Valorant enforces TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot on Windows 11 PCs

[HEXUS]

Riot Vanguard anti-cheat system requires these features to play this F2P multiplayer hero shooter.

Read more.

[Tabbykatze]

I poopooed a lot of people about the usage of TPM 2.0 and its need on Windows 11. It's a useful security aspect, it would be silly to use it fundamentally control how you use your software.

I stand, genuinely and entirely, corrected. It was not naivety that made me think it silly to use a security hardware tool to mandate how you use your software, that would be a gross overextension of the infection of a game into kernel level control. But here we are.

Enough checks can be done without the need of TPM and this also fundamentally runs the risk of you buying a computer/laptop off someone and find you can't play Valorant because the previous user was banned.

[Gentle Viking]

This game look to have so much BS it it that i would not even try it even if it is free, i am pretty sure my good mood would take a severe hit.

[kalniel]

Enough checks can be done without the need of TPM and this also fundamentally runs the risk of you buying a computer/laptop off someone and find you can't play Valorant because the previous user was banned.

Surely TPM is about securing your own credentials, not using someone else's (even if they had been using the machine as well)?

[LSG501]

Kernel level access (with some rather poor pr comments from riot) and forced tpm etc.... way to kill your game riot lol, not to mention the fact it could completely screw over a pc install if something is dodgy.

I'm all for stopping cheating affecting my experience of a game but this is not the way to go about it imo. Yes there are some benefits to 'permanently banning' users but false positives do happen.

As someone who uses their pc's mainly for work and the odd game, I don't want things tapping into kernel level OS 'features' where they have the potential to screw over the OS and essentially cost me time and money.


Who knew TPM would be used in such a way that is bad for the users.... clearly companies have forgotten that WE own our pc's not them.

[Tabbykatze]

Surely TPM is about securing your own credentials, not using someone else's (even if they had been using the machine as well)?

It can be used to infer a hardware identity that can persist through reinstallations. I presume this is the case because they would be able to account for a TPM reset occurring.

[spacein_vader]

I've never played Valorant as its DRM runs on boot and sits in your systray "monitoring" all the time. I don't trust Riot enough (or anyone else,) enough for that.

[excalibur1814]

.... clearly companies have forgotten that WE own our pc's not them.

You might own the pc, but you don't own the software.

[LSG501]

You might own the pc, but you don't own the software.

True, if you take notice of the eula (which iirc the EU courts rejected). But when said software starts affecting the things you do own in a negative way (and kernel access is in a negative way) then they've clearly overstepped their boundaries.

[DanceswithUnix]

I've never played Valorant as its DRM runs on boot and sits in your systray "monitoring" all the time. I don't trust Riot enough (or anyone else,) enough for that.

So if Microsoft created a secure boot platform that made such tricks no longer necessary, would that be a good thing for you?

[kalniel]

It can be used to infer a hardware identity that can persist through reinstallations. I presume this is the case because they would be able to account for a TPM reset occurring.

True, I guess the root of this problem is banning on hardware identity, rather than user. Seems like that's always a problem for other users of said hardware, TPM or not.

[Tabbykatze]

True, I guess the root of this problem is banning on hardware identity, rather than user. Seems like that's always a problem for other users of said hardware, TPM or not.

The issue you then have is how to prove you're no longer the person with that hardware. I get why they at least want secure boot and if that's all they left it as, I'd probably go "well that's nefarious, they already have ring 0 access anyway" but ultimately let it slide as it means bootup process for windows would not be interfered with meaning the likelihood of an at bootup memory management/read and injection is limited dramatically. But the fact they said they'll take a substantial step further is out of line.

[kalniel]

The issue you then have is how to prove you're no longer the person with that hardware.

Well that's always a problem if using hardware ID at all, but also a problem if you were using TPM to store some kind of user token as well I guess, though I'd hope there was decent enough local control to validate access to that token. But banks etc. have solved that problem so I don't get why games developers feel they need to reinvent the user auth solution.

[Tabbykatze]

Well that's always a problem if using hardware ID at all, but also a problem if you were using TPM to store some kind of user token as well I guess, though I'd hope there was decent enough local control to validate access to that token. But banks etc. have solved that problem so I don't get why games developers feel they need to reinvent the user auth solution.

I doubt they're placing token information on the TPM, rather they're reading the cryptographic identity from the TPM in a generalistic basis through the Windows API. Supposedly then, it would be as simple as reinstalling but the hardware identity is still the same, kinda similar to how Windows does its licensing checks through a hash of your hardware. Again, why they need the TPM to do that is beyond me...

[mers]

Is there a place in Redmond where the sun don't shine ? Cause thats where they can shove Win 11 as far as I'm concerened. I bought the hardware and built my PC's and will load what I want and do what I want with it without interference from big brother M.S. Windows is supposed to be an opperating system not a damn ruling body.

[spacein_vader]

So if Microsoft created a secure boot platform that made such tricks no longer necessary, would that be a good thing for you?

I'm not sure I'm technical enough that I understand what that means so can't really answer. I do know I turn Secure Boot off in the BIOS as it used to (haven't checked for some years if it still does,) interfere with dual booting into Linux.