Isn't it good? Does leaked key mean that now owners of hardware will be able to read and modify the firmware, including IME, and check it for backdoors?
Such keys should be in the hands of users, not Intel.
replies(5):
Such keys should be in the hands of users, not Intel.
As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat. If you don't like that you don't have to play those games but no need to act like the way you are because other people want decent anticheat.
Because it’s social pressure to compromise your computer to a gaming company to get to play a game.
People don’t care about the anticheat on their computer, they want it foisted on everyone else who plays, which is a sucky proposition for privacy and security minded people.
It’s like advocating for the TSA to be controlling access to the grocery store because you want to feel safe there and don’t mind the privacy violation.
What do you mean by this? As the user you are intending to have the game and its anticheat run. Having to download and run a game on your computer isn't compromising your computer either. Maybe the only thing which doesn't give the game company power to run potentially malicious code on your machine is cloud gaming. That also solves the cheating problem at least.
No they want games without hackers. Which kernel based anticheats helps with. Can it also impact privacy and security? Yes no doubt but so can any program running on the computer even in userspace. Remember we are talking about kernel anticheats on windows lol.
If you are really worried about it you could dual boot like many people. Either way this whole argument seems silly to me.
The isolation still exists for normal programs when the anticheat is present.
Would you also support a full cavity search each time you decide to fly a plane?
The kernel module has full access to your hardware, you don't know what it does exactly. You don't even know if it does something more than anticheat.
People got so complacent in recent years, and this is on a technology forum no less. I guess today the Sony rootkit[1] would be totally acceptable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
You don't know what the game will do either. It requires trusting Riot even if there isn't an anticheat.
Also most users will never know what the other kernel level drivers do.
>Would you also support a full cavity search each time you decide to fly a plane?
I don't see how this is related?
>The kernel module has full access to your hardware, you don't know what it does exactly.
The same can be said about any other kernel level driver and even about Windows itself.
>People got so complacent in recent years, and this is on a technology forum no less.
What Riot wants to do is not possible with a user level anticheat. Once Windows eventually gets its security improved such that apps can query the integrity of the system Riot would likely be able to get away with a less privileged anticheat.
>I guess today the Sony rootkit[1] would be totally acceptable.
If it didn't try and hide itself I would agree with you.
Hackers are mainly only problem for anonymous ranked matchmaking. That's not to say cheaters don't exist without it but they are a) much less disruptive b) have much smaller reach and therefore c) are less motivated.
Like most ills being used to push anti-user technology, cheating is primarily a problem created by the industry itself.