3 ms·

At least in the mobile space, I get the feeling that theft of the device factors in here. A lot of carriers advertise some sort of remote lock + wipe mechanism,

At least in the mobile space, I get the feeling that theft of the device factors in here. A lot of carriers advertise some sort of remote lock + wipe mechanism, which isn't guaranteed to work if the device's bootloader is unlocked, allowing an attacker to bypass the feature before it has a chance to run. I have no idea if that's actually the case (I only worked tangential to a retail store's mobile department) so take that with a grain of salt, that's just what I observed the carriers making a big fuss about on the regular. I don't think that excuses the practice either; I'll always be in favor of being in full control of any hardware I'm supposed to trust with my data, but ofc I realize I'm in the minority there.

drbawb 8y ago
I'm totally fine w/ there being a disclaimer on bootloader unlocking, e.g: "Warning! Some security features of your device may not work properly w/ secure boot disabled. Visit foo.com/secure-boot to learn more." To a lesser extent I'm OK w/ bootloader unlocks voiding my warranty, esp. since many of these devices ship w/ permanent fuses whereby writing to the wrong MSRs may brick your device. After all that's how my Moto X (2013) worked: I needed a code from Motorola to unlock the bootloader, which in turn required agreeing to a warranty waiver. What's not OK is having a permanently locked bootloader that guarantees my device will be useless after the carrier decides to stop delivering OTA updates in a year or two.