4 ms·

For the record, I'm in favor of legal mandate that hardware owners have the buy-time option to enable adding their own keys to any root trust stores on their de

by xoa 5y ago

For the record, I'm in favor of legal mandate that hardware owners have the buy-time option to enable adding their own keys to any root trust stores on their devices. However, that'd be in addition to Apple's keys and wouldn't be about the security of Apple's keys, because Apple is part of the fundamental trust foundation if you buy a Mac or iDevice. Period. The devices are massively vertically integrated, right down to the core silicon which is completely custom. Apple has absolutely unfettered ultimate low level access opportunity up and down the stack. If you completely don't trust Apple, then you absolutely should not use their hardware at all. So some level "trust Apple" is simply a security axiom on this platform. And they've shown that to be not unreasonable at least when it comes something like root private keys. Fact is they've been operating for a long time now and like the rest of the big players that hasn't been a leak issue. It's not that big a deal for a big player to physically secure such things to a high enough degree that it's unlikely to be a limiting factor. Dedicated rooms, full offline, hardware backed Shamir's secret sharing for m-of-n key signing ritual requirements etc etc.

lovelyviking 5y ago
>If you completely don't trust Apple, then you absolutely should not use their hardware at all. So some level "trust Apple" is simply a security axiom on this platform. It is not about trusting Apple or any other company for that matter. It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore. This practice needs a push back as it completely unacceptable. It should be made illegal to sell such devices if that is not already the case because you can be left without working computer just because link to the company isn't available for some reason. Company goes away and you are left without a working computer. Internet isn't available and you have brick instead of your computer. This is crazy and even more crazy that there are bunch of people brainwashed enough to the level that they do not even perceive it as a problem. Probably because they can't think 3 steps forward.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  > It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore. I have bad news about Intel CPUs. >[Intel] processors are running a closed-source variation of the open-source MINIX 3. We don't know exactly what version or how it's been modified since we don't have the source code. We do know that with it there Neither Linux nor any other operating system have final control of the x86 platform. https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op...
  - lovelyviking 5y ago
    therefore I've said this before: The full control of devices you own is absolutely essential. It requires a complete transparency of basic components like cpu micro-code, firmware and hardware otherwise it can and will be abused.[0] .. unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.[1] then I've got unexpected opposition from the one who is making linux for M1 ( marcan_42). If even him fail to understand the consequences of accepting such hostage situation with Apple devices and claim "Freedom isn't the answer." [2]. If even he is ready to downgrade discussion to the personal disrespect toward people like me [3] who merely trying to point out the the danger of the hostage situation while go 'easy' on Apple and ready to justify all of their current mistakes then we have a serious problem. I do not wish to use the term "doomed" but probably we observe limited ability of highly technical minds to resist to the primitive brainwashing and manipulation the big companies provide by presenting it as a norm to trade 'freedom' for the 'safety' . Some people can't even think a few steps forward and understand that by helping companies to promote such agenda we'll end up with loosing both 'safety' and 'freedom'. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29676524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29676524 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29691816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29691816
zaxbeast 5y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/rosdbu/100_foss_smartphone_hardening_nonroot_guide_40/ https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/rosdbu/100_foss_s... take a look at the "Why not Apple devices?" section
duskwuff 5y ago
> hardware owners have the buy-time option to enable adding their own keys to any root trust stores on their devices Would you really be more comfortable knowing that your hardware vendor had the capability to produce machines with a low-level, unremoveable backdoor? I'm not sure I would. A feature like that can be used against users more easily than it can be used by those users.
- xoa 5y ago
  >Would you really be more comfortable knowing that your hardware vendor had the capability to produce machines with a low-level, unremoveable backdoor? What? They do. Apple absolutely has the capability to build any or all machines with low-level unremoveable backdoors, like, in the freaking processor if they wanted. I'm not clear on what your issue is here. The current state of affairs is that for devices like the iPhone, the manufacturer can setup a secure software tree where the root of trust contains only their keys. And for many (if not most) of their customers that's a good thing, because in their threat model running their own arbitrary code is of lower utility and much higher risk then getting social engineered into bypassing key protections or the like. There is important power in grouping together buying decisions in an unbypassable way, it's why the likes of Facebook for example cannot insist on bypassing iOS privacy protections. They can't pick people off, because people literally do not have the choice. Facebook must deal with Apple for the ~97% (or whatever it is who don't/can't jailbreak) majority of users. However there are real issues with that too for a sizable number of owners. So all I want is that there be an option at purchase time which allows owners to load their own root keys. The whole chain of trust infrastructure is still there, but technical users or those with specific needs can then run their own (and still be better off). Making it buy-time means that users who want to ensure they cannot be compelled later can still do that too. Nobody loses. A feature like that can be used against users more easily than it can be used by those users. How? Most people will stick with defaults, and I'd be ok with Apple or whomever qualifying an open device with reduced software support or some small charge for example too. And once it's been sold, it's the same as currently. I think that's a reasonable tradeoff.
  - duskwuff 5y ago

by xoa 5y ago

lovelyviking 5y ago

>If you completely don't trust Apple, then you absolutely should not use their hardware at all. So some level "trust Apple" is simply a security axiom on this platform. It is not about trusting Apple or any other company for that matter. It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore. This practice needs a push back as it completely unacceptable. It should be made illegal to sell such devices if that is not already the case because you can be left without working computer just because link to the company isn't available for some reason. Company goes away and you are left without a working computer. Internet isn't available and you have brick instead of your computer. This is crazy and even more crazy that there are bunch of people brainwashed enough to the level that they do not even perceive it as a problem. Probably because they can't think 3 steps forward.

GeekyBear 5y ago
> It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore. I have bad news about Intel CPUs. >[Intel] processors are running a closed-source variation of the open-source MINIX 3. We don't know exactly what version or how it's been modified since we don't have the source code. We do know that with it there Neither Linux nor any other operating system have final control of the x86 platform. https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op...
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  therefore I've said this before: The full control of devices you own is absolutely essential. It requires a complete transparency of basic components like cpu micro-code, firmware and hardware otherwise it can and will be abused.[0] .. unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.[1] then I've got unexpected opposition from the one who is making linux for M1 ( marcan_42). If even him fail to understand the consequences of accepting such hostage situation with Apple devices and claim "Freedom isn't the answer." [2]. If even he is ready to downgrade discussion to the personal disrespect toward people like me [3] who merely trying to point out the the danger of the hostage situation while go 'easy' on Apple and ready to justify all of their current mistakes then we have a serious problem. I do not wish to use the term "doomed" but probably we observe limited ability of highly technical minds to resist to the primitive brainwashing and manipulation the big companies provide by presenting it as a norm to trade 'freedom' for the 'safety' . Some people can't even think a few steps forward and understand that by helping companies to promote such agenda we'll end up with loosing both 'safety' and 'freedom'. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29676524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29676524 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29691816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29691816

zaxbeast 5y ago

https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/rosdbu/100_foss_smartphone_hardening_nonroot_guide_40/ https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/rosdbu/100_foss_s... take a look at the "Why not Apple devices?" section

duskwuff 5y ago

> hardware owners have the buy-time option to enable adding their own keys to any root trust stores on their devices Would you really be more comfortable knowing that your hardware vendor had the capability to produce machines with a low-level, unremoveable backdoor? I'm not sure I would. A feature like that can be used against users more easily than it can be used by those users.

xoa 5y ago
>Would you really be more comfortable knowing that your hardware vendor had the capability to produce machines with a low-level, unremoveable backdoor? What? They do. Apple absolutely has the capability to build any or all machines with low-level unremoveable backdoors, like, in the freaking processor if they wanted. I'm not clear on what your issue is here. The current state of affairs is that for devices like the iPhone, the manufacturer can setup a secure software tree where the root of trust contains only their keys. And for many (if not most) of their customers that's a good thing, because in their threat model running their own arbitrary code is of lower utility and much higher risk then getting social engineered into bypassing key protections or the like. There is important power in grouping together buying decisions in an unbypassable way, it's why the likes of Facebook for example cannot insist on bypassing iOS privacy protections. They can't pick people off, because people literally do not have the choice. Facebook must deal with Apple for the ~97% (or whatever it is who don't/can't jailbreak) majority of users. However there are real issues with that too for a sizable number of owners. So all I want is that there be an option at purchase time which allows owners to load their own root keys. The whole chain of trust infrastructure is still there, but technical users or those with specific needs can then run their own (and still be better off). Making it buy-time means that users who want to ensure they cannot be compelled later can still do that too. Nobody loses. A feature like that can be used against users more easily than it can be used by those users. How? Most people will stick with defaults, and I'd be ok with Apple or whomever qualifying an open device with reduced software support or some small charge for example too. And once it's been sold, it's the same as currently. I think that's a reasonable tradeoff.
- duskwuff 5y ago