Tuesday, August 5th 2025

No Secure Boot? No Battlefield 6 — EA Faces Backlash

As part of our ongoing commitment to Positive Play in Battlefield, Secure Boot is a requirement to play Battlefield 6 on PC. This supports the need for enhanced security while playing and utilizing new anti-cheat features in Battlefield. As cheat developers continue to evolve their tactics, we're stepping up our game too.

Requiring Secure Boot provides us with features that we can leverage against cheats that attempt to infiltrate during the Windows boot process. It also lets the Battlefield Positive Play team use its own features and related dependent security features like TPM to combat other forms of cheating, the most relevant of which include:
  • Kernel-Level Cheats and Rootkits
  • Memory Manipulation and Injection
  • Spoofing and Hardware ID Manipulation
  • Virtual Machines and Emulation
  • Tampering with Anti-Cheat Systems
Any attempt to access Battlefield 6 without Secure Boot enabled will result in a prompt indicating its necessity.

Secure Boot is available for Windows 11 and Windows 10 devices. For more information on enabling this feature, refer to this EA Help article.

In addition to utilizing Secure Boot to help us, our Anticheat system, EA Javelin Anticheat, is customizable and offers a unique and modified approach for Battlefield and other EA FPS games. Javelin has been built from the ground up by a team of veteran engineers and analysts who were specifically hired to focus on cheating problems for each game under EA's umbrella and design unique features to address those issues. They work alongside our Battlefield Positive Play team to refine the data, insight, and tools necessary to ensure equitable play for all our players across our Battlefield Studios titles.
Source: Electronic Arts
Add your own comment

103 Comments on No Secure Boot? No Battlefield 6 — EA Faces Backlash

#76
FR3D1
Ninja Cat
EasoBut considering the "details" in that thread I very much doubt user's tale.
Perhaps @Besensac can tell us more about this. After all, he's affected by this issue himself.

Click me!

Greetings, Fred.
Posted on Reply
#77
unwind-protect
Not to interrupt the bickering, but...

... what exactly are they doing there that benefits from secure boot? Do they have signed kernel modules that the TPM would stop when tampered with? I don't think that would currently work.
Posted on Reply
#78
ZeDestructor
unwind-protectNot to interrupt the bickering, but...

... what exactly are they doing there that benefits from secure boot? Do they have signed kernel modules that the TPM would stop when tampered with? I don't think that would currently work.
The idea is to prevent users from installing hacks/cheats before the anticheat has a chance to load and detect said hacks/cheats.

TPM has no relation here aside from being a base requirement of Windows11 - it's just a very small block of specialized data storage, afterall.
Posted on Reply
#79
Hecate91
The idea of secure boot sounds nice, but as others have mentioned it isn't stopping cheaters. It must be a real disappointment for anyone who had to find how to enable secure boot then reinstall an OS. No problem for an enthusiast, but a massive pain for any average gamer who may not have the experience.
EA claims to have blocked over 300,000 attempts but they received 60,000 reports from players on the first day of the beta, and another 40,000 reports on the second day. If people are so determined to cheat in the beta, it's only going to get worse when the game launches, and it's unfortunate too since BF6 seemed promising, if only they would have server sided detection and allow for custom server renting.
gamerant.com/battlefield-6-cheaters-blocked-open-beta-javalin/
Posted on Reply
#80
ZeDestructor
Hecate91The idea of secure boot sounds nice, but as others have mentioned it isn't stopping cheaters. It must be a real disappointment for anyone who had to find how to enable secure boot then reinstall an OS. No problem for an enthusiast, but a massive pain for any average gamer who may not have the experience.
EA claims to have blocked over 300,000 attempts but they received 60,000 reports from players on the first day of the beta, and another 40,000 reports on the second day. If people are so determined to cheat in the beta, it's only going to get worse when the game launches, and it's unfortunate too since BF6 seemed promising, if only they would have server sided detection and allow for custom server renting.
gamerant.com/battlefield-6-cheaters-blocked-open-beta-javalin/
You don't need to reinstall the OS to enable secure boot - you just turn it on, and as long as the keys used to sign the OS in question are valid it just boots. In fact, I did just that today so I could have an easier time migrating SSDs on my laptop - turn off SB, boot CachyOS liveUSB, migrate the data, reboot to UEFI to enable SB, then just boot my (automatically!) self-signed linux kernel image.

I do agree that EA has no business doing this level of invasive anticheat, but I don't like it because IMO no gaming company has any business having that depth of system access, not because they're forcing me to turn on SB and TPM (that I already have enabled anyways).
Posted on Reply
#81
unwind-protect
ZeDestructorThe idea is to prevent users from installing hacks/cheats before the anticheat has a chance to load and detect said hacks/cheats.

TPM has no relation here aside from being a base requirement of Windows11 - it's just a very small block of specialized data storage, afterall.
OK, forgetting about TPM - how exactly does secure boot help them here?
Posted on Reply
#82
ZeDestructor
unwind-protectOK, forgetting about TPM - how exactly does secure boot help them here?
In the context of game cheats, it (in theory) prevents you from modifying the kernel to integrate your cheat in it by making sure the kernel still has a valid MS-signed signature on it (in security-land, the objective is to make sure that attackers aren't loading malware-infested kernels in to steal your data or add your computer to a botnet etc).

There are ways to bypass that of course, but the aim of any anticheat is not to completely block all cheating, but rather to block enough of it that it's not a problem - hence the endless attempts to raise the bar for effective cheats.
Posted on Reply
#83
Easo
BesensacEnabling secure boot is fun.
POST stopped at VGA code for some reason.
After connecting the display to the iGPU, I could see that it was not happy about signatures and decided not to send any signal to my discrete GPU for some reason.


And this UEFI from Gigabyte does not help. It is set to English but a lot of descriptions for functions are in Portuguese :roll:
After exploding PSUs and GPUs which are dumping a load in your PC, can't expect much from Gigabyte :roll:
Not sure how it looks on GB motherboards, but usually there is the "Enroll custom certificates" to select which certs it will use, which is the badly named default option as far as I am aware. Maybe that is not chosen?
I am really surprised about translation, though.
Posted on Reply
#84
Besensac
EasoNot sure how it looks on GB motherboards, but usually there is the "Enroll custom certificates" to select which certs it will use, which is the badly named default option as far as I am aware. Maybe that is not chosen?
I am really surprised about translation, though.
Issue fixed after resetting all keys to factory values.
Anyway BF6 is mid and I’ve disabled it again.🤣
Posted on Reply
#85
unwind-protect
ZeDestructorIn the context of game cheats, it (in theory) prevents you from modifying the kernel to integrate your cheat in it by making sure the kernel still has a valid MS-signed signature on it (in security-land, the objective is to make sure that attackers aren't loading malware-infested kernels in to steal your data or add your computer to a botnet etc).
I know those basics. I just don't see how this is effective(-ish) without them having a signed kernel extension of their own that is enforced by secure boot. I don't know whether such a thing would even be possible (assuming Microsoft doesn't sign it for them).
Posted on Reply
#86
irisChronomia
It’d probably be less controversial if they instead give SB/TPM-enabled players a special matchmaking status / their own pool.
That’ll not solve the cheating problem at all but at least the backlash from users that lacked the hardware/skill/will to have them turned on.
Posted on Reply
#87
Ripcord
unwind-protectOK, forgetting about TPM - how exactly does secure boot help them here?
it forces the cheats to run inside the OS rather than outside it. it makes the cheats detectable
Posted on Reply
#88
ZeDestructor
unwind-protectI know those basics. I just don't see how this is effective(-ish) without them having a signed kernel extension of their own that is enforced by secure boot. I don't know whether such a thing would even be possible (assuming Microsoft doesn't sign it for them).
The EA anticheat is a kernel driver that is signed by MS that is loaded into the OS (well, the kernel-mode driver definitely is). In order to be useful, they need a a way to trust that whatever has happened before the driver is loaded is within their range of acceptance - ie: that a cheat has not been loaded before the anticheat has had it's turn. SecureBoot comes into play as one of the components in that chain of trust that goes from the moment you press the power button to when the anticheat driver is loaded - namely, SB enforces that the loaded kernel is a valid, trusted one, hinging on the assumption that cheats will never be MS-signed, and therefore never be loaded by the kernel.
Posted on Reply
#89
chrcoluk
They ship a rootkit with the game, what a weird claim they making to claim to be countering rootkits.

I feel steam needs to display whether a game includes kernel code on its store page.
Posted on Reply
#90
ZeDestructor
chrcolukThey ship a rootkit with the game, what a weird claim they making to claim to be countering rootkits.

I feel steam needs to display whether a game includes kernel code on its store page.
....like the one this game has?

At no point does EA claim to be countering rootkits, MS and Linux vendors who care about security do, and they're not wrong to do either - it's just one layer of defense amongst many.
Posted on Reply
#91
Octopuss
chrcolukThey ship a rootkit with the game, what a weird claim they making to claim to be countering rootkits.

I feel steam needs to display whether a game includes kernel code on its store page.
Do you have any opinions of your own or can you only parrot what you read on the internet?... I mean holy crap, some of the posts here are just out there.
Posted on Reply
#92
ZeDestructor
OctopussDo you have any opinions of your own or can you only parrot what you read on the internet?... I mean holy crap, some of the posts here are just out there.
Honestly, the lack of factual correctness is far more annoying than the parroted opinions, though I will say that the EA anticheat does look a whole lot like a rootkit if you don't have context.
Posted on Reply
#93
chrcoluk
OctopussDo you have any opinions of your own or can you only parrot what you read on the internet?... I mean holy crap, some of the posts here are just out there.
Its an opinion based on what it does, its a kernel level intervention installed without knowledge to many users.

To me thats a root kit.

If it became an optional installation feature of the game, also made clear in the game's details on launchers before installation, I am happy to change my opinion.
Posted on Reply
#94
MCJAxolotl7
081xIt'd be hilarious to mass submit these invasive kernel/hardware level anti-cheats to threat databases and make CVEs for them all lol
Yeah. Not even to remove them, just to warn users of what these really are.
Posted on Reply
#95
ZeDestructor
MCJAxolotl7Yeah. Not even to remove them, just to warn users of what these really are.
I mean, most of the anticheats have plenty of actual legit vulns in em, so no need to spam fake ones.
Posted on Reply
#96
boise49ers
Well then boy's and girls don't buy it and maybe keep it to yourself. No one is gonna make their decision over your complaints. I'm certainly not.

Posted on Reply
#98
GeneralKarl
Secure boot and any other anticheat is a EA server side issue. Period. Failing to support Windows 7 is a EA issue related to TPM and Secure boot. Requiring Steam is an EA issue. It is pretty clear an engineer is running EA and not a Marketing person because the numbers don't add up. All of these things prevent sales. If you made a refrigerator that required new security to run, no one would buy it. If you required it to run on new electricity and not old electricity you would not buy it. If you required the refrigerator to buy a new secure key or you could not use the control panel you would not buy it. A piece of software is exactly the same as any other product. If it does not do what you, the person with the magic money wants they will not buy it. So Case Closed on EA, they are not ready to be in business. Meanwhile, Delta Force, that works on all platforms and has internal security from day one gets my magic money.
Posted on Reply
#99
poliacido
Just give us our servers with our admins... back since BF2 we were joining known servers with active admins and cheaters were never a problem.
Posted on Reply
#100
jaggerwild
mb194dcIsn't a better solution running the key code server side ? Or it's just not better because it will cost more... World of tanks does this I think. Don't want these anti cheats anywhere near my machines as they're a massive security risk.

This would also largely stop people gaining a "hardware advantage" which shouldn't be in the spirit of the game anyway.
They are built into windows 11/10
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 13th, 2026 21:54 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts