←back to thread

658 points transpute | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
codedokode ◴[] No.35844123[source]
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): >>35844144 #>>35844419 #>>35844928 #>>35845513 #>>35845801 #
tapoxi ◴[] No.35844419[source]
Realistically it means a lot more people are going to cheat in Valorant.
replies(2): >>35844572 #>>35844631 #
shrimp_emoji ◴[] No.35844631[source]
Oh no! Here, please, backdoor my OS with a kernel anticheat -- anything that saves me from cheaters in the current bideo game of the month! D:
replies(4): >>35844767 #>>35844891 #>>35844904 #>>35845450 #
fafzv ◴[] No.35845450[source]
So don't play the game. Personally I want kernel level anticheats because they make it much harder to cheat in the game. I want to know that my opponents are not cheaters. That's something I don't have in CS:GO, a game ripe with cheaters, or TF2, a game ripe with bots. (Valve's usermode anticheat is absolutely useless)
replies(2): >>35845559 #>>35845949 #
von_lohengramm ◴[] No.35845559[source]
Yet it's still pretty dang easy to bypass VGK and cheat in Valorant if you even slightly know what you're doing. Now you have the worst of both worlds. In theory, Valve's VACnet and Trust Factor are the ideal solutions, but in practice... not so much.
replies(1): >>35845573 #
fafzv ◴[] No.35845573[source]
How is VAC the ideal solution? It is weak even in theory.
replies(1): >>35846011 #
1. von_lohengramm ◴[] No.35846011[source]
VACnet, not VAC. Server-side ML model analyzing player actions influencing their Trust Factor (or just straight up banning in more egregious cases).