In related news - ever wondered why Windows 11 can't be installed on "older computers"? You know, the ones that don't have a TPM chip? Now you know. Windows 11 completes the lock-up of the OS. That's why Windows 11 exists in the first place. All other changes are secondary. Microsoft knows they would've not been able to pull shit like this as a Windows 10 update, so they were effectively forced to do a version increa…
Call me paranoid, but I am completely certain that TPM has a backdoor disguised as a very sophisticated bug for plausible deniability. I'll never trust BitLocker or anything that relies on TPM to encrypt any data I actually care about not being compromised (read: my very personal data, not work data).
Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
311–320 of 543 posts
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is doing its absolute best to move everyone to the Windows store by packaging the new apps everyone should be making into weird formats such as appx and msix which can't or previously couldn't be easily installed without command line funkiness. Luckily, Microsofts own incompetence is preventing this plan from working. There's another part to the exclusion of old hardware, which is that modern chips are a lo…
TPM, at least older version So it was/is recommended to use a pin/key and/or recovery key to ensure the security of the data. Unless your only threat model was to protect against common thievery and assume the attack had no technical prowess (and that’s perfectly fine, I do this for my company). Not to mention they were kinda used as a warranty canary for Truecrypt [2]. There were suspicions that nation states may ha…
Bitlocker is still vulnerable to key exfiltration attacks because it's not using any encrypted communication protocols that exist in the TPM standard, but that can be (and should be!) fixed.
In the end, I use encryption to make sure nobody can just plug in a flash drive and copy all my personal files and passwords off my laptop. If they have the time and tools to exfiltrate the security key through the SPI bus, they probably have the means to install a hardware key logger in my keyboard as well. The attacks against TPMs are out of scope for my threat model and honestly they probably should be for anyone but businesses carrying secrets as well.
If the United States or China wanted my passwords that badly, they'd probably just drug me or hit me until I hand them over. Defending against such adversaries requires more than just encryption, you'd need to use something like Qubes and alter your entire lifestyle to be secure.
What I want is to have a Linux system where I can turn it on without a password and have a good reason to believe that my files weren't compromises by the maid and that the OS didn't get keylogged. That requires several parts working together.
Getting secure boot to work is easy enough these days, but once you get through secure boot you're in for a challenge. I don't know of any stable bootloaders that don't allow you to edit the init binary to /bin/bash to give you a root shell from the menu, which is a requirement for the ease of use Windows provides. I also don't know if it's even possible to get a chain of trust from initramfs back to the hardware like Windows allows for. The *BSDs seem to be doing some kind of checksumming, but I don't know how far Linux is along with this.
In my ideal world, you get prompted on how to encrypt your Linux system upon install. "Disabled", "Automatic" or "Secure", with a note that "secure" is probably what you want if you can't pick but you have to provide a password at boot. I'd also like for popular distros to switch to full disk encryption because the unencrypted boot partition defeats half the point without secure boot and custom keys (which nobody actually uses).
Microsoft proves that this can be done, although their default allows for booting without a password a bit too easy. If you buy Windows with a Pro key, they'll encrypt your system in place with the click of a button. Everyone can set it up, and in many cases it's even the default. This is a basic usability security feature that Linux just can't compete with, and in my opinion that's a shame.
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fight is not about which programs the user can run, but who controls the user data But the user data is mostly in the cloud, owned by Apple, MS, Google, Amazon, Facebook. In the future we will be lucky to have apps that work offline with local data.
"In the future we will be lucky to have apps that work offline with local data. " Are you from the past? This here is 2021. And right here, the expensive, professional apps still lets you grudgingly do it, but small/casual apps that work really offline? That became rare. Usually it is mainly server and some local cache, you better take care of, if you are in an area with bad connection. But more and more of my peers…
I do not have single small/casual app I paid for or free ones that does not work with offline data.
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is doing its absolute best to move everyone to the Windows store by packaging the new apps everyone should be making into weird formats such as appx and msix which can't or previously couldn't be easily installed without command line funkiness. Luckily, Microsofts own incompetence is preventing this plan from working. There's another part to the exclusion of old hardware, which is that modern chips are a lo…
> modern chips are a lot more reselient against crashes sorry for a basic question, but im not sure how a chip itself is more resistant to a crash (in os? user space?)...
I think it has something to do with the modern instruction sets being kinder to the kernel and the fact that on computers with recent processors certain processor features are enabled in the UEFI config by default more often, but I couldn't tell you which features that would be. My hunch is that I has to to with stuff like virtualisation based security and the like?
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give an example harm caused by the TPM / disk encryption feature in the consumer space: A recently-deceased friend's wife contacted me about getting personal data off from her late husband's computers. I ended up being able to get nothing for her. My friend, no doubt influenced by dementia and paranoia he was feeling, changed the passwords, made no note of them, and subsequently died. The computers in question run…
I'm sorry for your loss, but did your friend not have a right to privacy just because he had dementia? Should we be building dementia backdoors into all our platforms' encryption systems? What about cases where people are estranged from their spouses?
Bitlocker is, apparently, enabled-by-default on consumer machines that, I'd argue, don't suffer from a threat model that necessitate its use.
There is a huge problem with technical and legal constructs associated with the rights to accounts and data after death. I don't have the answers for everybody. I've done what I can for myself and my immediate family.
The "I've lost my mind and undermine efforts I made, while still in my right mind, for successors-in-right to access my data" is one that I'm not sure how to defend against, and one that scares the willies out of me. I can document my last wishes but if I, in a fit or paranoia, change keys / passwords / remove recovery mechanisms, then those last wishes might be irrelevant.
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does a TPM chip actually bring any relevant security advantages for end users, or is it just for DRM?
It brings enormous security benefits to end users. TPMs drastically reduce entropy/complexity requirements for things like passwords/pins since the TPM can rate limit guess attempts. Doing that without a TPM is impossible since an attacker can always read the encrypted password off of the drive/directly from memory and then brute force it.
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
What popular end-user software cannot be installed and run with a mouse in e.g. Ubuntu?
Not long ago I upgraded an Ubuntu system to 21.04. It took me more than half an hour of looking around to realise that the "Ubuntu Software" screen everyone was referring to was a separate application that wasn't installed by default . Then I could look up the CLI command to install it via apt. That sort of thing would be a small (though very irritating) waste of time for many of us on HN but it could have been a sho…
> Ubuntu Software Center is a one-stop shop for installing and removing software on your computer.
> It is included in Ubuntu 9.10 and later.
> - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuSoftwareCenterRe: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give an example harm caused by the TPM / disk encryption feature in the consumer space: A recently-deceased friend's wife contacted me about getting personal data off from her late husband's computers. I ended up being able to get nothing for her. My friend, no doubt influenced by dementia and paranoia he was feeling, changed the passwords, made no note of them, and subsequently died. The computers in question run…
Did he enable a boot pin or are the drives just encrypted?
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: how do those apps know your phone is rooted, and can you still use their websites for equivalent functionality?
Google provides attestation and it's a constant cat-and-mouse game that the rooters are usually losing. Websites can't tell, but lots of companies don't provide equivalent functionality via website. I know I can't upload check images for remote deposit unless I use the native banking app.
What irked me is sometime app developers are abusing it without asking themself "Does this app really need to check for rooted phones at all?"
I'm okay if banks apps are using that. But why does fast foods apps need to use that? Most people that I know are paying with cash when they order foods online (and you can't hack paper money with rooted android phones).
[1] https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation
Re: Microsoft no longer signs Windows drivers for Process Hacker
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will personally pay you twenty thousand US dollars (in the cryptocurrency of your choice, bank transfer, western union, whatever) if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Microsoft has ever secretly shipped a backdoor in their OS so government agencies could spy on their users. Perhaps you will be the first person to actually prove the existence of the NSAKEY backdoor? (I doubt it.)
Is that $20,000 just for proof or also showing the method?
AFAICT it doesn’t, you can’t hit those code paths unless you already have access to the machine.
(This is a pretty unfair example though, _NSAKEY is the “Bush did 9/11” of backdoors.)