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

661–670 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#661

Post by charcircuit »

przmk wrote: post #440
charcircuit wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How about being banned from online banking, government services and all social networking / communication platforms? You aren't banned. You just have to use a secure device. It's like saying that a store banned you because they stopped taking checks and started requiring a credit card since they are more secure and harder to commit fraud with. As a person you didn't lose any freedom. Freedom does not mean someone ha…

It's not about being secure. Google allows devices with up to 10 years without any patches to pass their integrity API. Meanwhile Graphene OS, which is very secure and up-to-date, doesn't pass.

I am talking about attestation in general. I already left a comment in the thread agreeing with you.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#662

Post by charcircuit »

inejge wrote: post #454
charcircuit wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How about being banned from online banking, government services and all social networking / communication platforms? You aren't banned. You just have to use a secure device. It's like saying that a store banned you because they stopped taking checks and started requiring a credit card since they are more secure and harder to commit fraud with. As a person you didn't lose any freedom. Freedom does not mean someone ha…

> You just have to use a secure device. Secure as defined by a duo of monopolists. It's a contractual concept and doesn't have a firm relation to security-related characteristics. I'd trust GrapheneOS to be as secure as anything Google is capable of releasing, but that doesn't help them if Google refuses to vouch for a device running their OS. Which is also why your check/credit card analogy falls flat.

Graphene supports attestation and any backend service can add support for handling it. No one is forcing people to only use two.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#663

Post by locknitpicker »

socalgal2 wrote: post #535
khriss wrote: post #528

The superhuman efforts that folks on HN make to find technical workarounds and solutions is wonderful to see, but we must realize that this is not a technical problem. It's a social and legislative one. It can't be fought on technical grounds. The push back has to be via putting pressure on politicians by making regular people more aware. Right now, the vast majority of users are being bombarded with a one sided narr…

> In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged

> Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged

Apple ran a very successful propaganda campaign where they portray themselves as the protectors and enforcers of a secure environment where users are safe from attacks from the wild internet. See Apple's spin on blocking cookies. Therefore, users of Apple products are conditioned to believe these measures exist for their own personal benefit, unlike Google which is presumed to be motivated to abuse your trust.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#664

Post by charcircuit »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #509
charcircuit wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We had fun in online games without kernel level nonsense. You might of. But there was a percentage of players turned away by cheaters or even just had a bad experience one day because of one. At scale this can cause a bad experience for a ton of players so trying to stop as many cheaters as possible does matter. >Why do I need to compromise my hardware You don't have to compromise anything. In fact it is optimal to…

> You don't have to compromise anything. So… I don’t have to compromise the ability to run any program I want on my machine, and I don’t have to compromise the ability to be root on my machine. Right? And of course, when I say "me", I’m talking about everyone, including cheaters. Meaning, we don’t have to compromise the cheater’s ability to run any program they want (that would include cheats), nor their ability to b…

>So… I don’t have to compromise the ability to run any program I want on my machine, and I don’t have to compromise the ability to be root on my machine. Right?

Yes. You are free to do whatever you want on your machine.

>Meaning, we don’t have to compromise the cheater’s ability to run any program they want (that would include cheats), nor their ability to be root on their machine.

Yep. The only thing the cheater is unable to do is prove to the server that they aren't using cheats.

>Secure for the game company you mean.

No I mean that the operating system protects applications from messing with each other. The operating system should isolate each app for security purposes.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#665

Post by charcircuit »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #505
charcircuit wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>See kernel level anticheat nonsense. This nonsense mainly exists only because the operating system is unable to attest that it the app is secure and the right app is what is running. >It's their computer, it should run whatever software they want. I agree, but companies shouldn't be forced to match cheaters with legitimate players. Cheaters just can't secretly be cheating.

The problem is not that the OS can’t attest the app is secure. The problem with cheating is that the game servers cannot attest the client is genuine in all aspects that matter: non-modified client, running in an environment where there is no inspection of its memory for map hacks, aim bots, and more. The only way to do that is a remote attestation of the entire chain: hardware, locked down OS, app. (If the OS isn’t…

This is typically handled by the game offering a modding API for people to make mods with. This API limits mods to do things which will not be cheating.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#666

Post by twobitshifter »

krupan wrote: post #223
userbinator wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local models exist, but there's also irony in using the tools to spread the message of the opposition.

The local models are still centralized and proprietary. They are basically closed source software.

Is there a way to make a model more open source than open weights?

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#667

Post by erikerikson »

techteach00 wrote: post #646
erikerikson wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision. They mostly didn't want that control in the first place. They just want to _______, for many things you can fill in the blank, including things like look good, appear classy, get high, get laid...

I respectfully disagree with "they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision". The average person is not calculating anything but price, is it what everyone else is using, is it new etc. Very low level calculations. They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?". Etc.

Hrrm. It seems your original comment has been heavily edited.

> They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?"

I agree. They don't want to. They already can't begin to evaluate app trustworthiness and don't want to have to. And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. So they lean on reputation, app store filtering, the legal system, and hope.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#668

Post by somewhatgoated »

fsflover wrote: post #610
somewhatgoated wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never spent money on an app on my phone.

You still suffer, because developers who don't want to pay the Apple tax on their apps simply avoid the App Store. You have no access to many good apps at all. Including FLOSS.

I don’t care about apps at all, I avoid them wherever possible. Web stuff is good enough for most things.

That being said I won’t purchase an apple device again if this one croaks

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#669

Post by nroets »

fsflover wrote: post #612
nroets wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If proof of work is the "payment" to prove that you're human, many AI startups will outbid poor people living third world countries. They will even outbid some Americans. Yes, those AI startups can also buy cheap Android phones at scale, but it's a bit harder because they'll pay for stuff that their bots have no use for (a screen, a battery, a 5G radio, software, branding, distribution, customer support etc).

A least they would give money to something useful.

I think you miss my point: When bots can "give" more money/computing power, then the transaction is no longer a good test of being human.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#670

Post by charcircuit »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #453
charcircuit wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>See kernel level anticheat nonsense. This nonsense mainly exists only because the operating system is unable to attest that it the app is secure and the right app is what is running. >It's their computer, it should run whatever software they want. I agree, but companies shouldn't be forced to match cheaters with legitimate players. Cheaters just can't secretly be cheating.

To defend my own freedom, I'm forced to defend scoundrels as well in a totally unhinged manner. So be it. > the operating system is unable to attest And it should remain unable. There should be no "attestation" of anything. The corporations who want such things should remain unsure of the device's "security". They should just accept it. Let them write it off as a cost of doing business or something. The optimal amoun…

I don't see any consumer nor developer demand to make cheating in multiplayer games an inherent tenant of a computing ecosystem. Attestation is just an optional feature that expands what is possible. Services have no obligation to check attestation or use it as a hard signal to block people. All previously existing freedom is still possible on your computer.
Post reply on HN