that is the equivalent of what is happening to your computer.
To reiterate: I’m not saying to let cheaters be and stop anti-cheat measures altogether. I’m arguing for less invasive and less dangerous anti-cheat software. Since the next three paragraphs you wrote are all about arguing against the straw man you put up, I’m ignoring those.
I even write bots for popular games that I play so it’s not like I’m not disadvantaged by this either.
I’m not sure why you wrote that. You’re part of the problem you helped to create and suffer from it, too. Do you want sympathy for suffering the consequences of your own actions?
You just need to find some actual conflict in your life and stop making this such a big issue. Will some anti cheat make a mistake and crash some machines or something inevitably? Yes for certain. […] It’s a non issue.
At this point, we’re entering personal opinion territory. For me, it is a big issue. Handing a third party the keys to my kingdom for a game seems wildly ignorant and naive to me. However, a lot of people simply don’t know about kernel-level anti-cheat, what they are and how they work. So I’m here to provide information which people can use to decide for themselves if they’re fine with it or not.
Personally, I value the privacy, security and stability of my system. You don’t and that’s fine. But I can still criticize the currently employed methods and hope to influence how things are done.
It’s a nice straw man you put up there. Nobody said to stop trying other than you. So far I’ve only been pointing out all the negatives that come with kernel-level anti-cheat software. The cat and mouse phrase was specifically used to demonstrate that the ongoing struggle leads to the need to update the anti-cheat software resulting in the potential for more bugs, in turn increasing the odds of running into security and stability problems. I’m arguing for other, less invasive anti-cheat measures which don’t put the end user under general suspicion and force them to grant absolute control over their system to a third party.
But while we’re at it, you raise a good point. Doping in professional sports is done only at a high level. If we were to compare kernel-level anti-cheat measures to doping tests: Imagine you join a tiny local sports club in the middle of nowhere. Not only would they require you to take doping tests, but they would also gain permanent entry to your home and install cameras and microphones everywhere, promising - fingers crossed - to only use their tools to see if you’re above board and not doping. Having a third party have permanent entry to your home and constant surveillance sure sounds like a big security risk to me, especially when you consider that their measures aren’t 100% safe and can breached and abused by malicious actors. And yes, that is the equivalent of what is happening to your computer.
To reiterate: I’m not saying to let cheaters be and stop anti-cheat measures altogether. I’m arguing for less invasive and less dangerous anti-cheat software. Since the next three paragraphs you wrote are all about arguing against the straw man you put up, I’m ignoring those.
I’m not sure why you wrote that. You’re part of the problem you helped to create and suffer from it, too. Do you want sympathy for suffering the consequences of your own actions?
At this point, we’re entering personal opinion territory. For me, it is a big issue. Handing a third party the keys to my kingdom for a game seems wildly ignorant and naive to me. However, a lot of people simply don’t know about kernel-level anti-cheat, what they are and how they work. So I’m here to provide information which people can use to decide for themselves if they’re fine with it or not. Personally, I value the privacy, security and stability of my system. You don’t and that’s fine. But I can still criticize the currently employed methods and hope to influence how things are done.