Live data from Hacker News

The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

frame.work

451–460 of 476 posts

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The host operating system does not give me more or less confidence in the security of a guest user’s web browsing data.

Then you are either uninformed or willfully ignorant of 1) how operating systems and browsers work and 2) your employer's past actions relating to collecting and storing user data.

I am uninformed as to how running a Google search as a guest user on ChromeOS has different privacy implications that running that same search using another operating system.

Sure, if I carried around a privacy-centric Linux box and told my guest to use Tor browser, I could see how that could change the privacy picture. But that isn’t exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you believe that having the guest user run their search on a typical Linux, Windows, or macOS machine would be better for their privacy, I would be interested to hear how.

Also, if they’re running the search in guest mode and they don’t log into a Google account, nobody can know who’s making the search. It’s not like they’re looking through the webcam or something.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#452
post #86
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there, just wanted to share my experience with you. I've used Macbooks for the past like 6 years for programming, after several jobs in Silicon Valley required it. Apple has been pretty much okay except for some key issues around memory consumption and overheating. After they hit a supply line issue earlier this year, I decided to try getting a Framework instead. Been using my Framework laptop for a month or so n…

Having just bought a Framework to replace my 5-year-old XPS, I really hope I have the same experience as you. Do you run Linux, by the way? I hope Linux support is good.

Got one under Ubuntu 22.04. My only issue is that some transitions are frustratingly slow, much moreso than on my 2014 XPS13:

* Getting out of sleep (deep RAM sleep, not hibernate)

* Handling password/fingerprint authentication once out of sleep

* Wifi rescan frequency

* Occasionally, plugging/unplugging external screens

And I've got no idea why. Once woken up and plugged to whatever I need to use, it's a really good laptop.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#453

I wonder if it will have proper CCD (Case Closed Debugging)[0] support. With CCD, you are pretty much free to mess around with the "BIOS" of the machine, without fear of being put in a bad situation. It also provides a serial terminal to the "AP" (application processor), e.g. available to the OS. In other words, the Cr50 provides a controlled and user-controlled (but not user-owned) sideband channel to debug the syst…

> the Cr50 provides a controlled and user-controlled The Cr50 is as far from user-controlled as you can get. It can MITM your keyboard, reflash your firmware, and obeys only the holder of the private key corresponding to `LOADERKEY_A`: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2433 If the Chromebook is Google's take on laptops, then Cr50 is Google's take on the IME.

Thanks for taking the quote of context. It's not like the sentence as a whole could ever have any more meaning than a snippet of it.

As I clearly stated, what is user-controlled is the sideband channel to debug the system on consumer hardware. The sideband channel under the current implementation of Cr50 is entirely user-controlled. This is a fact, as the end-user of the machine has control over the sideband channel.

I did not state any judgement about the GSC itself and its firmware.

And please don't start spreading FUD around hypotheticals of updates changing that. Yes it is possible. But a lot else and worse is possible under that scenario, so it serves no purpose but to spread FUD. And is still irrelevant to the content of the previous comment.

I am asking you, please do not ever derail what I say with FUD or out-of-context quotes ever again.

Thank you.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you are either uninformed or willfully ignorant of 1) how operating systems and browsers work and 2) your employer's past actions relating to collecting and storing user data.

I am uninformed as to how running a Google search as a guest user on ChromeOS has different privacy implications that running that same search using another operating system. Sure, if I carried around a privacy-centric Linux box and told my guest to use Tor browser, I could see how that could change the privacy picture. But that isn’t exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. If you believe that having the guest user r…

Your scenario is oddly specific -- I didn't say anything about a Google search, or about ensuring that the user doesn't log in. In fact, going to www.google.com in an incognito window pops up a little animated box on the right hand side encouraging me to sign in, so I'd expect there's a good chance that my guest user _would_ sign in if they visit a Google-owned site.

> If you believe that having the guest user run their search on a typical Linux, Windows, or macOS machine would be better for their privacy, I would be interested to hear how.

The main reason is that Google controls the entire environment on a ChromeOS device (kernel, userland, browser), and ChromeOS is closed source so it's not possible for me to easily know what is going on. In addition, Google makes money by collecting data about users, so there is an incentive to collect as much information as they can get away with (and they've shown repeatedly in the past that they do just that). Maybe there's a daemon running in the background shipping URL history off to some Google endpoint in the name of "telemetry", or maybe not. Or maybe it's something more innocuous-sounding like hashed or anonymized data (which could be reconstructed given Google's immense amount of data). But I don't know, and I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to implicitly trust ChromeOS at all given the business model of the company that makes it.

On most Linux distributions, nearly everything is open source and I'm free to audit what's going on. On macOS devices, the software is closed source, but the company's business model does not involve building a dossier on each and every person on the planet, so I trust them more (not fully, but more). In the past I would have said the same about Windows, but lately I'm not so sure and I tend to put them in the same bucket as Google.

edit: Also see my reply to you in a different sub-thread where I explain this in terms of threat models. If you were building a secure OS to protect high-risk individuals like journalists reporting on intelligence leaks, you would be crazy to recommend that the journalists to use an OS built for them by the NSA, MI5, or FSB. Would you feel any better about the recommendation if the government agency said "Don't worry, as long as you use guest mode and don't sign in, we won't collect any data about you"?

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they assume that an LVM PV is encrypted and could contain the block filesystem and swap volumes as LVs. There is already a boot-time process to unlock such an LVM setup. Why should the swap require a separate encryption key? Again, the reason why it's different is the security model for memory is different from the filesystem. This is exactly what I was getting at: the fixed key. Encrypted swap volumes typi…

Maybe we're not talking about the same scenarios/alternatives? If I've set up whole-disk encryption with a security level I trust for my persistent storage, how is that not appropriate for the persisted hibernation state? To me, hibernation state is a subset of persistent storage needs, not some categorically different thing. The coupling between running system and persistent state seems so strong to me that I consid…

> Maybe we're not talking about the same scenarios/alternatives? If I've set up whole-disk encryption with a security level I trust for my persistent storage, how is that not appropriate for the persisted hibernation state? To me, hibernation state is a subset of persistent storage needs, not some categorically different thing. The coupling between running system and persistent state seems so strong to me that I consider them one equivalence class of data and requiring one consistent protection standard.

Yes, we are talking about different scenarios. As I said, you can absolutely set up your swap to use a fixed password and then it will work fine as you describe.

> Are people concerned about the written hibernation state using the same key as the filesystem volumes?

That might be part of the concern, but it's more that it is possible to recover previous memory/swap state with a key that can reasonably be subsequently recovered.

Let's imagine a scenario where I have a secure password, that I enter into my browser, to say, access my bank's website. That's stored in memory by my browser & the GUI, but it is not normally allowed to be put on disk for security reasons. Then I hibernate my laptop and it gets written to the encrypted hibernate volume that uses a fixed password. I restore my laptop and go about my business. I might even reboot the laptop several time subsequently without thinking much about it. Then, someone finds a way to compromise the password used for swap encryption using any number of possible attacks (some you described). Now, not only do they have access to all the stuff on my computer, but they also have access to the contents of the encrypted swap volume, which unless I was lucky and the particular swap page was overwritten, the compromise goes back to the memory of the runtime from long before the machine was compromised. This would include this password that was very intentionally NOT stored on that computer, in order to avert precisely this kind of threat.

> If so, I would suggest that the swap crypto should not be conflated with the hibernation crypto.

That's another possible avenue, not that unlike what I was suggesting. It's worth noting though that these days there may not be much value in having separate passwords for swap vs. hibernate, since swap is rarely used on laptops.

They are all different security trade-offs, and it is debatable which is the right one. I don't think the current default is the right one for most users, but I do understand it.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your concerns, the user experience and security of ChromeOS is so much nicer than Windows, or Linux (haven't used a Mac for ages so can't compare), for most tasks for most people. It's what I'd recommend to my grandparents. Also, completely disagree with your point about locking people into Google ecosystem - this is an OS that just runs a web browser. You need a Google account to log in, sure (actually…

It is possible to create customised UNIX-like OS with custom kernels, read-only filesystems (mounted images) and writable directories mounted as tmpfs, booting from removable USB. Some call this "diskless". There are some drawbacks from using USB media such as lack of a good randomness source on boot but there are many advantages. Kernels and filesystems are just single files on the USB media and can be easily switch…

Revised comment:

It is possible to create customised UNIX-like OS with custom kernels, read-only filesystems (mounted images), writable directories mounted as tmpfs, and encrypted disks, booting from removable USB. Some call this "diskless". There are some drawbacks from using USB media such as lack of a good randomness source on boot but there are many advantages. Kernels and filesystems are just single files on the USB media and can be easily switched/updated. The system stays "clean". It is "like new" on every reboot. I was doing this with a netbook long before the so-called "Chromebook" came along.

The problem with Chromebooks is that they are designed to try to get people to "log in" to Google, to use Google-controlled websites, to use online software controlled by Google and to use online storage managed by Google rather than local storage managed by the computer user. The later may be more convenient but it also poses higher risk for computer users while at the same conferring commercial value to Google. The company wants computer users to use its websites and software in lieu of offline storage and offline software.

Chromebooks in Guest Mode have an array of Google-authored daemons running the the background from read-only media. There is no way to control or disable them. You cannot even change the options passed to Chrome, e.g., to disable "Origin Trials". With these Google programs always running in the background, it means you do not have ultimate control over the computer, Google does.

Another annoying thing is that ChromeOS, as well as Chrome, is a work in progress. It is constantly changing and the computer user is treated as a beta tester. For example, something like Bluetooth may be working fine and then suddenly there is an "automatic update" that breaks it. Then the computer user must wait for Google to fix it. There is no way to go back to the previous working version while waiting for the fix.

One has to consider the "security" implications of an OS that steers people to use Chrome, online storage and genrally to remain online as much as possible. Google programs are constantly running on Chromebooks and probing for internet access. As such, ChromeOS is an OS that encourages risk-taking, i.e., giving more data to Google, including storing more user data online. Chromebooks are not designed to be offline by default. ChromeOS forces users to run Chrome. Google is always trying to collect more data about computer users.

I always make diskless systems to be offline by default. I use offline storage. There is no phoning home for "updates" to an advertising company. I decide when and if I want to "update" the kernel or userland.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/22/chromebook-exploi...

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A true laptop-appliance with an immutable-ish OS, decent security and fast/easy updates is actually a quite compelling notion. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with it not being local-first for user data though. Fedora Silverblue may suit your needs.

I was thinking more for the sort of non-technical users a Chromebook would suit, which at a minimum means pre-installed with little or no admin needed. Chromebooks are a great idea, it's just a pity they're so deeply intertwined with Google services (though given way the consumer market has developed, some such corporate entanglement is I suppose inevitable).

Ah, yeah. I don't think anyone sells laptops with Silverblue pre-installed, so that would be a hurdle. After that though, IMO Silverblue fits the bill very well, and may surprise you with how polished its update/upgrade flow is, especially compared to Debian-family distros.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your concerns, the user experience and security of ChromeOS is so much nicer than Windows, or Linux (haven't used a Mac for ages so can't compare), for most tasks for most people. It's what I'd recommend to my grandparents. Also, completely disagree with your point about locking people into Google ecosystem - this is an OS that just runs a web browser. You need a Google account to log in, sure (actually…

You disagree about the lock-in with Google and then go on to acknowledge that one would need a Google account to login? I’m struggling to understand your logic. I would love a streamlined Linux desktop that is as technically sound as what ChromeOS does - isolations, integral updates etc. The fact that it comes with a forced leaky pipe to Google mothership to feed their ad monster is a non-starter. We at HN should sto…

To be fair, requiring a Google Account alone isn't lock-in; lock-in would be if the OS forces you to use Google cloud services for a bunch of essential tasks, which could then make it hard to migrate to another platform.

I'll admit that I don't know for a fact that it does require this, but I just kinda assumed it might. IIRC you can run Android apps on ChromeOS, and if you buy apps from the Play store, then you're stuck with ChromeOS if you want to continue to run them. Otherwise you lose that money you paid.

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite the same as "guest mode" on ChromeOS, but I make user accounts (no sudo) for non-technical family members and let them use my machines unsupervised. What are you worried about here? Should I be worried?

It depends on how much you trust your family members and whether you worry about non-root malware. Looking at my Linux machine, I notice that the default permission for home directories is 755. If I don’t think to tweak that, then I’m potentially exposing a lot of sensitive data to other users (and potentially the programs they run). I’m a proficient Linux user but not an expert, and I’m racking my brains to think of…

> Looking at my Linux machine, I notice that the default permission for home directories is 755.

Whoa, what? I'm running Debian, and it's 700 for me. What distro are you running? This seems like a bad choice by the distro maintainers...

Re: The Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition

#460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your concerns, the user experience and security of ChromeOS is so much nicer than Windows, or Linux (haven't used a Mac for ages so can't compare), for most tasks for most people. It's what I'd recommend to my grandparents. Also, completely disagree with your point about locking people into Google ecosystem - this is an OS that just runs a web browser. You need a Google account to log in, sure (actually…

I'm a fan of Linux and a fan of ChromeOS. but are the user experience and security better on ChromeOS than Linux? It's a bit simpler than linux but I'd say Linux is a close second.

I expect that the user experience and security are better on ChromeOS. But that depends on who you're trying to secure against. I'm not particularly worried about state-level actors or even garden-variety malware. But I am worried about surveillance capitalism, and that's what Google has built its business around. So I would not trust ChromeOS to be secure against Google.

(Having said that, I still haven't been able to completely wean myself off Google services, so Google already has plenty of data on me, and gathers more every day.)

Post reply on HN