7 ms·

If Apple gave authorised owners a way to sign and boot their own code there wouldn't be as much of a necessity for people to go hunting for these exploits.

alias_neo 7y ago
Change Apple to Google, then wait 10 years _after_ Google do it. Android devices could allow you to do this out of the box if Google allowed you to upload your own keys and sign your own boot image by providing the tools to developers / power users. They haven't and they won't. Sadly that means Apple is unlikely to do it either given how much more strict they are on these things.
- eptcyka 7y ago
  Pixel devices allow you to upload your own keys.
  - ntauthority 7y ago
    Even then that's only for the boot chain after the application boot loader - you for example can't run custom UEFI apps in the Qualcomm eXtensible Boot Loader (let alone custom TrustZone applets or Hexagon DSP firmware) as those are still locked down to Google's RKH, and similarly Google also (unlike a number of Chinese vendors) does not offer their-signed firehose emergency recovery blobs in case of a hard user brick (say, erasing the GPT on the flash).
- amiga-workbench 7y ago
  Any kind of code signing that forces the end user to trust a third party and restricts how a person may use their own property needs to go. The security benefits are real, but the implementations are poor. On Android devices, a locked bootloader guarantees your device will be e-waste within 2 years.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  The way Google does it seems fine to me. You have to explicitly unlock the bootloader, which wipes all the data. As an extra, if you want to use the phone after wiping, you need to have the auth of the last user (to avoid reselling of stolen phones). Once you unlock the bootloader, you can do whatever, but the phone explicitly shows that it's unlocked on boot so you know that you know your bootloader is no longer safe. These seem like a fair compromise.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And how many people would know what “an unlocked boot loader” meant if someone else unlocked it — like an over possessive spouse wanted to install malware or a government actor?
    - amiga-workbench 7y ago
      So it's literally an education problem? The same issue exists with authentication on the web, if it weren't for normies being unable to wrap their head around it, we could be signing into websites with public key crypto instead of faffing with passwords. Must we continue to drag things out and design for the lowest common denominator?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It’s an “education problem” that has been going on at least since the dawn of the web where people had 10 toolbars installed on their browser and adware installed on their computer.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      They don't need to know what the symbol means. There's text! https://source.android.com/security/images/boot_orange.png https://source.android.com/security/images/boot_orange.png
      - scarface74 7y ago
        We have decades of research that people ignore warnings — see Vista UAC. People always click continue. There is so much scare ware out there people have become immune.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

alias_neo 7y ago

Change Apple to Google, then wait 10 years _after_ Google do it. Android devices could allow you to do this out of the box if Google allowed you to upload your own keys and sign your own boot image by providing the tools to developers / power users. They haven't and they won't. Sadly that means Apple is unlikely to do it either given how much more strict they are on these things.

eptcyka 7y ago
Pixel devices allow you to upload your own keys.
- ntauthority 7y ago
  Even then that's only for the boot chain after the application boot loader - you for example can't run custom UEFI apps in the Qualcomm eXtensible Boot Loader (let alone custom TrustZone applets or Hexagon DSP firmware) as those are still locked down to Google's RKH, and similarly Google also (unlike a number of Chinese vendors) does not offer their-signed firehose emergency recovery blobs in case of a hard user brick (say, erasing the GPT on the flash).
amiga-workbench 7y ago
Any kind of code signing that forces the end user to trust a third party and restricts how a person may use their own property needs to go. The security benefits are real, but the implementations are poor. On Android devices, a locked bootloader guarantees your device will be e-waste within 2 years.
ehsankia 7y ago
The way Google does it seems fine to me. You have to explicitly unlock the bootloader, which wipes all the data. As an extra, if you want to use the phone after wiping, you need to have the auth of the last user (to avoid reselling of stolen phones). Once you unlock the bootloader, you can do whatever, but the phone explicitly shows that it's unlocked on boot so you know that you know your bootloader is no longer safe. These seem like a fair compromise.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And how many people would know what “an unlocked boot loader” meant if someone else unlocked it — like an over possessive spouse wanted to install malware or a government actor?
  - amiga-workbench 7y ago
    So it's literally an education problem? The same issue exists with authentication on the web, if it weren't for normies being unable to wrap their head around it, we could be signing into websites with public key crypto instead of faffing with passwords. Must we continue to drag things out and design for the lowest common denominator?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It’s an “education problem” that has been going on at least since the dawn of the web where people had 10 toolbars installed on their browser and adware installed on their computer.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    They don't need to know what the symbol means. There's text! https://source.android.com/security/images/boot_orange.png https://source.android.com/security/images/boot_orange.png
    - scarface74 7y ago
      We have decades of research that people ignore warnings — see Vista UAC. People always click continue. There is so much scare ware out there people have become immune.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]