CircleSpokes

I think that would make sense yes. It isn't clear to me why they would distribute the private keys to the OEMs (laziness?).

Intel gave it to MSI, but I may have been incorrect before. Apparently the keys was shared across multiple OEMs (at least that is how I read this below)

>The leaked private keys affect Intel’s 11th, 12th, and 13th generation processors and were distributed to various OEMs, including Intel itself, Lenovo, and Supermicro.

I can't take people like you seriously. The anticheat isn't a backdoor. It doesn't ship with the operating system or come preinstalled in anyway. You opt into it when you play the game. Literally nothing is forcing you to use it or have it installed on your computer.

I understand this is the internet and being super dramatic is part of it but can we please be for real for one moment?

>People don’t care about the anticheat on their computer, they want it foisted on everyone else who plays, which is a sucky proposition for privacy and security minded people.

No they want games without hackers. Which kernel based anticheats helps with. Can it also impact privacy and security? Yes no doubt but so can any program running on the computer even in userspace. Remember we are talking about kernel anticheats on windows lol.

If you are really worried about it you could dual boot like many people. Either way this whole argument seems silly to me.

I don't think its absurd at all. It isn't required in anyway (opt in), lets you use your own keys (no preinstalled microsoft or other bigcorp keys), and isn't possible for someone to modify what keys you installed.

Of course if you lose your keys you can't sign anything else and that would make it basically ewaste, but most things end up as waste when you take actions that are reckless and can't be reversed (which is what losing the keys would be). Plus tech tends to ends up as ewaste after less than a decade anyways. Like sure you could still be using an AMD steamroller CPU but realistically after 10 years you'd be better off using a cheaper more power efficient chip anyways.

You are correct. Secure boot is not required to play valorant on windows 10.

Anyone saying secureboot "brings absolutely nothing" clearly doesn't understand how secure boot works (or is just arguing in bad faith). Secure boot has issues (see key revocation issue & vulnerable UEFI program used by malware to install bootkit) but it does address a real security issue.

People might not like who holds the commonly preinstalled keys (Microsoft and motherboard OEMs) but even then you can add your own keys and sign your own images if you want (there was just a post yesterday about doing this for raspberry pis),

I honestly don't understand why people act like this. Wanting to be able to ensure firmware isn't maliciously modified is a good thing. Open firmware is also a good idea obviously but there has to be a way to ensure firmware is signed either by OEM or your own keys like secure boot.

As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat. If you don't like that you don't have to play those games but no need to act like the way you are because other people want decent anticheat.

The keys are OEM specific. Intel gives them to MSI so they can sign their firmware/BIOS updates. Clearly MSI didn't handle them well.

Except you can use your own keys? Nothing stops you from signing the stuff yourself (other comments in this thread link to a step by step guide!)

Not only do they hide it under a group policy even when you enable an "Enhanced PIN" there is a maximum length of 20.

IIRC it has more to do with that series of chip not having GMET (AMD Guest-Mode Execute Trap for NPT) which is used in Windows 10/11s virtualization based protection. Microsoft requires this option for all new PCs from their partners but you can install windows 11 and run it fine without this CPU feature (there is a performance hit if you leave virtualization based protection on though since it has to be done in software).