I emailed irdeto regarding concerns about Denuvo anti-cheat and they replied

This is my original email to them: https://imgur.com/a/uyDTa21

Below is a copy and paste of what I pasted on the T3 discord regarding their reply. I've had at least one comment deleted from the discord so I'll be sharing here as well.

I thought I had finished engaging on this topic, but to my considerable surprise, irdeto replied to the email I sent them outlining the concerns I have with their anti-cheat. The fact that I got a response at all is a bit encouraging. The responses are…. vague in most cases, but probably necessarily so. But they are more than I expected and a good faith response to my concerns. Unfortunately I'm on the road at the moment, and cannot post my original email or the response, but as soon as I can (likely tomorrow morning) I'll post what I asked. Before I post the response, I'd like to explicitly get permission from the individual who replied that I can publicly post it, so that is a bit reliant on how quickly they respond.

Generally speaking, though, one thing that did stand out, is that it is a lot more flexible than I thought it would be. Which is great to know, but it leaves the specific answers to some questions to Prophecy and what they decide to enable and share. Given that they haven't replied to Higgins' thread about Linux is not encouraging.

This doesn't get around the fact that it is still a kernel level product, which I still have reservations about. And it's disappointing that Prophecy made no response to the same questions when asked here. For me, the kernel mode issues still exist but now it's more about the EULA terms and how Prophecy has engaged with the topic. Locking the 29-feb feedback thread was wholly unnecessary, especially considering the 22-feb thread is not locked. The 29th thread was dying anyway.