> you can’t expect every game studio to have the expertise to write secure, reliable kernel drivers.

If someone wants to sell something that comes with a driver, the driver needs a modicum of care applied to it. This is of course also on Microsoft for signing these things, although that ship sailed ages ago.

Yes, I wouldn't expect every studio to need their own team - game studios can buy anti-cheat middleware, and the middleware can compete on not being total junk (which is how the industry already works, with a side helping of these more obscure awful drivers and a few big studios with their own).

> If Microsoft wants Windows to be more stable and secure, they should provide built-in anti-cheat support in the OS.

I guess they could have users approve a set of signed applications that would get some "authenticated" way to read address space and have an attestation stapled to it? It's actually kind of an interesting idea. The hardest part here would be that each anti-cheat tries to differentiate with some Weird Trick or another, so homogenizing the process probably isn't appealing to game developers really.

Anti-cheat could go the opposite direction, with basically a "fast reboot" into an attested single process VM sandbox, but this has issues with streaming/overlays and task switching which are a bit thorny. I've always thought that this might be the way to go, though - instead of trying to use all kinds of goofy heuristics and scanning to determine whether the game's address space has been tampered with or there's a certain PCIe driver indicating a malicious DMA device or whatever, just run the game in a separate hypervisor partition with a stripped down kernel+OS, IOMMU-protected memory, and no ability to load any other user code, like a game console lite.