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

Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

duo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#11

Post by privateSFacct »

userbinator wrote: post #6
Shank wrote: post #3

> Apple should be lauded for trying to bring their laptop and desktop lines into the same defensive posture as their mobile offerings. I think this can't be stated enough. The fact of the matter is that pre T2, evil maid attacks were ridiculously easy. Now they're at least as secure as iOS -- which also means that shared vulnerabilities can be patched and detected. By no means is it perfect security, but it's a heck…

which is great for data privacy. ...and absolutely horrible for freedom. It used to be the case, and still widely accepted for a lot of other products, that physical ownership actually meant something beyond just being a consumer. Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers. From the point of view of the DRM-advocating media corporations, the user is an attacker. Locking down the…

"It's scarier than any security attack to see what used to be an open and free platform turned into a walled garden of corporate control and obedience."

Most users threat posture is around security from adversaries who may gain control of their hardware. That security helps preserve their freedom, to store secrets more safely on the device etc.

Users are generally much less concerned with their own ability to hack / boot an alternative OS etc.

I suspect very few companies other than Apple will even have a chance of standing up to big gov demands, and even Apple may cave (though they seemed willing to stick to principal even in case of known domestic terrorist shooter which is one of the toughest arguments to make).

If you need the freedom to be hacked and to hack your own hardware, consider an android or linux machine.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#12

Post by akvadrako »

IMcD23 wrote: post #9
akvadrako wrote: post #5

The T2 does so much, essentially running an OS comparable to iOS. The author even suggests it might allow apps. It doesn't seem like it's a gain in security. Instead of attacking the "main system", you can just attack the T2; it's similar in complexity, meaning it will have similar vulnerabilities.

Try pulling data off my iPhone with physical access. Now, try pulling data off a pre-T2 Mac. The T2 brings many security improvements to the Mac.

It's not because of the T2 though - it's because of the Secure Enclave holding the keys for disk encryption and firmware/kernel signatures.

They might have bundled them together, but the layer around the secure part is just another system - it doesn't make anything more secure. All it's functions could have been taken up by the main system.

The only possible security win is by making BridgeOS simpler and less likely to have vulnerabilities.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#13

Post by xvector »

userbinator wrote: post #6
Shank wrote: post #3

> Apple should be lauded for trying to bring their laptop and desktop lines into the same defensive posture as their mobile offerings. I think this can't be stated enough. The fact of the matter is that pre T2, evil maid attacks were ridiculously easy. Now they're at least as secure as iOS -- which also means that shared vulnerabilities can be patched and detected. By no means is it perfect security, but it's a heck…

which is great for data privacy. ...and absolutely horrible for freedom. It used to be the case, and still widely accepted for a lot of other products, that physical ownership actually meant something beyond just being a consumer. Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers. From the point of view of the DRM-advocating media corporations, the user is an attacker. Locking down the…

> Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers.

This has always been the case, has it not? Modern security practices seem to operate under the assumption that the attacker can do almost anything the user can except sniff the password out of the user's head.

I think that's a reasonable model to work under. Building a platform that makes it a near-guarantee that the only way to unlock a computer is to be in the user's brain is a commendable security model, and the fact that Apple is executing it so seamlessly (i.e. with minimal user interaction) is honestly incredible. Gone are the days when you need to jump through hoops for security. It's democratized and available to everyone.

I would say that this is amazing for freedom. You could ask for little more than for every citizen to have state-of-the-art security.

---

Of course, vote with your wallet. If you don't like DRM content, don't get it. If you like the T2 chip and need a new laptop, get a Mac. No one is depriving you of choice, here.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#14

Post by nneonneo »

userbinator wrote: post #6
Shank wrote: post #3

> Apple should be lauded for trying to bring their laptop and desktop lines into the same defensive posture as their mobile offerings. I think this can't be stated enough. The fact of the matter is that pre T2, evil maid attacks were ridiculously easy. Now they're at least as secure as iOS -- which also means that shared vulnerabilities can be patched and detected. By no means is it perfect security, but it's a heck…

which is great for data privacy. ...and absolutely horrible for freedom. It used to be the case, and still widely accepted for a lot of other products, that physical ownership actually meant something beyond just being a consumer. Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers. From the point of view of the DRM-advocating media corporations, the user is an attacker. Locking down the…

Please read Apple’s white paper on the security chip: https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overvi...

They provide a setting that lets you disable the boot security at will, allowing you to install Linux or any other alternative OS. Security features on macOS (as opposed to iOS) are generally optional, but enabled by default (as is the sensible choice).

They don’t provide you the ability to reprogram the T2 itself, which is a shame but not entirely without merit - compromising the T2 chip would be far more dangerous than compromising the OS in terms of persistence.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#15

Post by nneonneo »

MrBingley wrote: post #8
monocasa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, there's no way to inject new keys, so you have a exclusive choice between running Linux and having secure boot enabled. So it doesn't stop you in a way a game console might, but you lose some features of the hardware by doing so.

Even with secure boot disabled you can't install Linux on the internal SSD. Installing Linux on a Mac has already been very flaky for the last few years, but now is impossible. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463422/how-can-you-...

The likely problem is a lack of driver support for using the T2 as an SSD controller. I don’t think, based on Apple’s white paper, that they did anything to explicitly block Linux from accessing the internal SSD - it just needs to go through the T2 for that.

Hopefully someone is working on the necessary driver support - these laptops are still very new so maybe nobody has gotten around to it yet.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#16

Post by grecy »

MrBingley wrote: post #8
monocasa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, there's no way to inject new keys, so you have a exclusive choice between running Linux and having secure boot enabled. So it doesn't stop you in a way a game console might, but you lose some features of the hardware by doing so.

Even with secure boot disabled you can't install Linux on the internal SSD. Installing Linux on a Mac has already been very flaky for the last few years, but now is impossible. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/463422/how-can-you-...

Interesting that Windows 10 installed via Boot Camp is an allowable exception, but Linux is not.

I wonder if Apple have an official stance on that.. i.e. "we're working on it", or "never".

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#17

Post by HankB99 »

nneonneo wrote: post #14
userbinator wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is great for data privacy. ...and absolutely horrible for freedom. It used to be the case, and still widely accepted for a lot of other products, that physical ownership actually meant something beyond just being a consumer. Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers. From the point of view of the DRM-advocating media corporations, the user is an attacker. Locking down the…

Please read Apple’s white paper on the security chip: https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overvi... They provide a setting that lets you disable the boot security at will, allowing you to install Linux or any other alternative OS. Security features on macOS (as opposed to iOS) are generally optional, but enabled by default (as is the sensible choice). They don’t provide you the ability to reprogram…

I've read that the T2 chip also provides the mass storage interface and without documentation or drivers, Linux cannot be run from the internal drive. Devices with the T2 chip can be booted and run from USB connections with the security disabled but not an internal drive.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#18

Post by cmurf »

The article reinforces my disappointment in Apple. First they use an Apple variant of Intel EFI 1.10 forever, even well passed the time UEFI incorporated Secure Boot. Instead of writing up a critique and proposal to fix any problems/limitations with UEFI Secure Boot, Apple has to go do a damned proprietary thing. Again.

Also, the latest Macs do not contain the Microsoft UEFI signing key, only the Microsoft Windows and Applel signing keys. So the only way to boot Linux is to disable Secure Boot, leaving people less secure.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#19

Post by cmurf »

nneonneo wrote: post #14
userbinator wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is great for data privacy. ...and absolutely horrible for freedom. It used to be the case, and still widely accepted for a lot of other products, that physical ownership actually meant something beyond just being a consumer. Now companies are turning the security against users, lest they also be attackers. From the point of view of the DRM-advocating media corporations, the user is an attacker. Locking down the…

Please read Apple’s white paper on the security chip: https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overvi... They provide a setting that lets you disable the boot security at will, allowing you to install Linux or any other alternative OS. Security features on macOS (as opposed to iOS) are generally optional, but enabled by default (as is the sensible choice). They don’t provide you the ability to reprogram…

Unacceptable. The user must disable Secure Boot to run Linux, which means the system becomes vulnerable to bootkit attacks. And, the typical scenario will be a user who leaves it disabled, making both macOS and Linux and possibly Windows (if also installed) more vulnerable to bootkit attacks.

I'm quite sure Microsoft would be willing to provide Apple their UEFI public key, which is what pretty much all Linux shim bootloaders are signed with.

Re: Secure Boot in the Era of the T2

#20

Post by josteink »

Shank wrote: post #3

> Apple should be lauded for trying to bring their laptop and desktop lines into the same defensive posture as their mobile offerings. I think this can't be stated enough. The fact of the matter is that pre T2, evil maid attacks were ridiculously easy. Now they're at least as secure as iOS -- which also means that shared vulnerabilities can be patched and detected. By no means is it perfect security, but it's a heck…

> I think this can't be stated enough. The fact of the matter is that pre T2, evil maid attacks were ridiculously easy.

Factually and objectively wrong.

This does nothing for end-user security which wasn’t already solved by UEFI Secure boot half a decade ago.

The only difference here is that Apple now insist on owning all the keys, taking away any aspect of end-user freedom which may have been present in the UEFI spec.

This is all bad, all regression for the PC-platform and Apple should definitely not be applauded.

Post reply on HN