Call of Duty's Anti-Cheat Will Require TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot for PC Players (gamespot.com)
- Reference: 0178594258
- News link: https://games.slashdot.org/story/25/08/06/1741206/call-of-dutys-anti-cheat-will-require-tpm-20-and-secure-boot-for-pc-players
- Source link: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-has-new-security-measures-adding-secure-boot-requirement/1100-6533739/
TPM 2.0 verifies untampered boot processes while Secure Boot ensures Windows loads only trusted software at startup. Both features perform checks during system and game startup but remain inactive during gameplay. Activision has also pursued legal action against 22 individuals who developed and sold cheats.
[1] https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-has-new-security-measures-adding-secure-boot-requirement/1100-6533739/
Re: (Score:2)
This certainly doesn't mean it will go unhacked; but it's the software running in the VBS enclave that remains active. TPM2/secure boot are prerequisites for that.
Re:"inactive during gameplay" (Score:5, Informative)
Windows doesn't have TSRs. This isn't MS-DOS;.
Every TPM has a unique endorsement key. Requiring a TPM allows them to ban your hardware if you cheat. That means you'll be buying a new motherboard or a new TPM module if you get banned and want to play again. In addition, having secure boot enabled disables debug mode which means you can't load unsigned kernel mode drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
vTPM?
Re: (Score:2)
I wager it also requires an endorsement certificate associated with a 'trusted' vendor, and thus swtpm would probably fail to pass their criteria...
But I don't know for sure.
Consoles (Score:3, Insightful)
Video game systems with all the vendor lock-in, DRM, proprietary pieces, secured boot loader, TPM, etc. is one area that seems to benefit all by leveling the playing field. Successful brands such as Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox are like this to varying degrees.
Re: (Score:3)
I get shredded by all of my friends for playing on console but I don't care. I don't want my powerful computer getting pwned by multiple malwares installed by different games just for the hopes of playing some matches on a level playing field. I'm perfectly happy playing games on a big screen TV with my home theater blaring while I'm reclined on my couch using an inferior input device. I rarely encounter cheaters, my PC is free of bullshit, and I couldn't be happier. I'd rather buy a separate locked-dow
Re: (Score:2)
Except that playing field isn't leveled.
Many consoles get hacked and when they do there goes your protections. Your $xx.xx/Month multiplayer fees are still required but until they release a new system that requires hacking to start all over again, you get cheaters just like on PC.
Physically handicapped players who need custom controllers to be able to play at all can get locked out simply because the manufacturers refuse to make the needed hardware. So that limits the number of potential players right o
Re: More games will start requiring this to just r (Score:2)
I don't have to play these games. But it is likely for any game that is competative. It would be like going down to your local basketball court to play a 2v2 game and having to get a drug test. Might happen if it ever gets easy enough to do a drug test because nobody likes cheaters.
Weaponization of security software (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the weaponization of security software against the owner of the machine that we have all said was coming. Security is nice, but security that works against the wishes of the owner of the machine is exactly the opposite of that and is, by definition, malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but TPM was never for security. It did not start as security, and it has never provided any security benefits for home machines. It has always been about lockdown, which is for DRM and corp security.
Ever wondered why Win11 requires a TPM? (Score:2)
Windows doesn't even need TPM 2.0 to run, but Microsoft paved the way to better DRM. In the 2000s people started to warn against TCPA / NGSCB / TCG, and when people stopped to care the industry giants specified secure boot. Android devices are already marketed as "widevine high security ready" meaning that you get 4K Netflix on them what requires a trusted platform module. Netflix on Windows does the same. Now computer games follow.
Keep your eyes open, the next thing the TCPA planned were traceable document
Re:Ever wondered why Win11 requires a TPM? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm in my early 40's.. I'm glad I was around to experience the early days of the internet, where computing was a fairly libertarian, wild west type environment. (libertarianism is okay in this arena, politics.. not so much) But freedom of expression, freedom of speech, was actually realized for the masses. Albeit for a vanishingly short period of time.
But of course things started going south as soon as money got involved. First with obnoxious advertisements, then monetizing everything, and of course the control freaks striving for censorship under the guise of 'but terrorists/save the children/misinfo' et al.
The article is about some dumb copy/paste franchise that demands privacy invasion as a means to combat these nebulous cheaters (who will of course outsmart whatever ridiculously invasive measures dev's can conjure up, within a week or two.), but the writing is on the wall. Sure you can (and should) just not buy this cunty bullshit -- but it doesn't matter. It'll just become the new norm across the board, and increasingly hard to vote against with your wallet.
I hate to admit it, but Stallman was right all along. And I'm glad (or at least hopeful?) that I'll be dead and in the ground before this vile, top down control mindset obliterates a very special time and place in history.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Stallman sounds extremist, but he's only two steps ahead of what's to come. And the problem is, that even the Stallman niches to use your computer unrestricted are becoming smaller. What use has GNU/Linux when you can't open your files because it has no valid trust chain to one of the preinstalled trust anchors?
And with the web integrity framework Google already tried to allow websites to restrict what browser you can use. Expect that stuff to come back with a new name. First they will say banking webs
Re: (Score:3)
It's called Web Environment Integrity: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And as you see in the article, it is already coming back on Android.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, exactly. It's more than a bit alarming. I use a HOSTS file to block a few ad networks, and already I've run into issues when trying to pay bills, where the ad network/tracking cuntery is blocked, so the entire site shits itself. Then, the only way to pay my bill is to either figure out which entry to allow, or pay by check. Of course for my convenience they've also switched completely to online billing and statements, which is cool.
There's this tendency to get locked into things that start out as a co
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all aspects of the "old" Internet are still available to use for those who care.
If you want to run an IRC server and communicate that way the technology still works. If you want to telnet into a BBS there are still thousands of them out there for the curious. Spin up a server running phpbb if you want a place to discuss something. If you don't want to run Windows 11 or enable secure boot then use Linux.
You decry that money and non-free software ruined the internet but realistically the parts that t
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point I think; there's an increasing amount of .. friction incurred when trying to avoid encircling lock in. Yes, I know i could set up an IRC server, or use a BBS, I'm not sure who'd I talk to on there, but that's besides the point.
Do you own a cellphone?
Is it optional to own one when your bank/bill paying, or work requires you to use it for MFA? Or when your insurance company just uses an app in lieu of insurance cards (give it time, this will come to pass) ? And going back a few years ago
Re: (Score:2)
a pointless fucking distinction in 2025.
Just assume that cloudflare or whoever will decide that is a haven for piracy, CP, and whatever else and block access.
Re:Ever wondered why Win11 requires a TPM? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Expect formats that can only be opened on a verified device by a signed app if their checksum is intact.
I already ran into this: I'm one of the several thousand recent layoffs from Microsoft and before leaving I printed my paystub and similar info to PDF and copied it onto my personal computer... only to find after I had no longer had access that when opening it on another computer it just says the PDF is encrypted. Luckily I was paranoid enough to also save the pages as HTML.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct that Windows doesn't require TPM 2.0, but Microsoft is pushing for passkeys, a technology that uses FIDO2 which does require TPM 2.0. While I have some issues with passkeys, they do make man-in-the-middle proxy attacks for fake login pages virtually useless. This is important since MFA is now commonplace and MITM proxy attacks are becoming the favorite choice of attackers to work around MFA.
Re: Ever wondered why Win11 requires a TPM? (Score:2)
Cutting off developers ie you from writing your own programs is the eventual goal. See the excellent talk about the war on general purpose computing.
lost sales. (Score:1)
oh perfect! i was looking for a reason not to buy this game, thanks Microsoft!
Microsoft pushing Win11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Activision isn't making the calls here, Microsoft, which bought Activision, is pulling the strings in order to try and push more people to use Windows 11.
Re: (Score:2)
> Activision isn't making the calls here, Microsoft, which bought Activision, is pulling the strings in order to try and push more people to use Windows 11.
They pulled this crap back in the day with Halo 2 and Shadowrun being Vista only titles. I didn't care about Shadowrun as it had almost nothing to do with the RPG, and Halo 2 got to wait until I got Windows 7.
Absurdity In Written Form (Score:2)
> TPM 2.0 verifies untampered boot processes while Secure Boot ensures Windows loads only trusted software at startup.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the amount of absurdity in the above statement?
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding... The term "trusted" sure the hell isn't the system's owners' "trust"... I'm constantly so damn glad I flushed all MS crap down the commode and stick with Linux.. F--k TPM and "Secure Boot"...
So it begins (Score:2)
Your PC is not longer yours. Since Windows 11 requiring TPM 2.0, this was the obvious direction... and they are finally able to start rolling out software that explicitly requires it. Of course this has been true for a long time with rootkits and other anti-cheating software, but now it can be cryptographically enforced. Eventually this will extend to Internet access in general with every request tracked back to a personally issued token. What a brave new world for surveillance!
Re: (Score:1)
> Your PC is not longer yours.
No, actually a more accurate description of the technology is: “Your purchased game is no longer someone else’s for free.” Good on them, and fuck software and film pirates.
Yours sincerely,
The games industry (former employee)
The film industry (current employee, VFX).
Re:So it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like "Your purchased game is no longer yours to play, because we said so". Meh. If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing. And in the old days, DRM might prevent you from playing a legitimate copy because of some hardware issue, the game's copy protection might make you jump through al manner of hoops before it would even start, maybe you lost the required dongle, or whatever. Good reasons to pirate, because it would give you a far better experience. Games have gotten a lot better, but this move sounds like a step in the wrong direction, even if it is more about online cheating than piracy.
Same shit with DVDs and Blu-rays. No format shifting, ads that can't be skipped, random HDCP errors that force me to keep power cycling all devices in my media chain until it somehow starts working again. Here too, the pirated product is better. It's not that I don't want to pay for stuff, I'd love to pay in order to have companies make more enjoyable content. But as a paying customer I don't want to be treated worse than the pirates!
And it's becoming a matter of principle as well. Morally I used to feel compelled to pay, perhaps buying a Blu-ray and only then getting a pirated file (or ripping the disc when possible). But these days? Game companies still have my sympathy, but movie companies have perverted the social contract of Copyright so far beyond its original intent, that I do not feel a single shred of obligation anymore to keep my end of it.
don't let them call it buy or purchase make it say (Score:2)
don't let them call it buy or purchase make it say rental
Re: (Score:2)
> It's more like "Your purchased game is no longer yours to play, because we said so".
Are they stopping people that purchased the game from playing it? I didn’t know that. Thanks for the update.
> Here too, the pirated product is better. It's not that I don't want to pay for stuff, I'd love to pay in order to have companies make more enjoyable content. But as a paying customer I don't want to be treated worse than the pirates!
Do you simply mean that paying customers have to play it on supported platforms and accounts that own the software, whereas people that stole the software can play it on unsupported platforms and accounts that do not own the software? So you do not like that thieves can use things in contexts and places that paying customers cannot? Then we agree. The thief gets to use things when the rightful o
Re: (Score:2)
I also make a living from creative work and it annoys me as well to see someone blatantly trying to rip us off. But I think you and I both know that it's unlikely measures like this will prevent piracy for very long even if they are initially successful. The only thing you can truly control is the systems that don't belong to your user, so that's where you need to put anything you don't want them messing with.
Meanwhile as someone who is also a user and also doing other things than playing games on my device
Re: (Score:1)
> Your PC is not longer yours.
I can't wait to see how you react upon learning Microsoft will sign my cheat engine hook code for $10, or issue me a cert to sign whatever drivers I wish for $100
> No, actually a more accurate description of the technology is: âoeYour purchased game is no longer someone elseâ(TM)s for free.â Good on them, and fuck software and film pirates.
YOU chose the price of your game that I paid.
If you "feel" I should have paid more than that, you fucked up, not everyone else.
As a game dev maybe you should stop stealing other peoples IP and pay for it for a damn change before throwing around the term "pirate"
Re: (Score:2)
> "Your PC is not longer yours."
All of mine are, because I run Linux on everything, and always have. Thankfully, I don't want to play that game. But I am worried about other things that could block open systems in the future because they are not "trustworthy."
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. For example, if my bank pulls something like that (requiring a certain "platform"), I will change banks and loudly let them know why I did. I already did with a credit card company with whom I had a
Trash (Score:3)
Garbage game by garbage company for garbage gamers.
will they try to say that Linux is like an game ge (Score:2)
will they try to say that Linux is like an game genie and must be banned?
an good place for app store rules to put an cap on (Score:2)
an good place for app store rules to put an cap on stuff like this.
Now this may be the max but the app store rules should be.
Must allow multi boot (can't only work on systems set for boot windows only)
Vendor lock in not allowed like not allowed to use lockouts like if non 100% DELL flag set can may get set on DELL systems running non DELL video cards / storage / ram / etc.
Must allow white box systems (can't force only allowed on OEM systems)
Can't block game from running if say someone has GOG store install.
Microsoft's Palladium is here (Score:3)
Slashdot users made a big deal out of it over 20 years ago but we got it, along with age and id verification plus the requirement to pay for phone service to verify your id on the internet. Even Slashdot is in the game now since new Slashdot accounts have to be approved by staff. I hope you feel safe and woolly now sheep, because the wolves (spammers, cheaters and scammers) ruined it for the rest of us.
Re:Microsoft's Palladium is here (Score:4, Insightful)
If you blame the cheaters for DRM that uses the TPM, you follow the narrative of the companies. Blame Activision. Anti-Cheat should be done server-side, if you lock down the player's PC you're doing it wrong. You can't justify "We need to take your rights away because of cheaters" by blaming the cheater, because that's not a problem that is worth the restrictions.
Re: (Score:3)
Do any competitive type FPS games use all server side calculations? I could be aging myself but usually there was the issue of latency that didn't really jibe with twitchy multiplayer style gameplay. MMO's have all server side calculations but I was always under the impression that the compensation for latency was the reason so many of those games had a floaty kinda turn based combat feel.
I definitely could be wrong on this since I agree that would be preferable but then I have to ask why aren't they all
Re: (Score:2)
Latency was the excuse made by publishers to foist the costs of running the game logic fully onto the players. They didn't want the expense of running a bunch of "official" dedicated servers, especially due to this change happening before XBox Live made multiplayer subscriptions mandatory.
The reason they didn't just go with handing out the dedicated server program like they traditionally did, was due to profit potential. Allowing players to run their own servers fully independent of the publisher meant th
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks but that doesn't really answer my question, nothing about what I am asking has to do with dedicated servers or self hosting servers back in the day.
Also cost can't be the only thing. Like if Valve could eliminate all CS:GO cheating by running dedicated match servers instead of VAC... I dunno, I'm gonna have to see some evidence to support this theory.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do any competitive type FPS games use all server side calculations?"
Only the ones that don't mind being slow. :)
It means the server calculating how much of the environment to each player, because sending too little and weird physics starts happening and sending too much lets a player with a hacked client look through walls.
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% true.
The problem is that the publishers don't care about actual cheating unless it affects their bottom line. From their perspective, you don't lock down the player's PC because of cheaters. You do it to ensure compliance with your demands, and have a get out of jail free card (The DMCA's or Equivalent's anti-circumvention clauses) when the player does something you dislike. The cheaters actually wind up paying quite a bit to the publishers. Mainly because the lack of alternative servers mean
Re: (Score:2)
This can all be traced back to marketing companies doing shitty and underhanded things on the Internet. The tech bros saw the fortunes to be had by doing the same thing. The Internet was supposed to be great and wonderful ... a benefit to mankind. So much for that.