4 ms·

Where do you draw the line at repair-hostile vs. secure? I agree many things are hostile to repair, but let's take the new T2. It's awful for repair, but actu

by mises 8y ago

Where do you draw the line at repair-hostile vs. secure? I agree many things are hostile to repair, but let's take the new T2. It's awful for repair, but actually does have security benefits against evil maid attacks, a serious security risk. Stuff like this also applies to unrootable androids (a major pet peeve of mine). I think we all would do well to remember that it's always easier to say something is wrong than to create a solution. It's also worth noting that governments are arguably worse than anyone else at determining such edge cases as secure vs. user-hostile.

chii 8y ago
A device is repair hostile if repairing requires the permission of a third party instead of the device owner. Security is different because a device can be made secure without it being repair hostile - e.g, the owner of the device has the private keys in a signed code update. So a maid can't just Willy Nilly change your baby monitor, but you can.
- mises 8y ago
  > has the private keys How do you store these? It's not really user friendly for the average consumer, and certainly has little recourse if you lose them all. How well does it usually go when people are told to keep track of, say, a dongle? What if each device needs one?
  - 12298765 8y ago
    The point isn't that every user will know how to repair their own products, rather that they could if they choose. Think about your lawnmower. If the engine won't run, maybe you can figure out through a bit of research that it's probably the spark plug. So you can go buy a spark plug and swap it yourself. You don't need the manufacturer to authorize your new spark plug. However, many people would not know anything about where to begin replacing their spark plug, and don't want the hastle to learn, so they bring it to the manufacturer and pay a premium to have it done for them. But if they someday decided to learn, they could learn themselves. Or even take their lawnmower to a friend who can help them. To take away those option entirely, only leaving the one option -- paying the manufacturer a premium to do it for you -- is what I have an issue with. Bonus: the lawnmower manufacturer could include a type of safety lock that does not allow you to work on your lawnmower, to prevent a user from hurting themselves. However, the manufacturer should also give the user the ability to remove that lock, positively asserting that they know what they're doing (like giving the private keys, or allowing a motherboard switch to be toggled which unlocks the system, etc)
dwild 8y ago
> Stuff like this also applies to unrootable androids I can't flash my Android phone without unlocking it, which format it, and as long as it's unlocked, there's a warning message on boot. There's always a way to make it serviceable, worst case, allow the user to deactivate theses security feature after a full format.
- mises 8y ago
  Yes, and I would say that might be a good middle ground. I personally really like having the freedom to customize the software I run on the device. However, there's always the security question, and it's true that not being able to run unsigned ring 0 code is a powerful security feature.

by mises 8y ago

chii 8y ago

A device is repair hostile if repairing requires the permission of a third party instead of the device owner. Security is different because a device can be made secure without it being repair hostile - e.g, the owner of the device has the private keys in a signed code update. So a maid can't just Willy Nilly change your baby monitor, but you can.

mises 8y ago
> has the private keys How do you store these? It's not really user friendly for the average consumer, and certainly has little recourse if you lose them all. How well does it usually go when people are told to keep track of, say, a dongle? What if each device needs one?
- 12298765 8y ago
  The point isn't that every user will know how to repair their own products, rather that they could if they choose. Think about your lawnmower. If the engine won't run, maybe you can figure out through a bit of research that it's probably the spark plug. So you can go buy a spark plug and swap it yourself. You don't need the manufacturer to authorize your new spark plug. However, many people would not know anything about where to begin replacing their spark plug, and don't want the hastle to learn, so they bring it to the manufacturer and pay a premium to have it done for them. But if they someday decided to learn, they could learn themselves. Or even take their lawnmower to a friend who can help them. To take away those option entirely, only leaving the one option -- paying the manufacturer a premium to do it for you -- is what I have an issue with. Bonus: the lawnmower manufacturer could include a type of safety lock that does not allow you to work on your lawnmower, to prevent a user from hurting themselves. However, the manufacturer should also give the user the ability to remove that lock, positively asserting that they know what they're doing (like giving the private keys, or allowing a motherboard switch to be toggled which unlocks the system, etc)

dwild 8y ago

> Stuff like this also applies to unrootable androids I can't flash my Android phone without unlocking it, which format it, and as long as it's unlocked, there's a warning message on boot. There's always a way to make it serviceable, worst case, allow the user to deactivate theses security feature after a full format.

mises 8y ago
Yes, and I would say that might be a good middle ground. I personally really like having the freedom to customize the software I run on the device. However, there's always the security question, and it's true that not being able to run unsigned ring 0 code is a powerful security feature.