I think this post is addressing some of the weaker security arguments against putting anti-cheat software in the kernel. The issue isn't that such software provides no value (obviously it does if developers continue writing anti-cheat kernel drivers despite the backlash). The issue is that software running in the kernel can unintentionally enable vulnerabilities that would be impossible if the software was running in usermode. It doesn't require compromising any supply chains.
> The issue is that software running in the kernel can unintentionally enable vulnerabilities
You're not wrong, but there is some strong irony there regarding Vanguard. When it first launched its driver would block certain other drivers from loading, because those other drivers had known vulnerabilities that cheats (or anything else) could use to escalate from usermode to kernelmode without touching any of the standard entrypoints that are monitored by anticheats.
Would you be surprised to learn that the main response was for gamers to get angry at Vanguard for breaking their RGB keyboard driver, rather than get angry at the manufacturer of their RGB keyboard for shipping a buggy driver with critical security vulnerabilities? And Microsoft ended up adding a very similar driver blacklist to Windows itself later, because it's a good idea.
This is the main issue I have with these. Microsoft should be providing this at the platform level, give developers "Xbox Anti-Cheat" and ship it with Windows.
How much of Xbox anti cheat is "can only run signed code"? Might not be compatible with regular PC use but maybe if we had a gaming mode we could boot into.
No good deed goes unpunished. In the current regulatory environment, that seems like a good way to attract attention from regulators for anti-trust violations.
they have me as breaking their academic dishonesty and facilitating academic dishonesty policies. My website is nothing more than a reading assistant. It can't be used to help students cheat, which is why it shouldn't breach these rules
Irrespective of what your application does for students, the text on the first page refers to turning hours of homework into minutes, which could sound a lot like “does your homework for you.” I have no opinion on the subject not knowing the policies or having evaluated the product though
Your site says it "Turn hours of homework into minutes" and provides "instant responses and insights to all your questions" -- this definitely gives the reasonable impression it can be used to cheat on assignments.
> “offering instant responses and insights to all your questions”
This phrasing sounds a lot like saying it’ll give you answers to your problem set out whatever.
On a slightly different and opinionated note, bite the bullet and stay in school. A lot of people push the “you don’t need school” ideology but considering you’re in a top school and (presumably) studying CS you’ll get a lot of value from just having the degree (whether or not you agree with this practice is besides the point)
Depending on how important this is for you, I'd get an attorney involved and ask the faculty members who are accusing you "HOW are you facilitating academic dishonesty".
It's really easy to accuse someone of something, it's much harder to substantiate it, especially when it's factually not true.
I know attorney's aren't free (nor cheap), that's why I asked how important this is for you, and if it's worth putting your [current] academic pursuits in jeopardy.
"paste the URL of the content you want to analyze" -- Apparently this has been a problem where the content is restricted IP behind a login barrier, the URL contains an auth/login token, and the AI scrapes the restricted content without being authorized to do so. They have the right to get a judge to order you not to do that anymore. If your AI analyzes it and displays a summary, you are producing a derivative work, which is a copyright infringement, which means a judge will order you not to do that anymore.
doesn't that mean the student has to actually breach the policy? it sounds like at the moment that they don't like what he's done, but can't seem to explain exactly what makes it academic crime.
I agree that they should explain and are most likely just dropping the hammer on something they don’t like.
My point is school boards have no requirement to be transparent and generally aren’t something you can appeal or use the actual legal system to help you with. If they decide they want to kick you out, that’s it. They’re intimidating the student and I guess what I’m saying is the student should seriously consider whether or not they want the degree because I don’t think they can fight the academic dishonesty board even if the student is technically right.
I would highly recommend DigitalOcean (https://www.digitalocean.com/) - they started with a simple VPS offering but have expanded over time. I've been using them since 2013 for hosting personal site/small projects and they are highly reliable, communicative about any maintenance requiring downtime and transparent about pricing.
Feel free to check them out. If you want I can send you my referral link.
