5 ms·

Security. My phone is the root of trust for my life. It has my password manager (I never use a PM on a full computer) and is my only truly trusted device. I wo

by wepple 8y ago

Security. My phone is the root of trust for my life. It has my password manager (I never use a PM on a full computer) and is my only truly trusted device. I wouldn’t trust your Motorola’s timely security updates or hardware trustzone implememtation.

satvikpendem 8y ago
The vast, vast majority of people who buy new phones don't care about security. They buy them because they're the "new shiny thing."
stabbles 8y ago
You could just as well use pass [1] or something on a USB stick. [1] https://www.passwordstore.org/ https://www.passwordstore.org/
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  You can't check your email on a USB stick. You still very much need a phone for most uses.
zcid 8y ago
Funny you say that. I'm the exact opposite. I consider my laptop to be much more likely to be secure than my phone.
- dddddaviddddd 8y ago
  The constant availability of a phone is a big incentive to make it the central device.
- ljackman 8y ago
  Most laptop OSes, like Windows, macOS, and Linux, are a decade behind mobile OSes in terms of application sandboxing and also still lagging behind on restricting OS tampering and implementing reliable chains of trust from the system software to the hardware level, e.g. features like secure enclaves. Unfortunately, those restrictions also make mobile OSes less useful for the sort of technical work that people use "real" OSes for. However, those restrictions make such devices much more compelling roots of trust for our digital lives. An iOS app can't extract my contacts unless I grant permission, yet an application installed on Ubuntu via `apt` can casually start rummaging around my home directory which I won't know about unless I spend considerable time on mandatory access control profiles, isolation through containerisation or virtualisation, or something equally esoteric for the average user. I suppose a phone does hold more sensitive information though, like location and mobile payments, making it a more lucrative target.
  - snovv_crash 8y ago
    These desktop OSs don't, however, run a baseband known to be littered with bugs that listens for commands over the EM spectrum amd has low level access to the entire system. Even airplane mode just means it doesn't transmit.
    - ljackman 8y ago
      Good point. The lack of visibility into today's blackbox commodity hardware is frightening, such as Intel ME. It's even worse when that hardware is listening to external commands via the EM spectrum and the like, as you point out.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > An iOS app can't extract my contacts unless I grant permission, yet an application installed on Ubuntu via `apt` can casually start rummaging around my home directory which I won't know about unless I spend considerable time on mandatory access control profiles, isolation through containerisation or virtualisation, or something equally esoteric for the average user. Fwiw, this is becoming increasingly less true on macOS. And the newer Macs also have secure enclaves. I'm generally not a fan of the trend, as it means more hoops for me to jump through, and I'm not convinced I benefit from this level of security. But, it is much closer to iOS.
    - ljackman 8y ago
      Yes, macOS seems to be heading in the right direction (even if it means frustrating legitimate usage patterns at times). In particular, I like that it kept it simple by either an application being sandboxed with explicit user permissions for certain features, or not being sandboxed at all. Contrast with Linux FlatPaks where even "sandboxed" programs can have a wide range of implicit permissions based on the image configuration, which aren't obvious to end users when running `flatpak install` in the same way that macOS's privacy settings are for each sandboxed macOS app. I remember some FlatPak applications defaulting to allowing unsandboxed home directory access without prompting me on installation, which seemed to defeat the purpose somewhat. It does block nefarious control flow attacks against programs that declare a strict sandbox, but that doesn't seem to go far enough in my view.
kwhitefoot 8y ago
Why's that? My Moto G5+ bought in January 2018 gets updates of some sort or another every few months. So who do you trust?
- scarface74 8y ago
  As is the 2013 iPhone 5s. What are the chances that you will still get updates in 5+ years?
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  how are those updates going to look in January 2020
nicoburns 8y ago
What's your plan if you lose the phone, or it gets stolen?

by wepple 8y ago

satvikpendem 8y ago

The vast, vast majority of people who buy new phones don't care about security. They buy them because they're the "new shiny thing."

stabbles 8y ago

You could just as well use pass [1] or something on a USB stick. [1] https://www.passwordstore.org/ https://www.passwordstore.org/

CydeWeys 8y ago
You can't check your email on a USB stick. You still very much need a phone for most uses.

zcid 8y ago

Funny you say that. I'm the exact opposite. I consider my laptop to be much more likely to be secure than my phone.

dddddaviddddd 8y ago
The constant availability of a phone is a big incentive to make it the central device.
ljackman 8y ago
Most laptop OSes, like Windows, macOS, and Linux, are a decade behind mobile OSes in terms of application sandboxing and also still lagging behind on restricting OS tampering and implementing reliable chains of trust from the system software to the hardware level, e.g. features like secure enclaves. Unfortunately, those restrictions also make mobile OSes less useful for the sort of technical work that people use "real" OSes for. However, those restrictions make such devices much more compelling roots of trust for our digital lives. An iOS app can't extract my contacts unless I grant permission, yet an application installed on Ubuntu via `apt` can casually start rummaging around my home directory which I won't know about unless I spend considerable time on mandatory access control profiles, isolation through containerisation or virtualisation, or something equally esoteric for the average user. I suppose a phone does hold more sensitive information though, like location and mobile payments, making it a more lucrative target.
- snovv_crash 8y ago
  These desktop OSs don't, however, run a baseband known to be littered with bugs that listens for commands over the EM spectrum amd has low level access to the entire system. Even airplane mode just means it doesn't transmit.
  - ljackman 8y ago
    Good point. The lack of visibility into today's blackbox commodity hardware is frightening, such as Intel ME. It's even worse when that hardware is listening to external commands via the EM spectrum and the like, as you point out.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  > An iOS app can't extract my contacts unless I grant permission, yet an application installed on Ubuntu via `apt` can casually start rummaging around my home directory which I won't know about unless I spend considerable time on mandatory access control profiles, isolation through containerisation or virtualisation, or something equally esoteric for the average user. Fwiw, this is becoming increasingly less true on macOS. And the newer Macs also have secure enclaves. I'm generally not a fan of the trend, as it means more hoops for me to jump through, and I'm not convinced I benefit from this level of security. But, it is much closer to iOS.
  - ljackman 8y ago
    Yes, macOS seems to be heading in the right direction (even if it means frustrating legitimate usage patterns at times). In particular, I like that it kept it simple by either an application being sandboxed with explicit user permissions for certain features, or not being sandboxed at all. Contrast with Linux FlatPaks where even "sandboxed" programs can have a wide range of implicit permissions based on the image configuration, which aren't obvious to end users when running `flatpak install` in the same way that macOS's privacy settings are for each sandboxed macOS app. I remember some FlatPak applications defaulting to allowing unsandboxed home directory access without prompting me on installation, which seemed to defeat the purpose somewhat. It does block nefarious control flow attacks against programs that declare a strict sandbox, but that doesn't seem to go far enough in my view.

kwhitefoot 8y ago

Why's that? My Moto G5+ bought in January 2018 gets updates of some sort or another every few months. So who do you trust?

scarface74 8y ago
As is the 2013 iPhone 5s. What are the chances that you will still get updates in 5+ years?
throwaway2048 8y ago
how are those updates going to look in January 2020

nicoburns 8y ago

What's your plan if you lose the phone, or it gets stolen?