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

Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

grapheneos.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#111

Post by coppsilgold »

Hoodedcrow wrote: post #104
coppsilgold wrote: post #98

Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here. They do not use zero knowledge proof systems or blind signatures. So every time you use your device to attest you leave behind something (the attestation packet) that can be used to link the action to your device. They put on a show about how much they care about your privacy by introducing indirection into the process (static device 'ID…

Would like to read a writeup on this, I was certain it was going to be something like this from the app's announcement. Also I recall a discussion on Graphene's forums that DRM ID is not only retained there, but stays the same across profiles.

I simplified the process in my description. The DRM ID Android has is not what I was referring to.

I was referring to the static private key that is stored in the silicon. At any time an application can initiate a license request process using DRM APIs which will elicit an unchangeable HWID from your device. The only protection is that it will be encrypted for an authorized license server private key so collusion may be required (intel agencies almost certainly sourced 'authorized' private keys for themselves). Google or Apple also has the option to authorize keys for themselves. In 'theory' all such keys should be stored in "trusted execution environments" on license servers and not divulge client identities for whatever that's worth: https://tee.fail>.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#112

Post by dminik »

It's amazing that we're letting the Google Apple duopoly completely decide who can and cannot use completely unrelated services.

Imagine getting banned from Google services for anti-google views and being unable to log into your bank account. We really should breakup the Alphabet.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#113

Post by acgourley »

altairprime wrote: post #31
acgourley wrote: post #11

It's so obvious to me states need to create a soul bound identity system, replace social security numbers with it, and then let everyone else use cryptography on top of that (which is now cheap when you don't care about sybil attacks) to do private stuff.

You just need to deploy auditable (source-available, reproducible-build, firmware checksums LCD on-chip) biometrics booths that generate private keys from normalized biometric inputs, and then use those ephemeral private keys to generate and sign portable identity keys. Most people have fingerprints and retina patterns and that’s twelve signatures on an identity alone, allowing for continuity across severe biometrics…

I think you can do it without any biometrics at all, although using it as a second factor could make it smoother.

I'd propose the primary factor is social - when a child is born there is a recorded attestation from the family and care providers about the minting of a new soul. When keys are compromised you similarly seek attestations from your social network (or social worker) that you need to furnish a new key.

The network could be attacked by literal force, blackmail, or deception, but it's very expensive compared the defense (strong legal punishment for attempts to subvert the network)

That last part is why I think the state has to do it, not technologists. There has to be a strong legal and cultural immune system in place to defend the network.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#114

Post by pietervdvn »

grishka wrote: post #6

Our civilization desperately needs a method to modify modern microelectronics after manufacturing that can be used at least in a well-equipped repair shop, and it needs it yesterday. Alternatively, just make it illegal to ship any kind of initial bootloader as part of a CPU's/SoC's mask ROM in any computing device that is marketed as a general-purpose one. I.e. the first instruction that the CPU executes after reset…

Or maybe we should just get rid of the "breaking DRM is illegal"-laws. See https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#115

Post by Hoodedcrow »

microtonal wrote: post #50
CharlesW wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …Google could trivially make it work with GrapheneOS (which is more secure than any other Android OS on the market) but they won't. But if Google did support third-party attestation, would the GrapheneOS Foundation be happy? Most of the thread seems to be a call for attestation to die, which feels impractical and unachievable. But "Google could use it to permit GrapheneOS for Play Integrity if that was actually abo…

Why should Google decide which devices are safe enough to pass remote attestation? Seems to me that if we want this at all, it should be an independent body that approves signing keys of vetted vendors (e.g. vendors roll out security updates timely, etc.). As long as this is in Google's hands, they can abuse it to control the market. That said, Play Integrity accepting GrapheneOS would be a step forward, but they wil…

> Seems to me that if we want this at all, it should be an independent body that approves signing keys of vetted vendors (e.g. vendors roll out security updates timely, etc.).

This is also a horrible idea. If an OS can be vetoed for untimely security updates, it can also be vetoed for not having something like clientside scanning.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#116

Post by altairprime »

acgourley wrote: post #113
altairprime wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need to deploy auditable (source-available, reproducible-build, firmware checksums LCD on-chip) biometrics booths that generate private keys from normalized biometric inputs, and then use those ephemeral private keys to generate and sign portable identity keys. Most people have fingerprints and retina patterns and that’s twelve signatures on an identity alone, allowing for continuity across severe biometrics…

I think you can do it without any biometrics at all, although using it as a second factor could make it smoother. I'd propose the primary factor is social - when a child is born there is a recorded attestation from the family and care providers about the minting of a new soul. When keys are compromised you similarly seek attestations from your social network (or social worker) that you need to furnish a new key. The…

That’s adjacent to birth certificates and passports already, with some variations on a theme per country, but certainly I don’t object to it. But I’m still infuriated at having to provide a birth certificate to LinkedIn to support a legal name change, so I encourage further design at the interface between “citizen identity” and “online identity(s)”. Your idea has merits and isn’t like others I’ve seen, so it’s worth considering in more detail!

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#117

Post by Haemm0r »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #30
CharlesW wrote: post #17

The thread is a bit vague. Am I understanding correctly that GrapheneOS Foundation's objection isn't to attestation per se, but that they can't participate in Google-controlled attestation APIs? In other words, although GrapheneOS can be cryptographically attested, apps using Google Play Integrity won’t accept it because it isn't Google-certified/GMS-licensed?

> Am I understanding correctly that [...] What I took away from the thread is that they're against services forcing attestation in general, and also pointing out that Play Integrity isn't about security, but rather about control, because Google could trivially make it work with GrapheneOS (which is more secure than any other Android OS on the market) but they won't.

It is not only about Google. Its also about the App developers. Nothing prevents them to use the non-google attestation, however they decide not to use it (for many reasons). First time you actually notice this is when you installed GrapheneOS (attestation OK and bootloader locker) and some apps complain about a modified/rooted/... device. Another thing is, that you are warned by your Google device while booting that something is "not OK".

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#118

Post by willis936 »

coppsilgold wrote: post #98

Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here. They do not use zero knowledge proof systems or blind signatures. So every time you use your device to attest you leave behind something (the attestation packet) that can be used to link the action to your device. They put on a show about how much they care about your privacy by introducing indirection into the process (static device 'ID…

Are these the kinds of issues privacy pass intends to fix? If so, what carrot and/or stick will get it adopted?

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#119

Post by bojan »

andy99 wrote: post #87
miohtama wrote: post #56

The EU Digital (identity) Wallet EUDI requires hardware attestation by Google or Apple, effectively tying all the digital EU identities to American duopoly. Talk about digital sovereignity. Apparently protecting the children > sovereignity. https://gitlab.opencode.de/bmi/eudi-wallet/wallet-developmen...

Came here with roughly the same thought. Given the stated importance to many of sovereignty and not being dependent on the US, why isn’t there more opposition? I assume it’s just ignorance?

We have voted in the most right-wing Parliament and, by extension, Commission, in the EU's history.

It only makes sense they'll prioritize big-business interests over those of the common folk.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#120

Post by ChuckMcM »

andy99 wrote: post #90
steelframe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to ride my bicycle with my friends in rides organized by the (Pacific Northwest) Cascade Bicycle Club. They require that I solve a Google reCAPTCHA in order to register for a ride. Google is already completely locking me out from being able to do that. When I try to click on the squares to select whatever items it's asking, it indefinitely loops. When I try using the audio version, it completely blocks me from…

I hope you contacted them to explain why. People usually think I’m a nut when I do it, or are too stupid to understand and think it’s a tech support issue, but it’s worth at least trying to make it clear that you are choosing not to use/do/pay something because of their choice to use recaptcha

+1 to this. I had a long conversation with a local shop that went to only ordering online or through an enslaved ipad on a pedestal at the entrance. I explained to them that I wasn't going to use their app or web page online and the iPad at the door has people trying to figure it out so orders take longer, and the combination means I just won't eat there any more.
Post reply on HN