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

121–130 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#121

Post by dmoy »

bojan wrote: post #119
andy99 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yea that's fair / makes sense from a democracy point of view (even if I might disagree personally).

It's a bit odd that Europe prioritizes American big-business interests I guess? Idk, as an American it does seem kinda like an odd choice.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#122

Post by Pfeil »

bojan wrote: post #119
andy99 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it really make sense? Right wing politicians are calling themselves patriots, why would they support foreign companies and give them so much power? Must be a dangerous mix of corruption and stupidity?

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#123

Post by jasonvorhe »

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...

Protecting the children is their favorite reason for ramping up authoritarian measures.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#124

Post by cyanydeez »

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...

>To reduce platform dependencies, we also evaluate additional platform independent signal sources. In this context, we evaluate signals from runtime application self-protection (RASP) systems, for example. We also might revisit later whether there are comparable security mechanisms for other platforms.

They're basically saying they have no choice but will evaluate better options.

So the follow up question is: Are you going to push the EU & Governments to do the logical thing and start developing, with your tax dollars, the necessary software & hardware to make it into the public domain so they arn't reliant.

Mostly it seems like few people see the need for brining government into software, no matter how much software & hardware are becoming essential utilities.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#125

Post by cyanydeez »

varispeed wrote: post #107
kyleee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt there is corruption; but it’s also momentum. There aren’t stable and good alternatives for so many reasons so the duopoly has momentum

I understand, but this is a national security matter. The focus should be on developing matching domestic capability.

you know that domestic capability means putting taxes to take things into a public good and corporations and paranoia are the bigger problem to overcome than anything technical. Any endevour will be cast as some kind of fascist takeover of governance.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#126

Post by monocasa »

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…

That's probably not going to happen for a very long time. Relatively simple SoCs already do tons of work before the architectural reset vector in undocumented boot ROMs in order to assist the reset process.

There's also tons of value in a boot ROM that can't be accidentally erased to add low level DFU routines.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#127

Post by bigbadfeline »

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…

> Our civilization desperately needs a method to modify modern microelectronics

Micro is now nano, not amendable to modification, and even if it was theoretically possible, hardware is a super-easy target for legislation.

> Alternatively, just make it illegal to ship any kind of initial bootloader as part of a CPU's/SoC's mask ROM

If you had the political means to enact such legislation, you could legislate much cleaner and easier ways to deal with the problem.

I find myself saying this a lot but I still can't quite figure our why people keep seeking technical solutions to political problems.

I mean, these things aren't comparable, in some limited cases the naive approach might help but insisting on it while neglecting political action is worse than doing nothing.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#128

Post by vvpan »

Miss that monopoly busting of yesteryear. The elephant in the room is that private forces who do not have public good in mind have gotten way too powerful to the detriment of everybody's well-being. Everybody's except the state's surveillance wings.

Break them up. Break them up. Break them up.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#129

Post by bornfreddy »

cyanydeez wrote: post #125
varispeed wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand, but this is a national security matter. The focus should be on developing matching domestic capability.

you know that domestic capability means putting taxes to take things into a public good and corporations and paranoia are the bigger problem to overcome than anything technical. Any endevour will be cast as some kind of fascist takeover of governance.

Well no, there is no need to develop domestic capability. Put laws in effect which disable foreign capabilities and which reward domestic ones, and they will be developed. No endeavor from government needed (which is a good thing, since governments are not really great at doing such stuff).

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#130

Post by microtonal »

Hoodedcrow wrote: post #110
microtonal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that they are against remote attestation in apps/websites in general and if apps really want to do it, they should do it using the attestation API that AOSP already provides. The attestation API in AOSP allows companies to trust signing key fingerprints (such as those of GrapheneOS), which means that the attestation system is not controlled by a single company (Google). The most damning part about Go…

> The attestation API in AOSP allows companies to trust signing key fingerprints (such as those of GrapheneOS), which means that the attestation system is not controlled by a single company (Google). I wonder if this would exclude rooted OSes, non-relocked bootloaders and things like that? Sorry for stupid question, still not quite understanding how this works.

Currently probably not, because there are leaked keys, etc. But otherwise it would, since the verified boot state, etc. is added as part of the signed material.
Post reply on HN