Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 486 posts

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#381

Post by raxxorraxor »

jeroenhd wrote: post #200
mozball wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iirc remote attestation is reliant on hardware attestation, which means these websites will only run on authorized DRM-enforcing hardware and architectures. Only Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the like. No open-source firmwares, architectures or hardware.

What attestation the website accepts entirely depends on the configuration. There's nothing in the spec that will prevent attestations for Linux computers. Linux already works perfectly fine with secure boot and such, I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. It'll kill open platforms like the rare open source RISC-V implementations, but for…

This is exactly why people criticized secure boot. To not allow such system to establish themselves is the best defense. True for secure boot as well. Security is not the argument anymore, it is market domination.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#382

Post by aldanor »

suyash wrote: post #206
nfriedly wrote: post #57

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…

If you're using Apple products, your first preference should be Safari. I use that all the time, it's faster, leaner and syncs tabs/history/bookmarks greatly between different Apple devices.

On desktop macs, there's strong reasons to use Firefox for many power users

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#383

Post by Terretta »

hospitalJail wrote: post #247
suyash wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're using Apple products, your first preference should be Safari. I use that all the time, it's faster, leaner and syncs tabs/history/bookmarks greatly between different Apple devices.

Why not Firefox?

A few reasons:

1. Native integration across devices: Safari integrates seamlessly with Apple's ecosystem due to proprietary features like iCloud, Handoff, and universal clipboard, allowing for a consistent user experience across all Apple devices, with seamless transition among them to stay in your flow across devices.

2. iCloud Private Relay: This is a recent security tool from Apple and participating CDNs that encrypts all Safari traffic and protects the user's privacy by preventing anyone, including both Apple and network providers, from seeing which sites are visited.

3. Password Management Integration: Safari offers seamless integration with Apple’s Keychain for password and two-factor authentication (2FA) management across devices and across apps and browsers. Safari leverages Apple's OS level full password manager that's been quietly iterated each major release, now including support for TOTP and compromised-site checks.

4. Increased security/privacy: Safari uses AI/ML backed Intelligent Tracking Prevention to identify and block trackers, ensuring enhanced user privacy. While similar features can be added to Firefox via extensions, Safari has these capabilities by default.

5. Improved Power Efficiency and Performance: Multiple battery life tests confirm that Safari is significantly more power-efficient than Firefox and Chrome. Apple pulls this off through co-optimization of hardware and software, power-efficient technologies, hardware acceleration, conservative use of resources, efficient resource handling, and the blocking of resource-heavy ads and trackers. In real world use, you may see twice the battery life during web heavy usage.

6. Extended Support for WebKit: Use the browser your users use, so you understand and support their experience.

Other factors like persistent tab groups, 120hz scroll performance, and first class "retina" typography simply add to the smooth experience Safari provides on macOS and iOS.

Here are some lesser known tips for tuning up Safari to your liking and using features folks may be less familiar with:

https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hidden-tricks-inside-apples-saf...

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#384

Post by raxxorraxor »

jeroenhd wrote: post #361
codedokode wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. Do you mean a kind of Linux where root cannot do anything he wants? Like Android?

Yes, a kind of Linux like Ubuntu or Fedora that already boots with secure boot enabled with full support of TPMs and similar technologies. The kind of Linux 99% of Linux users are running today. More secure variants like Android, leveraging SELinux and such, help with sandboxing but I don't think that SELinux is a struct requirement.

They are not more secure at all.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#385

Post by raxxorraxor »

jeroenhd wrote: post #365
jasonjayr wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux computers with an approved boot chain and software environment. Gentoo users are out, as is anyone making a custom kernel.

Gentoo users and people running Nvidia drivers and the like will be out, that's true. That's very different from "only certain architectures allowed", though. Even still, there are ways to implement this using an open source, signed, reproducibly built daemon that gets loaded early in the boot process. Altering the daemon would've out of the question but it would solve the more immediate problem of "Netflix doesn't w…

Netflix can only discriminate because we have attestation in the first place. This is not a security mechanism anymore.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#386

Post by codedokode »

jeroenhd wrote: post #361
codedokode wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. Do you mean a kind of Linux where root cannot do anything he wants? Like Android?

Yes, a kind of Linux like Ubuntu or Fedora that already boots with secure boot enabled with full support of TPMs and similar technologies. The kind of Linux 99% of Linux users are running today. More secure variants like Android, leveraging SELinux and such, help with sandboxing but I don't think that SELinux is a struct requirement.

I mean if root can do anything then such system is not "trusted" from corporations point of view. Therefore, it won't be able to pass the attestation or play DRM content.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#387

Post by Terretta »

billyhoffman wrote: post #96
capableweb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

Because Google pays Mozilla ~$500M dollars a year, nearly 80% of all of Mozilla's revenue, use Google as the default search provider. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go... If Google turned off this money faucet, Mozilla would be severely impacted. Unfortunately as Firefox's market penetration gets lower, the value of that deal gets lower, should Google stop paying it and someone like Bing ta…

Meanwhile, Google pays Apple $15B+:

https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...

They have no motivation to "turn off the money faucet" since the payment is effectively lead generation -- bringing eyeballs to their ads that pay them more.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#388

Post by NoGravitas »

cft wrote: post #112
nfriedly wrote: post #57

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…

I use Edge. I think Edge is a realistically viable competitor, especially with Bing chat sidebar. It's also faster than Safari on MacOS

Not only is Edge based on Chromium, as a major operating system vendor with strong influence on the hardware market, Microsoft is well positioned to be one of the widely-accepted attesters. So they have little motivation to oppose this proposal.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#389

Post by raxxorraxor »

liendolucas wrote: post #116

Do you know what puzzles me most? How can software engineers work on something like this? Don't those paid engineers or involved ones have the balls or dignity to walk away? I'm just wondering how they would feel about this (if they feel anything at all). I mean, if I'd be in such a position and asked to push something like this I'd have walked away on the spot, no matter what you offer me. No one at Google is standi…

There wouldn't be anything close to an open internet with the engineers of today. I despise my generation for this. Generalization yes, but the draw of big money to big tech did something. How about being smart for once and think two step ahead the next time...
Post reply on HN