Only because desktop Linux will be behind on security.
Macs already got this ability in 2023 which allowed for a user mode anticheat for Riot Games to be made that successfully prevented cheating. Now Windows is getting attestation that is the game running on a secure system.
If desktop Linux ever gets around to this then a anticheats can add support for it and it will be much easier then them needing to make a kernel anticheat for a platform that few people use.
Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation, and a freedom violation if there's no way for me to spoof what I'm running on my device and they block me based on that.
>that's my right.
It's common for states to make fraud unlawful due to being an antisocial behavior. I similarly believe that lying about your the integrity of an app running is similarly antisocial behavior.
>Allowing third parties to measure it is a security violation
How does it break your security model?
>a freedom violation
It turns out that such freedom when given to bad actors turns into the freedom for them to ruin games by cheating. People still have the freedom to do whatever they want on their own computer, but they just can't hack a game and then fraudulently claim they aren't using hacks.
Now, your issue is extended for instance when people are locked out of their banking apps for running modified systems, and I'm much more sympathetic to you there. But just because a technology can cause bad things in one circumstance, doesn't mean its bad in all circumstances. It's up to society to say, its good to use this here, but bad to use it there. If one believes that society can't do that well, then all technology should be considered problematic.
I don’t really understand what that means. Are you, or anyone, expecting a signed Linux kernel by some organization (say Valve or Debian or whatever) that will be the “Gaming Kernel”? If not, no Linux kernel feature is safe from 1 patch and a custom build.
If you were around in the late 2000s when UEFI SecureBoot was being proposed, you’d remember the massive hysteria about how “SecureBoot is a MS plot to block Linux install”. Even though the proposal was to just allow the UEFI to verify the sig of the binary it’ll boot, and to allow the user to provide the UEFI with the keys to trust, the massive fear was that MB manufacturers will just be too lazy (or be bought by MS) that they will only allow MS keys, or that the process to enlist a new key would be too difficult to sufficiently discourage people from installing Linux (because you know, I’m all for the freedom and fuck-Microsoft camp, until its expected that I verify a signature) so Microsoft offered a service for CA service, like https CAs, but for boot signing.
Assuming you’re a good Linux user, you can always just put your favorite distro signing key in your UEFI without accepting MS CA n there.
Signing your own custom-built kernel (if you need to adjust flags etc., like I do) won't result in a certification chain that will pass the kind of attestation being sketched out by the OP article here.
It’s why I hate the term “self-signed” vs “signed” when it comes to tls/https. I always try to explain to junior developers that there is no such a thing as “self-signed”. A “self-signed” certificate isn’t less secure than a “signed” certificate. You are always choosing who you want to trust when it comes to encryption. Out of convenience, you delegate that to the vendor of your OS or browser, but it’s always a choice. But in practice, it’s a very different equation.
It was inevitable when this even started.
I agree with your sentiment though. It's a wild future we're considering, just so some people can play video games and complain less about supposed cheaters (or often, skill issues, but I digress).
However, I believe part of the huge positive sentiment about “Linux gaming” online is that, so far, it’s been truly “Linux gaming”. Once it becomes “Valve’s Gaming” it’s really no different than PS5 or Switch using Linux for its base OS but it’s really Sony or Nintendo’s device.