this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
227 points (96.7% liked)

PC Gaming

13158 readers
641 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

due to the lack of a fully secure environment in the OS

Allowing kernel-level access to programs is the exact opposite of a "fully secure environment".

The "reasons" these publishers give to force kerbel-level anti-cheat onto players are complete fabrications to cover up the fact that they're too cheap/lazy to implement server-side anti-cheat and also want to monitor your computer to sell your data

[โ€“] SalamenceFury@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I know server side anti-cheat is way better but at this point the only way to stop kernel anti-cheats from being the "best" way is government regulation. Literally no one cares about the security concerns of something like Riot Vanguard knowing everything you do on your computer, and server side anti-cheat has a more expensive overhead and suits aren't going to want to spend more money.