4 ms·

James Donaldson (the CEO) effectively kicked Daniel Micay (the then-CTO) out. Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys, so any existing users would need to re-f

James Donaldson (the CEO) effectively kicked Daniel Micay (the then-CTO) out. Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys, so any existing users would need to re-format their phone to an image that accepts new signing keys in order to keep receiving updates. In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS. In a technical sense (because of the change in signing keys), as far OTA updates are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct operating system from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS. In a social sense (because of the forced change in engineering leadership), as far as many humans are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct institution from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS.

Foxboron 8y ago
The good news is that Daniel has not stopped experimenting with hardened android. https://github.com/AndroidHardening/ https://github.com/AndroidHardening/
- folkrav 8y ago
  I'm not familiar with what happened from beginning to end, but regardless of the actual chain of events or if the CEO was right or wrong to kick him out, I'm not sure how users can still trust Daniel after destroying signing keys.
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    He didn't destroy them out of malice. He destroyed them because (from his point of view) they were about to be compromised. If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do.
    - huahe 8y ago
      > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do. how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?
      - LukeShu 8y ago
        I state that by clearly stating the premise and assumptions in an if/then format: > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel ..., then That's a big-ish "if"; I didn't weigh in on whether I think it's true. A reasonable person could go either-way on that. If it is true, then Daniel was justified, if it's not, then he wasn't. > ... when the users have no control or say over this decision? If we assume that people trusted Copperhead-the-organization because they trusted Daniel and that Daniel's removal is a change-of-hands, then the decisions is: - Do nothing (and stop receiving updates) - Start trusting the new engineering leadership of Copperhead-the-organization From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should destroy the key: Making the active decision to start trusting the new Copperhead requires the active technical step of installing the new key; making the inactive decision doesn't require action. If on the other hand we assume that Daniel was an implementation detail and that people trust Copperhead-the-organization as an institution, then the decision is: - Stop trusting Copperhead-the-organization (and stop receiving updates) - Do nothing From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should not destroy the key: Making the active decision of ceasing trust requires the active technical step of disabling updates.
    - burk96 8y ago
      Exactly, a pretty clever move on his part.
    - folkrav 8y ago
      Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
  - eleitl 8y ago
    He did it to prevent their misuse. The project is dead. Stop poking it with a stick. It won't rise up again.
    - folkrav 8y ago
      I didn't even know about CopperheadOS before this post. I'm not poking at it with a stick, I'm asking questions as an outsider just learning about it.
e1ven 8y ago
I don't know much about the situation, but it looks like Daniel is continuing his work at https://github.com/AndroidHardening https://github.com/AndroidHardening ?
huahe 8y ago
just gonna point something out here > In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS. > Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys it's probably a good thing they aren't involved with the company or product then
- strcat 8y ago
  To be clear, the signing keys were not Copperhead signing keys but rather signing keys of the open source project they had agreed to support and were trying to take over including coercing turning over personal signing keys used for the project to the company. The project existed before the company was founded, and was largely written before it was incorporated. It wasn't written on company time as an employee. The original project has continued and the original repositories are the ones in https://github.com/GrapheneOS https://github.com/GrapheneOS on GitHub (they were migrated here and have the original stars from before Copperhead even existed), which as you can see is an actual open source project under actual open source licenses with quite active development, just as it was when it started out. Copperhead only has a barely maintained fork of the legacy code, which they are using in violation of the previous non-commercial license which they themselves convinced the project to use, which required the project to sign off on their business deals - which was actively acknowledged and respected, right up until after the failed takeover attempt where the previous arrangements / deals were simply ignored. The donations of the project were also stolen by Copperhead, which refused to return them to donors when they demanded their money either be passed along to where it was supposed to go or returned. Similarly, the project's Twitter account was stolen, and Copperhead deleted all evidence of what had occurred to cover it up along with sending bogus DMCA takedown notices to users / customers who tried to archive it on GitHub / GitLab. The cover-up was largely successful along with the attempt to take credit for the work and masquerade as the creators and developers of the project via the Twitter account takeover. People don't look closely at what happened, or at the published legal threats, actual proof and of course the still developed code. People just trust that a corporation is in the right, despite the fact that it's screwing over an open source project and co-founder of the company who owns 50% even today. Nothing to see there, clearly. Copperhead took over the infrastructure that had been provided and it was clear that it would not be possible to ever push out another update from the actual open source project. The only use for the signing keys would have been a compromise of the project. The CEO of Copperhead had explicitly agreed to an arrangement where they would be supporting the project while having direct ownership and control over it. The company was supposed to building a business around the project and supporting it. They were unfaithful to the agreement and turned on the project, and did immense damage to it that set back years of both technical work and work to forge connections and collaboration with other organizations and individuals. It's going to take a long time to repair the damage done to it. And by the way, here is a series of 2 tweets for you to consider. A) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/944244053184524288 https://twitter.com/snowden/status/944244053184524288 I wonder why anyone would want to compromise this OS? B) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1047618052089696257 https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1047618052089696257 Which is quite a bit after what happened leading up to the keys needing to be wiped, and the project continuing on without Copperhead's involvement. Here is an archive of some of what was posted, which was then covered up, including via bogus DMCA takedowns (which is noted in the repository): https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover The person who posted this archive was a neutral party observing what was happened, not someone involved in it.

Foxboron 8y ago

The good news is that Daniel has not stopped experimenting with hardened android. https://github.com/AndroidHardening/ https://github.com/AndroidHardening/

folkrav 8y ago
I'm not familiar with what happened from beginning to end, but regardless of the actual chain of events or if the CEO was right or wrong to kick him out, I'm not sure how users can still trust Daniel after destroying signing keys.
- LukeShu 8y ago
  He didn't destroy them out of malice. He destroyed them because (from his point of view) they were about to be compromised. If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do.
  - huahe 8y ago
    > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do. how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?
    - LukeShu 8y ago
      I state that by clearly stating the premise and assumptions in an if/then format: > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel ..., then That's a big-ish "if"; I didn't weigh in on whether I think it's true. A reasonable person could go either-way on that. If it is true, then Daniel was justified, if it's not, then he wasn't. > ... when the users have no control or say over this decision? If we assume that people trusted Copperhead-the-organization because they trusted Daniel and that Daniel's removal is a change-of-hands, then the decisions is: - Do nothing (and stop receiving updates) - Start trusting the new engineering leadership of Copperhead-the-organization From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should destroy the key: Making the active decision to start trusting the new Copperhead requires the active technical step of installing the new key; making the inactive decision doesn't require action. If on the other hand we assume that Daniel was an implementation detail and that people trust Copperhead-the-organization as an institution, then the decision is: - Stop trusting Copperhead-the-organization (and stop receiving updates) - Do nothing From that perspective, it makes sense that Daniel should not destroy the key: Making the active decision of ceasing trust requires the active technical step of disabling updates.
  - burk96 8y ago
    Exactly, a pretty clever move on his part.
  - folkrav 8y ago
    Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
- eleitl 8y ago
  He did it to prevent their misuse. The project is dead. Stop poking it with a stick. It won't rise up again.
  - folkrav 8y ago
    I didn't even know about CopperheadOS before this post. I'm not poking at it with a stick, I'm asking questions as an outsider just learning about it.

e1ven 8y ago

I don't know much about the situation, but it looks like Daniel is continuing his work at https://github.com/AndroidHardening https://github.com/AndroidHardening ?

huahe 8y ago

just gonna point something out here > In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS. > Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys it's probably a good thing they aren't involved with the company or product then

strcat 8y ago
To be clear, the signing keys were not Copperhead signing keys but rather signing keys of the open source project they had agreed to support and were trying to take over including coercing turning over personal signing keys used for the project to the company. The project existed before the company was founded, and was largely written before it was incorporated. It wasn't written on company time as an employee. The original project has continued and the original repositories are the ones in https://github.com/GrapheneOS https://github.com/GrapheneOS on GitHub (they were migrated here and have the original stars from before Copperhead even existed), which as you can see is an actual open source project under actual open source licenses with quite active development, just as it was when it started out. Copperhead only has a barely maintained fork of the legacy code, which they are using in violation of the previous non-commercial license which they themselves convinced the project to use, which required the project to sign off on their business deals - which was actively acknowledged and respected, right up until after the failed takeover attempt where the previous arrangements / deals were simply ignored. The donations of the project were also stolen by Copperhead, which refused to return them to donors when they demanded their money either be passed along to where it was supposed to go or returned. Similarly, the project's Twitter account was stolen, and Copperhead deleted all evidence of what had occurred to cover it up along with sending bogus DMCA takedown notices to users / customers who tried to archive it on GitHub / GitLab. The cover-up was largely successful along with the attempt to take credit for the work and masquerade as the creators and developers of the project via the Twitter account takeover. People don't look closely at what happened, or at the published legal threats, actual proof and of course the still developed code. People just trust that a corporation is in the right, despite the fact that it's screwing over an open source project and co-founder of the company who owns 50% even today. Nothing to see there, clearly. Copperhead took over the infrastructure that had been provided and it was clear that it would not be possible to ever push out another update from the actual open source project. The only use for the signing keys would have been a compromise of the project. The CEO of Copperhead had explicitly agreed to an arrangement where they would be supporting the project while having direct ownership and control over it. The company was supposed to building a business around the project and supporting it. They were unfaithful to the agreement and turned on the project, and did immense damage to it that set back years of both technical work and work to forge connections and collaboration with other organizations and individuals. It's going to take a long time to repair the damage done to it. And by the way, here is a series of 2 tweets for you to consider. A) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/944244053184524288 https://twitter.com/snowden/status/944244053184524288 I wonder why anyone would want to compromise this OS? B) https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1047618052089696257 https://twitter.com/snowden/status/1047618052089696257 Which is quite a bit after what happened leading up to the keys needing to be wiped, and the project continuing on without Copperhead's involvement. Here is an archive of some of what was posted, which was then covered up, including via bogus DMCA takedowns (which is noted in the repository): https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover https://gitlab.com/yegortimoshenko/copperhead-takeover The person who posted this archive was a neutral party observing what was happened, not someone involved in it.