Id like to hear thoughts. Of course us gamers hate kernel level anti cheat, but is that actually tied to secureboot?
I know some/most distros can boot in secure mode, so it doesn’t seem like an issue there.
With all the new games moving to it, looks like we will all have to sit them out or install Spyware (microshit) to play. I will opt not to.
You must log in or register to comment.
All secure boot does is ensue the binary (say, Linux or Windows kernel) run in early boot is “trusted,” meaning it’s cryptographically signed by a key the motherboard has. You can usually load your own keys and sign your own binaries, but I imagine only large orgs do that if they have a lot of Linux systems or something.
The way Linux works with this is they use a shim binary that is signed by Microsoft’s key, and that binary loads the actual Linux kernel. The kernel itself is not signed with that key.
The only way this impacts gaming is if games check if Secure Boot is enabled. If it is enabled, the game knows the system booted with something signed by a key the motherboard trusts. For most systems, that means Microsoft’s keys, but AFAIK, they can’t check what key was used in early boot unless the kernel provides some indication of that.
Basically, it’s an anti-tampering check, so they have some assurance the kernel is untampered from what the maintainer released.
For Linux, the protection is weak.
But if properly implemented, it’s good. But it would be a hassle to do and would require users to register new keys and blacklist Microsoft’s.
Measured boot is a better solution for Linux. It’s decentralized and does not rely on Microsoft. It uses the TPM to “measure” various parts of the UEFI, bootloader, and OS to ensure they have not been tampered with.
Measured boot requires secure boot to be enabled as one of its components.
The real value of measured boot is when paired with full disk encryption as it protects against boot loader attacks that can compromise your sealed keys.
I don’t believe that’s the case, according to Aeon. The state of secure boot can be measured, so if you have it enabled/disabled, you have to keep it that way or else the measurement will fail and the TPM will complain.
Neither Secure Boot nor TPM were ever actually about security and neither meaningfully improves security. They are DRM features that exist solely to ensure you can never truly own the things you buy.
Um, TPMs for sure provide meaningful security. Maybe their use is implemented poorly a lot of the time, AND they can be abused to hold control over hardware you’ve purchased, but low level exploits are for sure a thing and TPMs and other dedicated hardware security modules (for enterprise) most definitely serve a purpose.
They’re a response to the ever evolving advancement of cyber exploits. Don’t knock them on principle, take affront to when they’re used poorly.
There’s the truth. Thank you.
Sticking to linux and indie games forever then !
How is TPM involved in making sure you don’t own things? It certainly improves security (other than the poorly made ones at least)
Worst part is everything has to use Microsoft’s signing keys, so it’s ironically a gigantic security hole if your threat model includes being on Microsoft’s shit list.
Only by default. You can load your own keys instead of Microsoft’s, and some Linux distros do just that.
Kernal level anticheat is invasive and the vast majority of anticheats are probably installing spyware with root access.
Linux does support TPM and secure boot: https://wiki/ .debian.org/SecureBoot#What_is_UEFI_Secure_Boot.3F
So the problem is really only about kernel level anticheat, not the secure boot itself ?
It depends. If it’s under your control with your own keys then it can be beneficial. If it’s under someone else’s control (as it is for most people) then it’s a step towards the walled garden.
No, it’s not actually bad, it can just be a hassle to deal with. Much like when TLS was becoming the norm for websites there was a bit of an adjustment period when things weren’t always configured just right or folks didn’t have good auto renewal yet. It doesn’t mean the tech is bad.
Others have already explained the secure boot process. But one thing that might impact gaming is that TPMs also implement cryptographic acceleration in hardware. Not only does it speed up operations, it guarantees that the binary code for the library running on the chip hasn’t been modified.
Some anti-cheat libraries might require the TPM and having secure boot on guarantees that feature exists.
I’ve avoided kernal anti-cheat basically forever on principle. On the plus side, there is talk about Microsoft kicking 3rd parties out of the kernal on windows, stemming from the cloudstrike debacle. If they kick out anti-virus, I can’t imagine that they let game publishers stay. We might actually see the death of kernal anti-cheat soon.
On a side-note, it’s a really sad state that so much of the world runs on computers but the majority of people don’t know the first thing about using them. It has led us to so many bad places today that I really didn’t expect when I was a teen…
Crowdstrike*
Aw dang it, you’re right. lol
Secureboot is a security measure to make sure the boot environment have not been tampered with. It would detect malwares that attempt to modify the boot environments. According to ArchWiki, it ensures “core boot components (boot manager, kernel, initramfs) have not been tampered with”, which would protect against initramfs-swap attacks like de-LUKS, however there are conflicting reports on the internet, and I have not tried myself.
I personally don’t find it makes Linux harder to install, like others suggested. Unless you use a surface device, it will happily accept the key for most common linux distro, including Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and many more. For most custom distros, you can easily register its key via MOK (require root privilege and confirmation in the UEFI, for security purpose). In fact, Debian project is quite clear on SecureBoot not being a tool for MS to monopolize the desktop market: https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot#What_is_UEFI_Secure_Boot_NOT.3F .
However, if you need to load additional kernel modules, like NVIDIA drivers, secureboot can get quite annoying. I am actually quite interested in why Windows don’t have a problem loading additional drivers, yet Linux do.
In the end, I feel if you are using a distro that works with secureboot, there is no reason to leave it off; if you find it annoying, yet okay with a downgrade in security, then you might want to leave it off.
Isn’t Windows a hybrid kernel? Perhaps things like drivers technically don’t run in the kernel and instead technically operate outside of it. Linux loads kernel modules directly, so maybe that’s the issue?
Or maybe drivers are also signed by Microsoft’s key?
I don’t know a ton about Secure Boot, so maybe it’s something else entirely.
