3 ms·

So, I like the accessibility of physical switches but how are they more trusting than software ones? Or light indicators such as Apple's green Dot? Already tru

by 627467 6y ago

So, I like the accessibility of physical switches but how are they more trusting than software ones? Or light indicators such as Apple's green Dot? Already trusting Open Source requires non technical people to trust others who can read the code to vouch for it. Here, we would need to expect an electronics engineer to understand (from looking at a disassembled device) that the switch actually does what it says it does, right?

ben-schaaf 6y ago
With software ones you still have to trust the hardware and firmware in addition to the software. With light indicators like Apple's you also need to trust the hardware - and since the designs aren't open it's more difficult to do so - but once verified that they work as advertised having kill switches is a much more active security function than an indicator light.
- autisticcurio 6y ago
  International standards can also be zero days. For example, the international standard for called ID, uses a dial up modem protocol which means the hardware has to have capabilities to read this data which means the hardware has dialup modem capabilities. So if you can compromise the firmware of the modem, a backdoor into a device is via the very telephone network you later rely on to communicate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID#Operation Chips fall into 3 categories, fused by manufacturer, fused by branding company, or not fused allowing future updates, like bios chips. Even if the chip is fused, a backdoor may still exist, in some cases standard behaviour can be the backdoor. With zero days appearing in hardware, software and standards, its very easy if you have the knowledge to get a persistent backdoor into a device beit a PinePhone, Librem 5 or Necunos to name just a couple. https://forums.puri.sm/t/comparing-specs-of-upcoming-linux-phones/6827 https://forums.puri.sm/t/comparing-specs-of-upcoming-linux-p... https://tuxphones.com/yet-another-librem-5-and-pinephone-linux-smartphone-comparison/ https://tuxphones.com/yet-another-librem-5-and-pinephone-lin... Its probably why people like Cobham, Thales and other openly public military manufacturers make their own kits for militaries around the world. https://www.cobham.com/ https://www.cobham.com/ https://www.thalesgroup.com/en https://www.thalesgroup.com/en I even think its possible to hack the communication systems of the new Lockheed Martin F35, because the manufacturers are walking a logical development path (their mistake), but I've yet to have a go at it, so cant say for sure yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C25CwNlVjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C25CwNlVjA
  - Yc4win 6y ago
    Your comment is so in depth thanks. It really opened my eyes to some of the industrial subversion going on that I was unaware of, especially about the international standards being a vector for backdoors.
Vai1sail 6y ago
> Already trusting Open Source requires non technical people to trust others who can read the code to vouch for it Maybe that's nitpicking, but I would rather say that trusting open source requires to trust the developer won't take the chance of adding malware if they know anybody could read their code. Although, granted, this does not shield from vulnerabilities created in good faith.
kop316 6y ago
You can download the board schematics here: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php?title=PinePhone_v1.2 https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php?title=PinePhone_v1.2 And see exactly what the switches turn on and off. Heck, if you are really paranoid, you can inspect the PCB and the schematics of the individual chips to ensure it does what it does. The datasheets for the individual chips are here: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone EDIT: This has it too: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_FAQ#What_are_the_kill_switches_doing.3F https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_FAQ#What_are_the...
solarkraft 6y ago
Physical switches typically are a lot harder to circumvent and a lot easier to verify than software ones. > Here, we would need to expect an electronics engineer to understand (from looking at a disassembled device) that the switch actually does what it says it does, right? Sure. This is a lot better than just trusting a manufacturer's word, since they have an incentive to hide vulnerabilities and independent researchers have an incentive to publish them. Having designs available makes their work a whole lot easier and potentially lowers the barrier of entry so much someone with some interest and time could do the checks themselves. The more eyes, the better.
syshum 6y ago
>>Already trusting Open Source requires non technical people to trust others who can read the code to vouch for it. That is not the the benefit of OpenSource. With open Source you have MORE technical people looking at the code, finding things, and reporting things than you do with Closed Source There is also less risk to researchers when reporting things to Open Source than to Closed Source Companies who often respond not with "thanks for the info" but with "I am Lawyer from X Bad software vendor, we are reporting you to law enforcement and reserve the right to sue you if you tell anyone about your finding"
alasdair_ 6y ago
If the camera is used to take a photo, the light would flicker for the briefest of moments. Most people would not notice.

by 627467 6y ago

ben-schaaf 6y ago

With software ones you still have to trust the hardware and firmware in addition to the software. With light indicators like Apple's you also need to trust the hardware - and since the designs aren't open it's more difficult to do so - but once verified that they work as advertised having kill switches is a much more active security function than an indicator light.

autisticcurio 6y ago
International standards can also be zero days. For example, the international standard for called ID, uses a dial up modem protocol which means the hardware has to have capabilities to read this data which means the hardware has dialup modem capabilities. So if you can compromise the firmware of the modem, a backdoor into a device is via the very telephone network you later rely on to communicate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID#Operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID#Operation Chips fall into 3 categories, fused by manufacturer, fused by branding company, or not fused allowing future updates, like bios chips. Even if the chip is fused, a backdoor may still exist, in some cases standard behaviour can be the backdoor. With zero days appearing in hardware, software and standards, its very easy if you have the knowledge to get a persistent backdoor into a device beit a PinePhone, Librem 5 or Necunos to name just a couple. https://forums.puri.sm/t/comparing-specs-of-upcoming-linux-phones/6827 https://forums.puri.sm/t/comparing-specs-of-upcoming-linux-p... https://tuxphones.com/yet-another-librem-5-and-pinephone-linux-smartphone-comparison/ https://tuxphones.com/yet-another-librem-5-and-pinephone-lin... Its probably why people like Cobham, Thales and other openly public military manufacturers make their own kits for militaries around the world. https://www.cobham.com/ https://www.cobham.com/ https://www.thalesgroup.com/en https://www.thalesgroup.com/en I even think its possible to hack the communication systems of the new Lockheed Martin F35, because the manufacturers are walking a logical development path (their mistake), but I've yet to have a go at it, so cant say for sure yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C25CwNlVjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C25CwNlVjA
- Yc4win 6y ago
  Your comment is so in depth thanks. It really opened my eyes to some of the industrial subversion going on that I was unaware of, especially about the international standards being a vector for backdoors.

Vai1sail 6y ago

> Already trusting Open Source requires non technical people to trust others who can read the code to vouch for it Maybe that's nitpicking, but I would rather say that trusting open source requires to trust the developer won't take the chance of adding malware if they know anybody could read their code. Although, granted, this does not shield from vulnerabilities created in good faith.

kop316 6y ago

You can download the board schematics here: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php?title=PinePhone_v1.2 https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php?title=PinePhone_v1.2 And see exactly what the switches turn on and off. Heck, if you are really paranoid, you can inspect the PCB and the schematics of the individual chips to ensure it does what it does. The datasheets for the individual chips are here: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone EDIT: This has it too: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_FAQ#What_are_the_kill_switches_doing.3F https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_FAQ#What_are_the...

solarkraft 6y ago

Physical switches typically are a lot harder to circumvent and a lot easier to verify than software ones. > Here, we would need to expect an electronics engineer to understand (from looking at a disassembled device) that the switch actually does what it says it does, right? Sure. This is a lot better than just trusting a manufacturer's word, since they have an incentive to hide vulnerabilities and independent researchers have an incentive to publish them. Having designs available makes their work a whole lot easier and potentially lowers the barrier of entry so much someone with some interest and time could do the checks themselves. The more eyes, the better.

syshum 6y ago

>>Already trusting Open Source requires non technical people to trust others who can read the code to vouch for it. That is not the the benefit of OpenSource. With open Source you have MORE technical people looking at the code, finding things, and reporting things than you do with Closed Source There is also less risk to researchers when reporting things to Open Source than to Closed Source Companies who often respond not with "thanks for the info" but with "I am Lawyer from X Bad software vendor, we are reporting you to law enforcement and reserve the right to sue you if you tell anyone about your finding"

alasdair_ 6y ago

If the camera is used to take a photo, the light would flicker for the briefest of moments. Most people would not notice.