261–270 of 643 posts
odd they legislate for it, banks usually do this anyway
So, if you cannot cryptographically prove to a remote server that your device is running essentially unmodified, vendor-signed software, you are locked out of the economy? The irrefutable part here is that the security model works. Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own…
As I mentioned in another post: By 2026, you'll need two phones. My current setup: 1) An unmodified iPhone SE (2022 model) with OS support until 2032. This runs all my authentication, banking, health, etc. It is in airplane mode 99% of the time unless I need it. 2) The second is a Pixel 9a with Graphene OS for daily use, routing and internet access. This is expensive, but I found it to be the only viable solution to…
If I could get away with carrying a tiny device again instead of lugging around a brick I would, but the world has made it as inconvenient as possible not to.
A BlackBerry from 15 years ago weighed just over 100g and did 80% of what your modern-day pocket computer can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you want to use tap-to-pay systems.
I wonder if this makes room in the market for some simpler device for payments. Something like a wearable that you can tap-to-pay and has the signed software attenuation but nothing else so you can't be tracked using GPS.
So, if you cannot cryptographically prove to a remote server that your device is running essentially unmodified, vendor-signed software, you are locked out of the economy? The irrefutable part here is that the security model works. Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own…
So, if you cannot cryptographically prove to a remote server that your device is running essentially unmodified, vendor-signed software, you are locked out of the economy? The irrefutable part here is that the security model works. Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own…
So, if you cannot cryptographically prove to a remote server that your device is running essentially unmodified, vendor-signed software, you are locked out of the economy? The irrefutable part here is that the security model works. Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own…
Cory Doctorow predicted this outcome back in 2011: The Coming War on General Purpose Computation https://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I mentioned in another post: By 2026, you'll need two phones. My current setup: 1) An unmodified iPhone SE (2022 model) with OS support until 2032. This runs all my authentication, banking, health, etc. It is in airplane mode 99% of the time unless I need it. 2) The second is a Pixel 9a with Graphene OS for daily use, routing and internet access. This is expensive, but I found it to be the only viable solution to…
At that point why not just use the bank's website?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>An unmodified iPhone SE (2022 model) with OS support until 2032 What makes you think it'll be supported for a decade? Looking at the past models, the support period is around 5-7 years. If you count security updates that might get you to 10 years, but at the 7-9 year mark apps will eventually refuse to update because you're not on the latest ios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone#Models
If you’re not using it regularly, why would you need anything except security updates?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That has been the model since day one, since you are using spectrum that, because the end users are not licensed, requires it. Radios in 100% of commercially available phones are locked to prevent user tampering. Why, then, can users be root on PCs that have wifi cards, SDRs or cellular radios?
Wifi? Because it is part 15. That spectrum is less strict. SDRs? Because they are not certified transmitters. They are test RF gear, or a component of a transmitter, not an end-user product. Cellular radios in a PC? You don't get root on those. Same situation as they are in a cell phone: They are licensed-band transmitters, and they are required to be tamper proof to protect the licensee.
The original post said:
> Locking down the bootloader and enforcing TEE signatures does stop malware. But it also kills user agency. We are moving to a model where the user is considered the adversary on their own hardware. The genius of the modders in that XDA thread is undeniable, but they are fighting a war against the fundamental architecture of modern trust and the architecture is winning.
So, as I read it, Fiveplus is saying that we are moving to an architecture where the user is an adversary on the computer (the phone) as a whole. While licenses may require that specific components are out of bounds, the new thing is that the whole platform is denying the user the ability to do what they want with the parts that are not explicitly off-limits.
IIRC, a Blu-Ray drive is required to store data about revoked keys and to stop playing discs if its own key is revoked. Presumably the BR license also states that the user can't be allowed to wipe this revocation list and start playing Blu-Rays again. But BR drives can still be fitted in computers where the user has root access, just like PC cellular radios.
Phones are made to be default-deny instead of default-allow, and I think that makes it different from "enclosed modules you don't have control of".