Battleye is a NO

[Knight of Storms]

Some peoples defense of BattleEye is too generic and literal. When you install software on your computer, those files are present and in place. There’s at least one hack I have heard of that is designed to take over such software and use it against the machine it occupies. Additionally, some things can be installed but not active; during the installation process, there are drivers and permission changes, as well as alterations to your registry keys, etc. I’m not going to claim to be some expert, but I’ve seen this sort of thing blow up before. I agree with the points made by privacy experts regarding BattleEye. It's a type of corrupt corperate standard in some regards and i won't sit by idle and ignore it like most kids and adults who don't care do. This is one reason why our nation and our rights and privacy and everything else is slowly but steadily going to h*ll.
I quit playing PlanetSide 2 when they switched over. Because of that I was called a cheater and received a lot of hate, even though anyone could look up my play history and see that I was nothing but another average player. This backlash occurred simply because I disagreed with BattleEye on principle and believed they were a bad company. You could check my stats and see in the past I'd been better, back when I was playing on a real computer unlike my perormance which had dropped due to playing on a bargain basement low end laptop because it was all I could afford. It could barely run PS2, much less trying to run that and hacks or even keep a web page open or voice chat. Now, I'm quitting my play on War Thunder as well. I was thinking about getting a console, but it's not just my own comp's safety. I don’t want to support businesses that back companies that won’t even report data leaks. Failure to report when their system is hacked and/or they have actually lost user data? That’s their responsibility, and they’ve failed to do it while also banning people from multiple games due to glitches in their system in the past. Maybe they have addressed somethings that have occurred over time as it has been years, but I still cannot trust them.

I also disagree with the practice of issuing bans based on reports from one game that affect access to 12 or more different games. The company is problematic; I’ll pass.
The individual could be wrong about his FPS problem. To me, that doesn’t matter—the issue is both the type of software and an untrustworthy company. I prefer companies to manage their own in-house security rather than resorting to risky and questionable tactics like kernel-level gimmicks policed by third party companies. Do your own work people. It’s just a game; I’m not risking my computer or my data over a game.

(And yes, i just edited my reply and posted it here. I'm clairifying that I'm not a bot, because I've had enough experiences with these things that punks switch from debating the point to using debating tactics to muddy the waters and distract from your comments by spouting nonsense or going off over a typo or being hyper exact with some technical detail. So pthttttt...)

[Your_White_Knight]

Originally posted by Knight of Storms:

Battleye is a NO

Some peoples defense of BattleEye is too generic and literal...

I can stop you right there....

You want "non-generic" answer? Here it is

I've been playing Arma 2, DayZ, and Arma 3 all using Battleye for over 11 years

Never had an issue with them other then they actually keep the hackers out

If you're really that worried... maybe there's a good reason because they are that good at what they do

Believe me, I'm not giving up my info to Persona type companies, but this is paranoia on your part if you think it does anything other then keep hackers out

[Your_White_Knight]

Originally posted by Henry:

TLDR: "I'm leaving." blah blah "I don't trust battle eye." blah blah "everyone is after me."

Agree

Some would call ME a paranoid person... but this is beyond anything reasonable

[snee.scampers]

this would influence people more the less skin they have in the game, those with a lot in it typically will put up with a lot more before taking any drastic action.

[Shyue Chou]

Bye.

[French Cat]

Originally posted by Shyue Chou:

Bye.

Hi.

[SpiralRazor]

Originally posted by AlextheTower:

Originally posted by SpiralRazor:

Anything Kernal level is a dead end now.. Microsoft is going to restrict anything that gives kernel level access starting on Win 11...probably some time in 2025-26 due to Crowd strike bomb.

Why do people keep claiming this lmao, its very clearly not what they said. Kernal Level anti-cheat will still be fully allowed.

Removing kernel-level security software would mean that anti-cheat software would all have to be implemented with user access, making it much less intrusive and far easier to emulate with translation layers, like WINE or Valve's Proton.

Theoretically, this should make it easier for devices like the Steam Deck to run games like Paladins and Fortnite — whether Tim Sweeney likes it or not. Many games that use kernel-level anti-cheat software, like EAC (Easy Anti-Cheat), are not compatible with Linux, despite that compatibility reportedly being a single toggle in software — however, game developers and publishers are hesitant to enable Linux compatibility, for some reason.

Somewhat comically, Microsoft directly calls out the Crowdstrike vulnerability in the blog post, although it doesn't go so far as to outright blame the outage for the proposed new approach to security. Microsoft also outlined its plan for the new security platform for Windows, highlighting resiliency and tamper-proofing as main goals of the new security platform.

"Both our customers and ecosystem partners have called on Microsoft to provide additional security capabilities outside of kernel mode which, along with SDP, can be used to create highly available security solutions. At the summit, Microsoft and partners discussed the requirements and key challenges in creating a new platform which can meet the needs of security vendors.

Some of the areas discussed include:

Performance needs and challenges outside of kernel mode

Anti-tampering protection for security products

Security sensor requirements

Development and collaboration principles between Microsoft and the ecosystem

Secure-by-design goals for future platform"" - MS Blog, Win 11.

[AlextheTower]

Originally posted by SpiralRazor:

Originally posted by AlextheTower:

Why do people keep claiming this lmao, its very clearly not what they said. Kernal Level anti-cheat will still be fully allowed.

Removing kernel-level security software would mean that anti-cheat software would all have to be implemented with user access, making it much less intrusive and far easier to emulate with translation layers, like WINE or Valve's Proton.

Theoretically, this should make it easier for devices like the Steam Deck to run games like Paladins and Fortnite — whether Tim Sweeney likes it or not. Many games that use kernel-level anti-cheat software, like EAC (Easy Anti-Cheat), are not compatible with Linux, despite that compatibility reportedly being a single toggle in software — however, game developers and publishers are hesitant to enable Linux compatibility, for some reason.

Somewhat comically, Microsoft directly calls out the Crowdstrike vulnerability in the blog post, although it doesn't go so far as to outright blame the outage for the proposed new approach to security. Microsoft also outlined its plan for the new security platform for Windows, highlighting resiliency and tamper-proofing as main goals of the new security platform.

"Both our customers and ecosystem partners have called on Microsoft to provide additional security capabilities outside of kernel mode which, along with SDP, can be used to create highly available security solutions. At the summit, Microsoft and partners discussed the requirements and key challenges in creating a new platform which can meet the needs of security vendors.

Some of the areas discussed include:

Performance needs and challenges outside of kernel mode

Anti-tampering protection for security products

Security sensor requirements

Development and collaboration principles between Microsoft and the ecosystem

Secure-by-design goals for future platform"" - MS Blog, Win 11.

None of that means they are removing kernal level access, just improving access outside of the kernal.

People just read announcements and take whatever they want from it whether that is Linux gamers hoping this will mean that anti-cheat compatibility will improve, or people who dont like the idea of kernal access hoping this will force everything out of the kernal.

Quotes from MS - "It remains imperative that kernel access remains an option for use by cybersecurity products to allow continued innovation and the ability to detect and block future cyberthreats. We look forward to the continued collaboration on this important initiative."

However, they ARE trying to give people more power in the userspace, but that's not going get rid of kernel level access. "Windows 11’s improved security posture and security defaults enable the platform to provide more security capabilities to solution providers outside of kernel mode."

They are very clear about what they are doing.

[Knucklehead]

I hope you don't use Windows or any Phone with a Camera or mic built in.
If you do, might as well wave to Samsung or whatever phone brand you got .
Oh forgot, hope you know Microsoft takes screenshots of what you do ,on your pc everyday.

[Wandering Flare]

Originally posted by Fifty Fathoms:

Worries about privacy but considers buying a console. I think this post can be safely ignored.

Literally. This whole wall of text is about as aware of what it's trying to talk about as a Just Stop Oil activist.

[B-BRAIN]

Cheats are allready running at core lvl so the anti cheats needs to run at same lvl.

Not sure if it is called core lvl . Reead up on how cheats are run for warthunder before complaing about privacy etc


Seeing what WTCheatShaming
post that whole squads use them yeah there really needs to be done something.

[Chaoslink]

On the topic of being banned from multiple games for cheating in one, I’m all for that. Ban their whole account and make them lose everything even. Make cheating not worth risking. Make them have to buy throw away accounts and buy games multiple times if they want to cheat. Anything to make it less viable to consider doing.

I rarely run into cheating, it’s super rare in my experience, but I’m still all for anything that hinders it further.

[The Aegis]

Found the guy scared battleeye will ban him for his cheating

[HOBO ACTUAL]

Originally posted by Knight of Storms:

Some peoples defense of BattleEye is too generic and literal. When you install software on your computer, those files are present and in place. There’s at least one hack I have heard of that is designed to take over such software and use it against the machine it occupies. Additionally, some things can be installed but not active; during the installation process, there are drivers and permission changes, as well as alterations to your registry keys, etc. I’m not going to claim to be some expert, but I’ve seen this sort of thing blow up before. I agree with the points made by privacy experts regarding BattleEye. It's a type of corrupt corperate standard in some regards and i won't sit by idle and ignore it like most kids and adults who don't care do. This is one reason why our nation and our rights and privacy and everything else is slowly but steadily going to h*ll.
I quit playing PlanetSide 2 when they switched over. Because of that I was called a cheater and received a lot of hate, even though anyone could look up my play history and see that I was nothing but another average player. This backlash occurred simply because I disagreed with BattleEye on principle and believed they were a bad company. You could check my stats and see in the past I'd been better, back when I was playing on a real computer unlike my perormance which had dropped due to playing on a bargain basement low end laptop because it was all I could afford. It could barely run PS2, much less trying to run that and hacks or even keep a web page open or voice chat. Now, I'm quitting my play on War Thunder as well. I was thinking about getting a console, but it's not just my own comp's safety. I don’t want to support businesses that back companies that won’t even report data leaks. Failure to report when their system is hacked and/or they have actually lost user data? That’s their responsibility, and they’ve failed to do it while also banning people from multiple games due to glitches in their system in the past. Maybe they have addressed somethings that have occurred over time as it has been years, but I still cannot trust them.

I also disagree with the practice of issuing bans based on reports from one game that affect access to 12 or more different games. The company is problematic; I’ll pass.
The individual could be wrong about his FPS problem. To me, that doesn’t matter—the issue is both the type of software and an untrustworthy company. I prefer companies to manage their own in-house security rather than resorting to risky and questionable tactics like kernel-level gimmicks policed by third party companies. Do your own work people. It’s just a game; I’m not risking my computer or my data over a game.

(And yes, i just edited my reply and posted it here. I'm clairifying that I'm not a bot, because I've had enough experiences with these things that punks switch from debating the point to using debating tactics to muddy the waters and distract from your comments by spouting nonsense or going off over a typo or being hyper exact with some technical detail. So pthttttt...)

Ok bye i guess Lol no one cares

[Stinkass97]

I think the people who are saying this guy is paranoid or 'i don't care if they see what im doing i have nothing to hide' kind of miss the point of why people care about these types of intrusive anti cheat software. Some people are over the top with their views on this, but at the core it really isn't a crazy thing to be bothered by. Is it a big deal for the average person to run this kind of software? Not really, but is it a good practice for companies to develop and deploy super intrusive software that can do whatever it wants without you knowing? I don't think so, it's like throwing a brick at a fly on the wall, yeah you might hit the fly but you might not. Either way you're putting a hole in the wall, it's just not the best way to go about the issue. Plus these days every single company makes you agree to an EULA that more often than not strips you of your right to sue (at least in the USA). Even if i trust the 3rd party, and lets say a back door was overlooked due to their own negligence and i get attacked via that backdoor. I cant sue them in court because in the fine print 7 pages in to the EULA, I agreed to settle these matters through arbitration, and they appoint the arbitrator. I don't think it's unfair to say that arbitrator is going to side with the 3rd party. Is this likely to happen to me or you? No most likely not. Does that change the fact that the practice is unethical and hurts the consumer? No. It's not so much that i worry about these things personally impacting me, rather it's the fact that these practices are allowed by law and are accepted by everyone as the norm. I'm also not trying to claim Gaijin is somehow evil or malicious because they're using an intrusive anti-cheat, it's simply the industry norm now as well as the most convenient option, and that's what i find unfortunate.

For me i have a problem with Kernel level anti cheats on Windows because it's just such an intrusive solution. Yes it does stop more cheaters but it also harms people who don't cheat by making their system more insecure. On Windows you cant just access the kernel, so for the vast majority of people you're allowing a 3rd party access to part of your system that YOU don't even have access to as the owner/admin. This really isn't an issue for me anymore since I switched to Linux and the native Linux versions of Battleeye and EAC, as well as the Windows versions running through wine/proton never touch the Linux kernel space. Even if they did, since Linux gives you full access to your system, you can see what the software is doing under the hood. On Windows you kind of just have to trust the 3rd party and honestly i don't blame people for not being able to do that. Im not trying to turn this into a Linux vs Windows debate either, use whatever OS you want, it's your hardware use it how you want. I just think for someone like the poster of this thread it might be good to try switching to Linux.

Originally posted by SpiralRazor:

Removing kernel-level security software would mean that anti-cheat software would all have to be implemented with user access, making it much less intrusive and far easier to emulate with translation layers, like WINE or Valve's Proton.

Theoretically, this should make it easier for devices like the Steam Deck to run games like Paladins and Fortnite — whether Tim Sweeney likes it or not. Many games that use kernel-level anti-cheat software, like EAC (Easy Anti-Cheat), are not compatible with Linux, despite that compatibility reportedly being a single toggle in software — however, game developers and publishers are hesitant to enable Linux compatibility, for some reason.

When it comes to Battleeye and EAC there have been Native linux versions for a while. War thunder for example used the native Linux version of EAC for the Native Linux version of the game. If you were to try running the Windows version of the game through proton you would certainly get an anti cheat error, and idk if this is the case for War Thunder but i have seen anti-cheat bans given as a false positive. When it comes to playing Windows games that have Battleeye/EAC it is very easy for Devs to enable it and a ton have since the announcement of the steam deck. I think the hesitancy comes from the way the Windows versions of these anti cheats work under wine/proton. As far as kernel access it only has access to the kernel contained in the wine folder for the game. The wine folder has a c drive and folders you would find in your c directory on Windows (system32,programfilesx86, and so on), its like its own little contained system in a way. Since its a Windows version of the anti cheat it's only looking for Windows cheats and its contained to that wine folder, plus it cant detect Linux specific cheats. There is a kind of 'bridge' with proton that allows the Windows version of the anti cheat to see whats going on in the userspace of the Linux system, but it has no privileges or meaningful access really. Cheaters could use this to their advantage i suppose so i think thats the real reason why certain devs would be hesitant.

[FallowsDark]

"Why are you scared, do you have something to hide?!" idiots when I place cameras in their homes and they freak out, what's wrong? got something to hide?