310
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by JPDev@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cobn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 1 month ago

Crowdstrike sounds like the name a of a security vulnerability and now it is.

Already see the articles... "50% of computers infected with crowdstrike"

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

Kinda ironic that it's called CrowdStrike, cuz it sure as hell struck a huge crowd of systems!

Well done CrowdStrike crew, maybe you guys will start testing your stuff before deploying to the public.. 🤦‍♂️

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Not at least until they fire their CEO

[-] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Like Enron, LOL.

[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I'm curious what would he the definition of Ring 0 anti-cheat

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

There's a bunch of game studios that think they need to use ring zero to prevent cheaters. And basically the user is just told 'trust me bro' that they're not going to mess up your system.

https://youtu.be/LY2hG-_asKU?si=R8UAcZ4fQAR8Mlic

Riot games just recently added it I believe.

I personally refuse to play any game that is ring zero. And this big outage is a clear example as to why it's a bad idea to give random devs unlimited access to your machine.

[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Rito adding Vanguard to LoL was the reason why I finally deleted the game, although I moved to DOTA after the butterfly incident

[-] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 1 points 1 month ago

The problem is if anti-cheat does not have full access but the cheat does, the cheat can just hide itself. Same for anti-virus vs viruses. It’s particularly nasty on free-to-play games where ban evading really just means you have to get a new e-mail. It’s the same reason why some anti-cheats block running games in VMs. Is it fool proof? Hell no! Does it deter anybody not willing to buy hardware to evade VM detection or run the cheat on completely separate hardware? Yes.

Personally, I’d prefer having a stake/reputation system where one can argue that they can be trusted with weaker anti-cheat because if you do detect cheating then I lose multiplayer/trading/cosmetics on the account I’ve spent $80 USD or more on. Effectively making the cost of cheating $80 minimum for each failed attempt. Haven’t spent $80 yet? Then use the aggressive anti-cheat.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Here's a decent definition: https://levvvel.com/games-with-kernel-level-anti-cheat-software/

As I understand, on Windows, this is implemented by writing a kernel-mode device driver. On Linux, you'd need to load a kernel module.

[-] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Anti-cheat software, like anti-virus software, tens to work ar ring-0.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Time to consider a name change, guys

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Task failed successfully 👍

[-] vvv@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

This is up there with left-pad now!

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
310 points (96.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

19111 readers
548 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS