6 ms·

Pixel/Google does not motivate a threat model under which to evaluate or understand their design and marketing promises, but we can take a hint from "protects y

Pixel/Google does not motivate a threat model under which to evaluate or understand their design and marketing promises, but we can take a hint from "protects your data if your phone falls into someone else's hands." - Namely thefts of opportunity. Unlike other phone manufacturers, Google does not promise potential customers that your data will be protected from Google, it's partners and from law enforcement and mass surveillance programmes. Therein this product doesn't provide a stronger security posture that competitors - and furthermore it's threat model and security properties do not meet what are in my opinion minimal reasonable requirements.

sigmar 10y ago
>Unlike other phone manufacturers, Google does not promise potential customers that your data will be protected from Google, it's partners and from law enforcement and mass surveillance programmes. Are you referring to Apple? Because they don't promise that either.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  I used the term 'motivate' specifically because of the PR language intending for customers to evaluate the Apple product as something that could be used by those who need to use their phone for private and/or sensitive reasons. Apple of course backdoors their phones for government surveillance access. But they do motivate a threat model that includes government surveillance. I know parsing my comment in this way may seem difficult, but I used the terminology I did on purpose. There are no illusions that Apple achieved the security properties that it has motivated. Google Pixel does not even pretend to address the security concerns of journalists, politically active citizens, IT professionals, or individuals contacting attorneys.
  - dehugger 10y ago
    Perhaps I am not following your logic correctly, but it sounds like you are saying "Apple says government threats are an issue, but then backdoors the phones for the government anyways." which, to me, paints Apple in a very poor light.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      You are following my logic correctly. To be fair, the amount of leverage the US exerts on businesses for military purposes is astounding. This should be factored into the understanding.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    > Apple of course backdoors their phones for government surveillance access. Nice job slipping a completely unfounded lie into your response. Starting with iOS 10, you can actually just mount the root filesystem disk image from iOS restore images. You are able to reverse engineer and audit any application or daemon that the OS runs. You can use open source tools (Such as idevicerestore) to perform an OS restore on your device, and point it directly at the filesystem disk image that you just audited the binaries of. That way you can be sure of what is being flashed onto your device if you have any doubts that the OS you just audited is the one going onto your device. No "blackbox" at all in this process. I am looking forward to hearing any form of evidence regarding your claim.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      How can you say you're able to audit any application or daemon without viewing the actual source code? Case in point - if the sslKeyExchange.c code had not been published the "goto fail" bug would likely still be in the wild.
      - comex 10y ago
        Reverse engineering tools like IDA can be used to audit closed source code. However, this takes significantly longer than reading source code, and it's not exactly feasible to audit the entire operating system for something (hypothetically) intentionally hidden.
      - willstrafach 10y ago
        That is not true. In fact, the "goto fail" bug was only known because it was patched in iOS and then some folks dug into the SecureTransport sources. You may be thinking of the fact that, from what I understand, OS X was not yet patched at the time so this was considered big news (See here: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/02/24/anatomy-of-a-goto-fail-apples-ssl-bug-explained-plus-an-unofficial-patch/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/02/24/anatomy-of-a-got...). Definitely an issue, but seeing as it was patched in iOS (and thus discovered in the SecureTransport source code), it would most certainly not still be in the wild. With regards to auditing: The machine code is available for review, you just need to invest some time into learning the ARM instruction set. Most users of HN have invested time into learning various programming languages and that is why the trope of "open source == more secure" is often repeated, but the truth is that ARM assembly is just another programming language and is almost never obfuscated to a point in which you would not be able to read through it and understand what is happening once you understand the instruction set.
tree_of_item 10y ago
How would Google protect its customers from law enforcement and mass surveillance programs? The government can just force them to do whatever and issue a gag order to keep them quiet. Apple is just putting on a show with their tough security rhetoric, they can't resist the US government if they really want some data.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  Apple is doing more than putting on a show. They've actively trying to build ML products that don't involve sending everything back to the mothership ala Google, FB, etc., but rather store and execute on the local device. (The efficacy and user experience of these products remains to be determined.) From a security standpoint, Apple wouldn't have anything to turn over, because they never had it to begin with. Google et al, hoover up everything the least bit interesting.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    No, he's right. Apple is putting on a PR show. If a warrant is served to Apple they'll hand over whatever data they have on you including any metadata on your encrypted data. They also have teams working 24/7 to serve up this data to government officials and law enforcement. It's all in the leaked Apple/Podesta emails.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      Your framing is disingenuous, considering that any large company will have staff ready to respond to legal / discovery demands. This is a legal process, not something Apple is doing out of their own volition.
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        I agree with this. Government leverage on Apple is huge, as is the magnitude of public-private partnership. Mass surveillance of its products is not likely something that Apple would have pursued on its own. However, it Apple has capitulated to a combination of carrots and sticks. Today, it enables surveillance of its customers.

sigmar 10y ago

>Unlike other phone manufacturers, Google does not promise potential customers that your data will be protected from Google, it's partners and from law enforcement and mass surveillance programmes. Are you referring to Apple? Because they don't promise that either.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jwtadvice 10y ago
I used the term 'motivate' specifically because of the PR language intending for customers to evaluate the Apple product as something that could be used by those who need to use their phone for private and/or sensitive reasons. Apple of course backdoors their phones for government surveillance access. But they do motivate a threat model that includes government surveillance. I know parsing my comment in this way may seem difficult, but I used the terminology I did on purpose. There are no illusions that Apple achieved the security properties that it has motivated. Google Pixel does not even pretend to address the security concerns of journalists, politically active citizens, IT professionals, or individuals contacting attorneys.
- dehugger 10y ago
  Perhaps I am not following your logic correctly, but it sounds like you are saying "Apple says government threats are an issue, but then backdoors the phones for the government anyways." which, to me, paints Apple in a very poor light.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    You are following my logic correctly. To be fair, the amount of leverage the US exerts on businesses for military purposes is astounding. This should be factored into the understanding.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- willstrafach 10y ago
  > Apple of course backdoors their phones for government surveillance access. Nice job slipping a completely unfounded lie into your response. Starting with iOS 10, you can actually just mount the root filesystem disk image from iOS restore images. You are able to reverse engineer and audit any application or daemon that the OS runs. You can use open source tools (Such as idevicerestore) to perform an OS restore on your device, and point it directly at the filesystem disk image that you just audited the binaries of. That way you can be sure of what is being flashed onto your device if you have any doubts that the OS you just audited is the one going onto your device. No "blackbox" at all in this process. I am looking forward to hearing any form of evidence regarding your claim.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    How can you say you're able to audit any application or daemon without viewing the actual source code? Case in point - if the sslKeyExchange.c code had not been published the "goto fail" bug would likely still be in the wild.
    - comex 10y ago
      Reverse engineering tools like IDA can be used to audit closed source code. However, this takes significantly longer than reading source code, and it's not exactly feasible to audit the entire operating system for something (hypothetically) intentionally hidden.
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      That is not true. In fact, the "goto fail" bug was only known because it was patched in iOS and then some folks dug into the SecureTransport sources. You may be thinking of the fact that, from what I understand, OS X was not yet patched at the time so this was considered big news (See here: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/02/24/anatomy-of-a-goto-fail-apples-ssl-bug-explained-plus-an-unofficial-patch/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/02/24/anatomy-of-a-got...). Definitely an issue, but seeing as it was patched in iOS (and thus discovered in the SecureTransport source code), it would most certainly not still be in the wild. With regards to auditing: The machine code is available for review, you just need to invest some time into learning the ARM instruction set. Most users of HN have invested time into learning various programming languages and that is why the trope of "open source == more secure" is often repeated, but the truth is that ARM assembly is just another programming language and is almost never obfuscated to a point in which you would not be able to read through it and understand what is happening once you understand the instruction set.

tree_of_item 10y ago

How would Google protect its customers from law enforcement and mass surveillance programs? The government can just force them to do whatever and issue a gag order to keep them quiet. Apple is just putting on a show with their tough security rhetoric, they can't resist the US government if they really want some data.

jonathankoren 10y ago
Apple is doing more than putting on a show. They've actively trying to build ML products that don't involve sending everything back to the mothership ala Google, FB, etc., but rather store and execute on the local device. (The efficacy and user experience of these products remains to be determined.) From a security standpoint, Apple wouldn't have anything to turn over, because they never had it to begin with. Google et al, hoover up everything the least bit interesting.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  No, he's right. Apple is putting on a PR show. If a warrant is served to Apple they'll hand over whatever data they have on you including any metadata on your encrypted data. They also have teams working 24/7 to serve up this data to government officials and law enforcement. It's all in the leaked Apple/Podesta emails.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    Your framing is disingenuous, considering that any large company will have staff ready to respond to legal / discovery demands. This is a legal process, not something Apple is doing out of their own volition.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      I agree with this. Government leverage on Apple is huge, as is the magnitude of public-private partnership. Mass surveillance of its products is not likely something that Apple would have pursued on its own. However, it Apple has capitulated to a combination of carrots and sticks. Today, it enables surveillance of its customers.