56
Kernel Anti-Cheat Is an Overreach
(nooneshappy.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
56 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
14985 readers
1154 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Also, the basic argument of this blogpost is idiotic. If you're installing a ring 0 anticheat that means you're running Windows, and guess what, that means your entire operating system is code you can't audit. You'll also be running possibly dozens of third party drivers with (essentially) ring 0 access that you also can't audit, and most of those drivers are written far more shoddily than anticheats (which, by their very nature, have to pay extreme attention to security and safety, because otherwise cheaters will easily reverse engineer them making them useless).
Microkernels seem to be having a new wave of popularity recently (new microkernel based OSes being made, apple slowly turning XNU into a microkernel)
Windows uses a hybrid kernel, but that still means drivers have access to the entirety of kernel space
Microkernels are so much more secure (when done properly with IOMMU and everything)
However, kernel based anticheats won't work with microkernels (since most microkernels aren't modular)