Plot twist: Theres still hackers in multiplayer even with all that crap plus rootkit they bundle with.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Once you delve into the technical specifics of Secure Boot and the TPM, it’s actually not that unusual. I wrote more detail in another comment on this post, but the TLDR of it is that Secure Boot is meant to enforce the integrity of the boot procedure to ensure that only approved code runs before the Windows kernel gets control, and the TPM 2.0 is meant to attest to that. Together, they make it possible for anticheat to tell if something (like cheating software) tried to rootkit Windows as a way to evade detection.

    I don’t agree with the requirement, but it’s not a pointless requirement or some grand conspiracy to make people buy new hardware.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      its like you are intentionally trying to misunderstand what they are saying, good work at it. Obviously, they didn’t deem SB and TPM unusual, but the types of software (entertainment industry products) demanding it while the software of the security industry does not.

      but it’s not a pointless requirement or some grand conspiracy to make people buy new hardware.

      consumers won’t benefit from this functionality, but many industries will in the foreseeable future

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You quoted the end of my comment, so you must have read this part:

        Together, they make it possible for anticheat to tell if something (like cheating software) tried to rootkit Windows as a way to evade detection.

        For the threat model of anticheat software, verifying system integrity is not an unusual requirement.