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

Right to root access

medhir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#31

Post by qmr »

causality0 wrote: post #8
zb3 wrote: post #4

> Root access refers to the highest level of privileges a user can be granted to a computer system. This is no longer true. You might have root access on your smartphone, but you still don't have access to the TEE (on ARM this is implemented using the "TrustZone" "feature"). Also, AVF is coming to Android, and protected VMs won't work with unlocked bootloader.. so expect the situation to deteriorate further once manu…

There's not nearly enough awareness of this. Even with root access, on modern Android you have to set up a virtual USB connection just to get at the files in the data folders of android apps if you want to, for example, sync the savegames between your mobile emulators and your desktop emulators. It's fucking disgusting. With every new edition they shave off a little more user agency.

It's sad how Google has perverted what Android was meant to be.

Re: Right to root access

#32

Post by lapcat »

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 these other products are locked down by the vendor.

The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.

Re: Right to root access

#33

Post by Magnusmaster »

mixdup wrote: post #14
stavros wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely weak argument, and I'd like to stop seeing it perpetuated. If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. Why should we remove the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely just because some people don't want to use it?

Because the fact that it can't be unlocked makes me reasonably reassured that I can trust the software running on it comes from the vendor of the device It's the same reason I don't want "the good guys" to have decryption keys to my messaging service, because even if I did trust the FBI, the fact that there is a backdoor at all means it could be exploited by someone I don't trust Again, if you don't want to use a dev…

Phones with unlockable bootloaders aren't going to be sold for much longer just like dumb TVs aren't sold anymore. There's just too much profit to be earned by corporations locking devices, plus banks and governments want to lock down phones. And once they lock down phones they'll go for desktops as well.

Re: Right to root access

#34

Post by lapcat »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #29

If locking the bootloader and comparing signatures against keys burned into a secure enclave allow Apple to make certain security guarantees that helps them sell products, I'm all for their freedom to do so. Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, a…

> Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship?

This is false dichotomy. Why not both?

We need individual consumer rights, and we also need healthy market competition.

Re: Right to root access

#35

Post by mixdup »

lapcat wrote: 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…

There's a difference between being able to buy something dangerous and being forced to do so

Re: Right to root access

#36

Post by hamandcheese »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #29

If locking the bootloader and comparing signatures against keys burned into a secure enclave allow Apple to make certain security guarantees that helps them sell products, I'm all for their freedom to do so. Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship? I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, a…

> so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from.

The pressure comes from shareholders. User control means users can use their device in a way that benefits them, e.g. blocking invasive tracking. This benefit provides zero or negative shareholder value.

Re: Right to root access

#37

Post by alex7734 »

lrvick wrote: 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.

Re: Right to root access

#38

Post by mixdup »

Magnusmaster wrote: post #33
mixdup wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the fact that it can't be unlocked makes me reasonably reassured that I can trust the software running on it comes from the vendor of the device It's the same reason I don't want "the good guys" to have decryption keys to my messaging service, because even if I did trust the FBI, the fact that there is a backdoor at all means it could be exploited by someone I don't trust Again, if you don't want to use a dev…

Phones with unlockable bootloaders aren't going to be sold for much longer just like dumb TVs aren't sold anymore. There's just too much profit to be earned by corporations locking devices, plus banks and governments want to lock down phones. And once they lock down phones they'll go for desktops as well.

Dumb TVs are still sold, they just cost more. Same will probably be true for the low volume, no-stolen-data (or no-apple-tax) unlockable phones, too

Re: Right to root access

#39

Post by stavros »

mixdup wrote: post #14
stavros wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely weak argument, and I'd like to stop seeing it perpetuated. If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader. Why should we remove the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely just because some people don't want to use it?

Because the fact that it can't be unlocked makes me reasonably reassured that I can trust the software running on it comes from the vendor of the device It's the same reason I don't want "the good guys" to have decryption keys to my messaging service, because even if I did trust the FBI, the fact that there is a backdoor at all means it could be exploited by someone I don't trust Again, if you don't want to use a dev…

Yeah, this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how bootloader unlocking works. The people repeating this argument seem to think that their bootloader will unlock if they look at their phone wrong, when in reality the bootloader unlock process can be made such that the user must consent. If some malware can bypass that, then it could bypass your bootloader in the first place.

Re: Right to root access

#40

Post by gjsman-1000 »

lapcat wrote: 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 to trust a new smartphone app than a new desktop app.

We can also see this in the console market. Windows exists; old gaming PCs exist; the locked down console market will be with us forever because even Windows can’t deliver a simple experience that reliably works.

Post reply on HN