Battlefield 6 cheats day 1 of early access. Depite kernel level anti cheat, forced secure boot TPM 2.0
Battlefield 6 cheats day 1 of early access. Depite kernel level anti cheat, forced secure boot TPM 2.0
94 comments
-
-
Pretty much the same as all the other modern BFs. They all had cheats in the Beta/early release versions. I’ve played and own literally every BF game since the original release of 1942. Cheats have always been present more or less.
-
Shame was really looking forward to bf6. Guess I'll pass
-
I only found out about this today from someone whose computer got bricked from trying to enable secure boot.
-
I'm glad I didn't enable Tivoization (Secure Boot) and TPM. Those suck, and actually froze our machines. It's literally useless at this point.
-
So you got the spyware without the benefits, that's a hell of a surprise isn't it?
But thank you for your money suckers!
-
So I can’t play battlefield without TPM? I hate tech these days. My Ryzen board doesnt have it. Hence why I’m not on windows 11
-
You can still get win 11 without TPM by using Rufus and bypassing TPM which will have to be done for a lot of old PCs and we will have to do it by October this year.
-
-
I am still baffled that anyone thinks that Kernel AC is any kind of effective at stopping hacks, people have been literally making a living off of defeating it, and selling those hacks / methods for almost a decade now...
But nope, still got hordes of idiot gamers who think they work, think they're necessary, think they can't be spoofed.
-
i dont know if you know this, but generally the people buying and playing games arent the ones making the decisions about anticheat
-
Not sure how you could read this and come away with the idea that I do believe that...
I am talking about the subset of gamers that go on internet forums and discord servers and make false, unsupported claims as to the effectiveness or necessity or Kernel AC over other forms of AC, tell people this just is how it is now, get with the program,
eat the bugs, play the spyware game, its fine, everyone is doing it.
-
-
-
I love the Battlefield series but I'm not turning on Secure Boot for them. If it remains a hard requirement, I'll simply be passing altogether.
-
I was able to get around secure boot by installing the beta on my PS5. From then, I had the pleasure of being unable to enter due to broken menus! Can’t complain for having spent nothing and having little trust in the franchise.
-
There's nothing wrong with Secure Boot and enabling it can prevent a small subset of attack vectors with no real downsides. That being said, the things Secure Boot does protect against aren't likely to be an issue for most users but it's nothing to be afraid of.
-
-
beautiful. fuck secureboot.
-
Why?
-
- some people run more than 1 OS
- some people actually program and need to load unsigned shit all the time
- some people have legacy hardware that doesn't run with secureboot
- it is my decision and my decision alone how i boot my operating systems. not EA's.
-
Needlessly intrusive. Can obviously be circumvented by cheaters anyway, so quite possibly superfluous. Apart from that it protects against the kinds of attacks that typically require physical access to the computer. If you have physical access you have full access anyway. Etc.
-
It fucks with Linux. I literally just disabled it to resolve a driver install issue before this announcement was made.
-
-
-
This is where we need dedicated servers and self moderation
-
This is where we need dedicated servers and self moderation
My knowledge towards battlefield games ends at BF4 but I’m pretty sure people pay to host custom servers, EA refuses to open source it and only supply a handful of third parties with the actual code for them to charge hosting fees.
I’m sure there is an NDA involved.
-
Yep.
Things were better when private servers had actual mods and admins, they acted more like pubs where you could go see the regulars, actually form a community.
-
DayZ, Rust, TF2 and Minecraft were the model all along. Nice that it's vindicated.
-
-
Having Anti-Cheat of any kind outside of the game is laziness or lack of resources.
I believe just have physical limitations of the character or objects and verify the movement every once in a while to make sure that their movement is not super human (ie, aim bots).
You don't need a kernal level anti-cheat.
-
The best thing is back when Battlefield was Battlefield, it would self-regulate because most people played on self-hosted servers, so cheaters and bad actors were taken care of swiftly. But now they want their own control to put shitty bots and SBMM in the game, so here we are.
This whole game is a case of the devs making bad decisions and then instead of changing them decisions, they apply the quickest bandaid fixes they can.
-
Kernel anti-cheat does absolutely nothing to prevent aimbots/triggerbots, as most are run using 2 separate machines, anyway. The first machine runs the game in a totally clean and legitimate environment, but sends its video output (either using standard streaming tools like OBS or by using special hardware) to the 2nd machine. The 2nd machine runs the cheat and processes the video to detect where to aim and/or when to shoot, and sends mouse input back to the 1st machine.
-
And they should just make good games too, right?
The issue with "just analyze the players" is that it is VERY expensive computationally. And it causes issues with non-official servers as it drastically increases the cost of a dedicated server and makes a listen server nigh unusable.
To be clear: I do not think the kernel level anti-cheats are a consumer friendly solution. But it takes a special kind of arrogance to insist you know better than decades worth of research and work in trying to stop hacking.
-
Yeah I mean its not like Valve has been using a combination of server side and client side game file only validation to do AC for Counter Strike for 20 years or anything.
Yep yep yep, the whole industry uses Kernel AC, other than the devs of the longest running competetive FPS franchise ever, yep yep yep!
-
-
Wall hacks could be defeated by the server only reporting the positional information about enemy players to game clients when it detects that the client player's camera should be able to see some part of the other player's silhouette. This is possible, albeit computationally expensive, but the main functional issue is latency. Nobody wants enemies magically popping into view when their view changes quickly because their ping was more than 6ms lol
-
It takes more work and resources to do what they're doing. They already do server side anti cheat. And realistically, this is more effective than not doing it, though it definitely still gets defeated anyway. I would say the things that it asks of the customer are not worth the trade even if they were 100% effective, but they are more effective.
-
That doesn't cover wallhacks.
-
-
They're gonna kill this game aren't they.
-
Can't you load your own keys into your BIOS, letting you sign whatever you want anyway?
-
You can, but most everything that would let you run your own boot-time code is supposed to end up in the TPM event log, which the TPM is happy to attest to with its unique/uniquely bannable attestation key. Not too difficult to set it up so that no attestation = no access.
This type of attestation is far from perfect for a lot of different reasons, and it would be really impractical to automate bans with it, but I guess it's a tool they see value in.
-
94 comments
Only AI will be able to root this out in future