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

421–430 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#421

Post by brabel »

zx8080 wrote: post #345
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…

> Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here. It is indeed the biggest issue. It prevents be from owning and using the hardware I pay for, own, or make myself. It's switching the personal computers as we know it from being open to proprietary and owned by 2 large US corporations. I don't agree that it's not a problem.

Did you just read “not even the biggest problem” as “not a problem”?

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#422

Post by chii »

saltcured wrote: post #79
ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

This is a really good thread on why this technology is becoming a problem for "open" anything. The argument "we can create our own separate web" is fine until all of your services are behind the web that locks you into owning a Google approved or Apple approved mobile device.

And it didn't even take attestation to cause this absurd situation where many businesses or social groups were only reachable behind Facebook or Whatsapp or whatever. To me this is such a bizarre cyberpunk dystopia. Like if we could only send letters and packages to people subscribed to the same private postal service, or drive on roads that had cross-licensing with our brand of car.

> could only send letters and packages to people subscribed to the same private postal service ...

that's a corporate monopoly's wet dream.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#423

Post by chii »

luckylion wrote: post #13
ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

This is a really good thread on why this technology is becoming a problem for "open" anything. The argument "we can create our own separate web" is fine until all of your services are behind the web that locks you into owning a Google approved or Apple approved mobile device.

Wouldn't the argument be that you'd build separate copies of those services as well? Granted, for banking or government-interactions that isn't feasible, but wouldn't it for many other things? It would likely be more expensive given that the work to build something still needs to be done and the cost is distributed among fewer shoulders and the lower complexity since you don't need to build ad-tech doesn't make up fo…

> Wouldn't the argument be that you'd build separate copies of those services as well?

you can't if the service requires the network effect to function well, if at all. Look at blusky and all that alternatives, look at the pitiful attempts at making a youtube alternative, etc.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#424

Post by utopiah »

tardedmeme wrote: post #197
retired wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So with a single flip of the switch, the president of the USA can shut down our EU Digital Identity Wallet. Why was this decision ever made?

They can also shut down all European payment cards.

True but also most places in the EU accept IBAN which is free (for individuals at least) and now relatively fast (seconds for the same bank, minutes or hours at most otherwise) so payment can still be done without MasterCard/Visa. It's inconvenient for a croissant but for anything slightly more expensive and that you don't need within seconds it's not too bad.

Most banks in Belgium (e.g. Bancontact, Wero, Pom) or Sweden (Swish, was renting ice skates with it just this winter) have their own system but typically only nationals use that. It's still enough for shops to get instant payments without those US cards issuers.

TL;DR: yes and it's wrong, but also IBAN works.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#425

Post by strcat »

zb3 wrote: post #324
revolvingthrow wrote: post #83

Is it possible to dual-boot on android? It sounds defeatist but I no longer believe it’s possible to change course - the increasingly authoritarian governments, google and most moneyed interests are all on the same side, so it’s just a matter of when. Being on the palantir-approved google ranch for the few Apps You Need + graphene (or some other alt OS) for everything else would be quite inconvenient, but still bette…

GrapheneOS said that's not possible, but I'd actually want to see some expanded explanation. TEE attests that the OS is booted with a given AVB key, OS version and the bootloader unlock state.. But I know that vbmeta is per-slot, so I guess the whole chain is.. I also read that if you flash "custom_avb_key", the original AVB key is also permitted.. Could this mean we could theoretically dual-boot while being able to…

Dual booting would be much further from passing attestation checks and would be incompatible with a bunch of the hardware-based security features. The boot slots are needed for A/B updates and include the firmware partitions. They're not useful for this and don't provide useful functionality for it. It would be entirely possible to build a bootloader for loading multiple different operating systems but it would be a hacked together mess without proper firmware updates or security. It would require heavily modifying both GrapheneOS and the stock OS to fit them into it. It would require losing a lot of the hardware-based security integration. What would be the point? The end result would be much further from passing attestation checks than GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS has near perfect app compatibility with the exception of the Play Integrity API. Other anti-tampering checks are largely compatible with GrapheneOS with the exception of tripping from certain hardening features which is increasingly being resolved with workarounds and there are toggles to avoid it already.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#426

Post by izacus »

nine_k wrote: post #270
izacus wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show an example of defeating hardware attestation? It would be useful for many 3rd party ROM users.

Gaming consoles typically have hardware attestation (as in verified software on verified hardware, sealed), and it has been broken many times in the past.

I'm interested in phones.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#427

Post by brabel »

MadnessASAP wrote: post #410
userbinator wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then explain why RA was invented? It is inherently against user freedom, just like "secure" boot and the rest of the corporate-authoritarian crap. People have woken up to the truth as the pieces come together. This article from 2022 is fun to look at and see how prescient it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29859106

I have 2 servers, Alice and Bob, Bob has a secret, I want Bob to be able to share that secret with Alice. However, I want Alice to be able to prove to Bob that it is actually Alice, that it is running the correct AliceOS, and that AliceOS was loaded on bare metal Alice without nefarious pre-book or virtualization hooks. A TPM with measured boot (SecureBoot) does exactly this, remote attestation is how Alice proves to…

As someone who wanted to improve users security, that’s exactly why I find this thread fanatical opposition to attestation baffling. Nearly everyone uses a device that supports hardware attestation. It’s the best available tool to protect users from malware. We do implement a fallback that lowers security but lets the few users who have devices not able to attest properly to continue, but that really lowers security since we can’t even know if the device cryptography is itself compromised and hence can’t really trust anything it sends. If you have a different solution, do share it! I would love to use something you guys don’t find abhorrent! But until then I don’t really see the reason for all this negativity.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#428

Post by strcat »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #83

Is it possible to dual-boot on android? It sounds defeatist but I no longer believe it’s possible to change course - the increasingly authoritarian governments, google and most moneyed interests are all on the same side, so it’s just a matter of when. Being on the palantir-approved google ranch for the few Apps You Need + graphene (or some other alt OS) for everything else would be quite inconvenient, but still bette…

Dual booting would sacrifice a lot of the hardware-based security feature integration and would be much further from passing attestation checks. GrapheneOS fully supports hardware-based attestation but Google doesn't permit it in the Play Integrity API. Directly booting the fully unmodified stock OS is required to pass the hardware attestation checks for the stock OS. GrapheneOS appears as GrapheneOS in the attestation metadata and a dual boot setup would appear as that specific dual boot setup. Since it would have a bunch of security sacrificed for it, it would be far harder to convince services to permit that. It would be counterproductive.

GrapheneOS has near perfect app compatibility other than the Play Integrity API banning it from the overall tiny number of apps using it. It has per-app compatibility toggles for privacy and security features which trip other anti-tampering checks, find memory corruption bugs in apps, etc. There are a couple known compatibility issues from anti-tampering checks from the secure spawning feature but it has a toggle.

The stock OS isn't what's needed but rather directly booting it from the firmware with 0 modifications. Dual booting would require booting something else and major modifications to deal with hardware APIs not designed for multiple operating systems using them at the same time. Secure element / TEE APIs including the hardware keystore and attestation, etc. are not designed for dual boot. A/B updates, verified boot, firmware updates, etc. would need to be dealt with by the bootloader system. It would be complex and messy. The end result would not be a hardened device or one compatible with standard attestation checks.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#429

Post by userbinator »

hparadiz wrote: post #402
CableNinja wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesnt help that guides ive seen have been pretty handwavy or are not specific enough to the individual situation (i have z hardware, heres how its done). It also doesnt help when every post on HN i see is like 'oh waow i did x on a mac mini with 128gb ram'. That spec is beyond many, running on generally available resources (such as hardware one might have laying around their house) do not seem fit for the purpose…

"Local AI is not ready" > proceeds to run a 7 year old budget GPU You're like the kid showing up to a test without a pencil. It's ridiculous for you to suggest that an advanced AI model needs to run on your budget 7 year old graphics card that is already out of date for even today's gaming. My parents spent $2500 on a computer in 1995 and that was a 166Mhz Pentium 1. If they spent that money today it would be $5261.…

If you want AI image generation and are willing to wait a little longer, you don't even need a GPU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32642255

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#430

Post by matheusmoreira »

userbinator wrote: post #418
matheusmoreira wrote: post #386

I always say this when this topic comes up: remote attestation will be how our computing freedom dies. They've made it so that it doesn't even matter if they allow you to install whatever you want. Anything that isn't corporate owned is banned. Own your device? You "tampered" with it. You're banned. From everything. You're ostracized from digital society. You're not even a citizen, much less a second class citizen. E…

Keep fighting. Spread the word. Ensure that everyone you know is aware of the totalitarian implications. The only way to sure defeat is to surrender.

I will, but it doesn't look good.
Post reply on HN