Especially unusual bc there are kernel level anticheats that work just fine without it
It’s more unusual than anything. TPM2 and Secure boot are requirements I would expect from a security compliance checklist and software handling at least somewhat valuable data, like maybe a password vault.
A steam game is the last place I would expect this.
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 21 hours ago
SalamenceFury@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
It is for the anti-cheat, it seems, and for the case of BO7 it seems to actually have worked this time. I haven’t seen a hacker at all.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 hours ago
I haven’t either! Because I won’t willingly install a rootkit on my computer or play a game that requires malware…
pivot_root@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Once you delve into the technical parts of it, 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 tried to rootkit Windows to evade detection.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 7 hours 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.
consumers won’t benefit from this functionality, but many industries will in the foreseeable future
pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
You quoted the end of my comment, so you must have read this part:
For the threat model of anticheat software, verifying system integrity is not an unusual requirement.