4 ms·

The only thing that prevents Apple, Microsoft, or Ubuntu from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You

by carom 5y ago

The only thing that prevents Apple, Microsoft, or Ubuntu from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You already operate under this trust model.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> You already operate under this trust model. Do I? Can you elaborate? Do you notice a difference between a company (potentially) doing this behind closed doors and as quietly as possible and doing this in a public official way? What if I tell you I don't use any of the operating systems you listed? Does your answer change? I have a question: Would you welcome such a move? Do you believe that taking things a bit further would be nice because "we might catch a few criminals"?
- threeseed 5y ago
  If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. And if you are assuming Apple can't be trusted when they say they won't expand this to non-CSAM use cases then not sure why you would then trust Microsoft, Ubuntu etc.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
    > If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. This implies that trust is always the same and that if you trust one entity (because you did not event limit your answer to corporations) you are supposed to trust everyone and if that is not the case then you have some kind of logical error in your thinking. It also implies that losing the trust in one entity, but not some other, doesn't make sense somehow.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      That makes sense—so long as you lose trust in the entity when they actually betray that trust.
xunn0026 5y ago
Trust but verify. There's enough eyes on the Ubuntu binaries and network traffic that if Canonical would intentionally infect some binaries it would make the news. Remember that Apple quite recently tried to prevent local firewalls from even seeing the traffic of their own apps on macOS. That doesn't seem trustworthy. Of course, companies and some people have external firewalls too.
jamesrcole 5y ago
but once a system is in place, it becomes easier to do things that are a variation on what that system already does. As opposed to doing it from scratch. Also, I think the outcry would be larger if they did it from scratch compared to if they did it as an extension to some existing, known capability. If that's the case, they'd have less to lose in doing such a thing if the base system is already in place.
- eddyg 5y ago
  Great explainer why this won’t happen: https://pingthread.com/thread/1424873629003702273 https://pingthread.com/thread/1424873629003702273 > For the conspiracy to work, it'd need Apple, NCMEC and DOJ working together to pull it off voluntarily and it to never leak. If that's your threat model, OK, but that's a huge conspiracy with enormous risk to all participants
  - jamesrcole 5y ago
    I'm not sure how that's relevant to my comment. I'm not saying any particular thing will happen. I was just disagreeing with the person who said "The only thing that prevents ... from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You already operate under this trust model." My disagreement is that it's more complex than "the only thing".
  - themaninthedark 5y ago
    No, it does not require Apple, NCMEC and DOJ working together. Apple could intercept hashes that are sent and compare to their own database. Someone in the NCMEC could add non CSAM hashes to their database.
    - eddyg 5y ago
      It sounds like you didn't read what I posted, and why the NCMEC can't just add arbitrary hashes.
- simondotau 5y ago

by carom 5y ago

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

> You already operate under this trust model. Do I? Can you elaborate? Do you notice a difference between a company (potentially) doing this behind closed doors and as quietly as possible and doing this in a public official way? What if I tell you I don't use any of the operating systems you listed? Does your answer change? I have a question: Would you welcome such a move? Do you believe that taking things a bit further would be nice because "we might catch a few criminals"?

threeseed 5y ago
If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. And if you are assuming Apple can't be trusted when they say they won't expand this to non-CSAM use cases then not sure why you would then trust Microsoft, Ubuntu etc.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. This implies that trust is always the same and that if you trust one entity (because you did not event limit your answer to corporations) you are supposed to trust everyone and if that is not the case then you have some kind of logical error in your thinking. It also implies that losing the trust in one entity, but not some other, doesn't make sense somehow.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    That makes sense—so long as you lose trust in the entity when they actually betray that trust.

xunn0026 5y ago

Trust but verify. There's enough eyes on the Ubuntu binaries and network traffic that if Canonical would intentionally infect some binaries it would make the news. Remember that Apple quite recently tried to prevent local firewalls from even seeing the traffic of their own apps on macOS. That doesn't seem trustworthy. Of course, companies and some people have external firewalls too.

jamesrcole 5y ago

but once a system is in place, it becomes easier to do things that are a variation on what that system already does. As opposed to doing it from scratch. Also, I think the outcry would be larger if they did it from scratch compared to if they did it as an extension to some existing, known capability. If that's the case, they'd have less to lose in doing such a thing if the base system is already in place.

eddyg 5y ago
Great explainer why this won’t happen: https://pingthread.com/thread/1424873629003702273 https://pingthread.com/thread/1424873629003702273 > For the conspiracy to work, it'd need Apple, NCMEC and DOJ working together to pull it off voluntarily and it to never leak. If that's your threat model, OK, but that's a huge conspiracy with enormous risk to all participants
- jamesrcole 5y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant to my comment. I'm not saying any particular thing will happen. I was just disagreeing with the person who said "The only thing that prevents ... from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You already operate under this trust model." My disagreement is that it's more complex than "the only thing".
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  No, it does not require Apple, NCMEC and DOJ working together. Apple could intercept hashes that are sent and compare to their own database. Someone in the NCMEC could add non CSAM hashes to their database.
  - eddyg 5y ago
    It sounds like you didn't read what I posted, and why the NCMEC can't just add arbitrary hashes.
simondotau 5y ago