Some Linux Gamers Using Wine/DXVK To Play Blizzard's Overwatch Banned - Updated

[Michael]

At least 5 banned reports now.

[starshipeleven]

It's entirely plausible that anti-cheat engines detect that dxvk is not exactly the same as proper dx library.

[Noremacam]

replacing directx libraries can obviously be used for cheating, like seeing through walls. The DXVK developer knew as much and wrote a warning on the page. So how can you allow the compatibility layer and not allow cheating? One answer would be for the DXVK developer to exclusively digitally sign its builds, and then allow 3rd party apps to check that signature. This would allow you to use DXVK while at the same time preventing hacked directx libraries.

Obviously this solution isn't without its flaws, but preventing cheating is still very important.

[Britoid]

It's entirely plausible that anti-cheat engines detect that dxvk is not exactly the same as proper dx library.

Possible. The game has to load the library, a bad DX library could enable things such as wireframe etc.

The bans if invalid will get reversed, Blizzard whilst doesn't support Linux has no issue with Wine and has accidentally banned people using it before, myself included years ago. Their Warden anti-cheat changes its behaviour if Wine is detected, which can't be said for a lot of other anti-cheats that just refuse to fun.

WoW just dropped it's OpenGL renderer, so a native Linux port is most likely not on the horizon anytime soon, but WoW has always run extremely well under Wine.

This thread is all over the place, you can clearly see the upset/extreme, the theoretical/bias, and the skeptical/normal. What happened to proof and that without proof the person cannot be a liar. Every person here that plays a game and get banned know that a simple picture is good enough but thinking a little further it can be manipulated.

But come on people, even DXVK readme file mention "use at your own risk":

Online multi-player games

Manipulation of Direct3D libraries in multi-player games may be considered cheating and can get your account banned. This may also apply to single-player games with an embedded or dedicated multiplayer portion. Use at your own risk.

Source: https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/blob/master/README.md

Blizzard have said many times using Wine won't get you banned and when it has they have reversed said bans.

[mulenmar]

These "Punkbuster/Warden/etc" anti-cheat programs are all unavoidably spyware. In order to detect cheats they have to read and report back things like RAM contents. Because of this it is unsafe to permit such software or any games that use it to coexist on the same machine as your emails or anything else you consider to be private. Supposedly some games have servers both with and without these antifeatures and others only with. If you either play the latter or need the anti-cheat managed servers with the former, you should strongly consider using separate hardware or at least separately bootable / and /home partitions for just the games involved.

Once the game and its anti-cheat program have been declared unsafe to run on your otherwise secure Linux box, the need to be able to run them under WINE is reduced. The worst thing about Windows 10 is that it phones home. The worst thing about the anti-cheat scanners is that they phone home. I won't run either one, and this kind of shit makes me glad I have never once bought a closed, proprietary game.

Anti-cheat measures are vital in ANY multiplayer system, be it games or society, otherwise the cheaters ruin the game for everyone else.

That said, this is a misguided method of handling things. Instead of banning cheaters, they should get shunted off to a seperate server with the other cheaters. Keep an eye on what the most popular sets of cheats are and how they affect gameplay, then smooth off the edges and release it as a new game mode for $29.99 DLC.

But yes, do pick up a Steambox or build your own as a seperate gaming machine from anything sensitive -- especially given how many are linked to libraries old enough to make a runner of Debian Oldstable a big smile.

[dibal]

@Michael: Are you planing some tests, e.g. native Windows vs. DXVK?

[pal666]

people who pay linux-hostile companies deserve that

[Luke]

Anti-cheat measures are vital in ANY multiplayer system, be it games or society, otherwise the cheaters ruin the game for everyone else.

That said, this is a misguided method of handling things. Instead of banning cheaters, they should get shunted off to a seperate server with the other cheaters. Keep an eye on what the most popular sets of cheats are and how they affect gameplay, then smooth off the edges and release it as a new game mode for $29.99 DLC.

But yes, do pick up a Steambox or build your own as a seperate gaming machine from anything sensitive -- especially given how many are linked to libraries old enough to make a runner of Debian Oldstable a big smile.

You not only have to allow for anti-cheat systems, but for the anticheat systems being hacked. This goes double when you are facing state-level opponents, the case I am most familiar with. Putting other people's safety at risk by using the same box for Steam and sensitive communications in opposition to the government of the day is reckless endangerment.

Consider a police raid that captures an encrypted computer known to have been used by an anti-regime organizer. A subpeona for the passphrase is defied or quashed by a judge, doesn't matter which. Now consider what would have happened it if that machine's owner regularly played Steam games while logged into email and the websites managed from that computer, this happened this happened while valve was logging DNS cache hashes, and the FBI knowing this had gotten a backdoor into Steam. By creating a short rainbow table of just the relevent website hashes it would have been easy to reverse those particular hashes and prove that whatever computer had been accessing Steam also at least accessed those websites. Timestamps of those accesses might be able to prove management, even if over Tor(similar to a confirmation attack). Also it might be possible to serve a hacked version of VAC that sends unhashed data to a different address-or anything else.

If the roles were reversed and I was the FBI investigating the neo-Nazi's who tore the town of Charlottesville apart, I would probably try to insert a standard FBI CIPAV (Computer Internet Protocal Address Verifier) spyware package into a modified VAC module (or hacked Itunes update as has been done before, etc). Also I absolutely agree that any and all closed source updates served to a known destination pose exactly the same risk unless the update system uses package signatures that have not been broken AND the controllers of that update system have not shared their keys with law enforcement nor had them stolen. This is why I compile my own kernels and cryptsetup: it takes real guts and lots of underhanded programming skill to tamper with source code going to known hackers.

[pal666]

you should strongly consider using separate hardware or at least separately bootable / and /home partitions for just the games involved.

separate user is enough. or just flatpack

[pal666]

Yes, because they cheated, read some games disclaimers. I was once banned from a game because my mouse can record a down move and compensate 90% for recoil. A friend banned because he stitched a red dot in the center of his screen to compensate for the close range of the sniper.

what game disclaims bans for stitched red dots?