Live data from Hacker News

Right to root access

medhir.com

111–120 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#111
post #82
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I claimed?

> it's also about adversaries that may have physical access to your device and can provide that consent. No matter how convoluted you make the rube goldberg machine to bypass the cryptography, if there's a way to bypass it it will be bypassed You claimed that an adversary with physical access to your device can compromise your unlockable phone, but presumably this won't happen with a phone that can't be unlocked. Is…

This is why I had mentioned in another comment, that it might make sense to require opening it with a screwdriver to enable/disable some features, and that you can add glitter or something like that if you want to detect physical tampering.

Re: Right to root access

#112
post #25

I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context. This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves…

This, or even sell "dev units" with the bootloader unlocked so that you explicitly have to accept the risk before purchasing the device. The problem though is that rooting by itself is not that useful when a lot of apps use remote attestation to deny you service if you're rooted. We don't just need root access, we need undetectable root access.

I agree useful rooting should be easier, but it's definitely possible and not super hard to hide rooting.

I'm typing this on a rooted phone where all (banking) apps work just fine. All it takes is downloading an app (magisk) and add apps to a list that need to have rooting hidden.

Re: Right to root access

#113
post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

It also significantly hampers progress and the utility of tools themselves.

This is hacker news after all. What made the computer great was programs. What made the smart phone great (smart) is applications. It's insane to me that these companies are locking down their most valuable assets. The only way this works is if you're omniscient and can make all the programs users could want yourself. This is impossible considering both individuality and entropy (time). Both in the sense that time marches on and the fact that you don't have time nor infinite resources to accomplish all that. I mean we're talking about companies that didn't think to put a flashlight into a phone but it was one of the first apps developed. You could point to a number of high utility apps, but I'm also sure there's many you all use that you're unlikely to find on most people's phones.

We can also look at the maker community. Its flourished for centuries, millennia even. People are always innovating, adapting tools to their unique needs and situations. To some degree this is innately human and I'm not embellishing when I say that closed gardens and closed systems are dehumanizing. It limits us from being us. That person obsessed with cars and makes a sleeper Honda civic, that person that turns trash into art, that person that finds a new use for every day objects. Why would you want to take this away? It even hurts their bottom lines! People freely innovate and you get to reap the rewards. People explore, hack, and educate themselves, dreaming of working on your tech because of the environment you created. By locking down you forgo both short term and long term rewards.

I also want to add that we should not let any entity claim to be environmentally friendly or climate conscious that does not create open systems. No matter how much recycling they do. Because it is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order. You can't reuse if your things turn to garbage and reusing certainly plays a major role in reducing.

Re: Right to root access

#114
post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion. The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings. Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely…

> The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use

And it can only be archived with a fully locked down hardware?

Of course not. The modern OS archives system security through permission and isolation, which don't require bootlock etc to work. In fact, it worked well too even after the device is unlocked & rooted.

> Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror

Windows (and Linux for that matter) is not modern OS. They're classic OS that offers the entire computer as playground for the program running on top of it. That's why Windows can be contaminated with a single malice EXE, but not Android or iOS.

OSs are not the same, don't try get the water muddy that way.

Re: Right to root access

#115
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those restrictions aren't on your desktop, where you do have root. Why would they be on your phone if you had root on that?

They are on your desktop. Have you tried installing any game you bought through Steam lately? They all install a custom launcher / updater / stuff that ends up in startup.

What? No they don't. I'm not saying that no game does this, but I play lots of games on Steam and none of the ones I play do it.

Re: Right to root access

#116
post #84
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forced? I'm not sure I understand. My guess is that you're assuming, wrongly, that vendor locked devices are "safe" and unlocked devices are "unsafe". All computers that are connected to the internet are unsafe in some ways. The most dangerous apps on your computer are the vendor's own built-in web browser and messaging app. Also, the vendor-controlled software stores are unsafe cesspools. You will never find a more…

Today, yes, I can lock down the iPhone I give to my son, but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it. Yes, it is on me to continue to monitor the device to make sure he hasn't done it, but the point stands And the assumption you refer to, there are varying definitions for "safe". Is a device with a locked bootloader 100% safe in all use cases and all circumstances? Of course no…

  > but if it can be unlocked to run arbitrary software then he can in theory unlock it.
I'm effectively the admin several machines with many users on them. I have root access. I'm not at all concerned that they'll gain root access. Just make yourself admin on your child's phone, I don't see the issue. Apple and Google can even make gaining root access require some technical (but documented) methods. Look at the requirements to gain root on an android phone currently. You should be comfortable going into a terminal and using ADB. I'm not worried about the average user doing this nor even the average smart child. Hell, follow Apple's lead and require a 1hr lockout if you're really concerned about someone getting root on your device. How often will that happen if it requires being connected to a computer for an hour?

Re: Right to root access

#117

> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. I agree with this, as well as most (or all) of the other stuff mentioned in that article. However, sometimes it might be reasonable to have a switch inside that you must unscrew it (using a commonly available screwdriver, rather than an obscure one) to switch it (and then later be ab…

No. This does not happen with anything else except phones. If you brick a laptop it is a 30 dollar fix on any local shop. The same cannot be said with any locked down device.

Re: Right to root access

#118
post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

half of those things have computers in them now

Re: Right to root access

#119
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. As we all know here, any business that gets started will go on forever regardless of market fit.

This is a silly criticism. After all, as we all know here (right?), Atari itself fell on hard times. I was talking about the business model , not a specific business. Vendor lockdown and taking a cut of 3rd party software is clearly quite lucrative for vendors, and that's why they do it. There's of course no guarantee of success, but it's obvious why other vendors have emulated that business model. It may be only for…

I worry about the long term health of general-purpose computing. It's not going anywhere today, but I fear for future generations that will likely eventually never know the joy of bending a computer entirely to their will, because they'll have never known computing without guardrails.

Re: Right to root access

#120
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.

While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?)

If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.

Post reply on HN