SteamOS leverages namespaces via pressure-vessel already. The problem exists exclusively on Windows. Paravirtualized drivers introduce API incompatibility issues and decades of cumulative engine infrastructure made for Windows using the Win32 API means nobody wants to swap over to using UWP and thus AppContainers are a non-starter (and that's without getting to sacrificing Wine/Proton compatibility).
The native isolation mechanisms like silos are things that require wrangling by professional sysadmins, I didn't even know they existed until I started writing this post. The real question to be asking is why is sandboxing so bad on Windows? Despite some searching, I still have no conclusive answer as to how to go about filesystem isolation in Win32-space, or if it's even possible.
Sandboxing is quite easy (user-wise), once you install the sandbox system. By default it allows only a single sandbox, and with small `.wsb` file you can drive what's visible from the host, whether the GPU should be active, etc. - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...
It's great for testing, and Sandbox is just the tip of the iceberg of what Windows Containers support
- e.g. maybe someone can come up with "launcher" that goes through it (somehow).
Ummm, yeah, but Windows Containers is windows Pro and Enterprise only (security is an optional, paid extra on windows), and only for these using Hyper-V (meaning Virtual Box users are excluded).
They are? Games need pretty much all the performance they can possibly get. Can you sandbox them without having a performance impact?
Consider that people pay a $300 premium to get ~10% better performance (buying an RTX 5080 instead of a 5070 Ti).
Personally I know that sometimes closing the web browser in the background makes my game run better - that web browser doesn't even interact with the game! Would a sandbox have a smaller impact?
Buying a better GPU improves your graphics performance and that's basically unrelated to the area where a sandbox impacts performance.
Killing your web browser is probably just lowering memory pressure?
Sandboxes add overhead to syscalls. It's kind of similar to running under Wine, which also adds significant syscalls overhead. Wine also has a much more impactful DirectX translation layer, so your sandbox performance would be probably be much better than the Wine performance.
PC games tend to be the reverse: they demand control over the machine, in order to try to detect or prevent being run alongside various forms of cheating software.
They also need low-latency access to the GPU, which I suspect is a fertile vector for privilege escape exploits.
Only a relatively small (but popular) subset of games use anticheat. Most games -- including the one in this article -- could theoretically run in a sandbox.
Even games with strong anticheat could benefit from sandboxing, as the anticheat mechanisms that need access outside the sandbox represent a much smaller surface area for exploits than the entire game.
In theory, sandboxing mechanisms could even be used to improve anticheat.
What I always sort of assume the endgame could be for highly competitive Windows games is something akin to cartridge or bootable floppy games from the 8-bit era, where games would install into or be supplied as disk images containing locked-down Windows installations that only permit signed (and possibly whitelisted) drivers and whitelisted applications, which would include the game and a small number of other approved applications like Discord, MS Edge and possibly selected third-party browsers, and support software for hardware like GPUs and gaming input devices, which Windows would then boot to run the game, either on bare metal or in an isolated VM.
Proton is just emulation, and it will happily expose the underlying host system to the running game software. In particular the filesystem and some peripheral devices. However, Valve is moving towards sandboxing in Steam. You can already run the whole thing with a flatpak sandbox, and valve themselves are using ostree. With srvio is possible to run the whole thing in a throwaway windows vm while the graphics card is passed through
Anything that wants to traverse your filesystem could do so trivially from a wineprefix, but stuff like sniffing your browser extensions might be harder depending on the technique.
I've formally studied gamedev, but haven't done anything in over a decade, but even before you get to the thorny issue of anti-cheat sustems, games rely on running at a(n often very) low level and doing unconventional things. I imagine they're one of the hardest things there are to sandbox without causing massive levels of breakage. But someone more knowledgeable about either side of the equation (sandboxing and/or game development) might be able to shed more light.
Windows has a lot of powerful sandboxes. A lot of them Windows maybe made too easy to opt-out from and/or defaulted them to opt-in rather than opt-out which makes them things that developers need to learn or developers try to avoid or developers don't think they need.
I agree, although I've made exceptions for a very small number of games with Denuvo (actually, just Hogwarts Legacy, which in hindsight I'm glad I did even though it still hurts my soul a bit) and they can run on Linux (I have nothing else but Linux). It's mostly kernel-level anti-cheat that won't run from what I've read.
If it plays on Linux I don't personally care if its got Denuvo, its isolated by Proton, so not really a big deal. I do think its really pointless, because none of these tools ever truly stop game cheating.
Oh yeah completely agree. They don't even stop warez either as it only takes a little while for it to be broken. Mainly all it does is punish paying users, and cost them sales (from people like me) who don't want the potential headache.
I only game on Linux. I don’t run Windows, period.
I like that it keeps those kinds of malware out of my reach, and I don’t mind skipping games that use them.
I would like for it to go away entirely though. Both because I find it an appalling practice, and because I want more gamers playing more games on Linux.
Well, Riot Games just today (!) admitted to hard-bricking cheating hardware [1]. This kind of stuff definitely is malware, and your comment aged like milk.
Malware is deceitful, you're not aware of its presence. Anti-Cheat does what it's promises, and I've personally found Riot fairly transparent regarding Vanguard.
You don't have to play Valorant, but if you do you probably want to play without cheaters. It's either get hated for having cheaters (like CS2) or get hated for having invasive Anti-Cheat (Valorant). There's no third option.
> So if malware announces itself, it is no longer malware but anticheat?
If it announces itself after installation it would obviously be malware. But if the software does exactly what the user expects it to do, and the user installs it with consent, why would it be malware?
Otherwise BitLocker or a disk eraser would be malware just because it performs a destructive action.
Wikipedia goes by the same definition, it's harmful software that operates without the owners knowledge.
It may seem like a weird hill to die on, but calling every Anti-Cheat or DRM a "rootkit" or malware kind of takes any meaning away from the term. And is also just misinformative to the workings of DRM and Anti-Cheat.
anti-cheat is not perfect. they will brick a legitimate user's pc. that is the opposite of "good for their players".
and even if someone is cheating on a riot game, bricking their pc is obviously fucked, and will end up biting riot in the ass (i.e. not good for riot, either).
> However, someone reportedly hijacked the developer’s Steam account and quickly transformed it into Beyond The Dark – changing its name, screenshots, and other store details. As Steam does not fully verify every patch made to a game, the modified version was reportedly able to go live without raising immediate red flags.
It is interesting that it seems to easier to take over a legit game than trying to create a new one. I have seen this with youtube channels, inactive during a long period of time and suddenly showing mostly scams. Or the original owner became a criminal, or more probably were taken over criminals.
> The malware allegedly searched for cryptocurrency wallet browser extensions, including MetaMask, before connecting to external servers and downloading additional tools. These tools were reportedly capable of stealing browser information, passwords, and cryptocurrency wallet data.
Cryptocurrencies are the most insecure currency that we have even invented. It is paradoxical that is being marketed as actually safe.
Now it makes sense why someone in a game development group mentioned he received an offer of $100 USD for his indie game. The buyer plainly stated that they were specifically looking to buy underperforming games. The developer didn't sell, but sadly $100 was more than he made in sales a year after launch, so it must have been tempting.
Maybe that's why they changed the game's name post-malware, to spam, er "promote" it as a new one and gain users quickly.
> What’s interesting is that while the game itself often crashed during launch, the malicious software continued running quietly in the background.
Wonder how much longer it could have remain undetected if it actually fired up a shovelware game that could run properly, things like crashing probably gave it away way faster than it could've.
The best place to put malware is wherever people don't think they need to be suspicious of the software they run. Free games, paid games, supply chain - it doesn't really matter so long as they think they can trust it blindly.
I remember, ~20 years ago, there was some free Christmas elf game (Flash?) that went viral and everyone was playing it. Struck me as a perfect vector for malware, I was a little surprised that didn’t happen.
~20 years ago it was still not rare for someone to email his friends a little Flash game or greeting card wrapped in an .EXE so they could run it straight from Outlook. In retrospective, those were crazy times. We knew about viruses from the time of MS-DOS, and still happily emailed executables that not even Hotmail or Google bothered to block.
All our network traffic was unencrypted, which enabled all kinds of shenanigans until the security culture seeped into corporations and the public.
When stories talk about time travelers that hijack old technology instantly, it makes complete sense. Someone with modern hardware, software, and knowledge could completely break most technology back then. They better not forget their modem, though.
ELF ELF BABY.... Elf Bowling, and Frog-a-pult... I wish NSTORM Games was a big market player now.. I guess someone let him borrow the canoe he was looking for...
This is bound to become more and more pervasive, with supply chain attacks happening extremely frequently now. My cooleagues and me almost got caught in the latest Shai-Hulud attack due to some tanstack packages. Noone is safe now.