3 ms·
The details page [1] of the transparency log explains the exact threat model that they are trying to address with this: > Transparency systems can be used to d
by xg15 3y ago
The details page [1] of the transparency log explains the exact threat model that they are trying to address with this:
> Transparency systems can be used to detect—and thus deter—supply chain attacks. Let's address some examples:
Suppose an attacker maliciously modifies a Pixel image and even manages to sign it with the key that Google owns. Anyone who receives the malicious image can query the binary transparency log to verify the image's authenticity. The user will find that Google has not added the corresponding image metadata to the log and will know not to trust the compromised image. Since publishing to the log is a separate process from the release process with signing, this raises the bar for the attacker beyond just compromising the key.
So effectively, this seems to secure against malicious actors messing with Google's (or AOSP's) own build process, i.e. by somehow inserting an MITM between the build and the signing stage.
I don't know how Google's or AOSP's build systems are set up, but I'd suspect that not many entities are able to mount a successful supply chain attack on internal networks. So (conspiracy hat on), I wonder if there is something more behind this, i.e. some recent hacking incident or a warning of one.
[1] https://developers.google.com/android/binary_transparency/overview?hl=en https://developers.google.com/android/binary_transparency/ov...
- codethief 3y ago> I don't know how Google's or AOSP's build systems are set up, but I'd suspect that not many entities are able to mount a successful supply chain attack on internal networks. This classic article might be worth your while: https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610 https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60f...
- piecerough 3y agoToo bad it's paywall'ed
- codethief 3y agoHere you go, it wasn't always like that: https://web.archive.org/web/20210227105146/https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610 https://web.archive.org/web/20210227105146/https://medium.co... :)
- saagarjha 3y agoIt’s much better than that.
- anon84873628 3y agoMaybe just lessons learned from SolarWinds
- confiq 3y agofor those who don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_federal_government_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_federal_gov...
- userbinator 3y agoI wonder if there is something more behind this, i.e. some recent hacking incident or a warning of one. They may just be trying to get people to "trust" them more. Remember that according to Google and the rest of Big Tech, "malicious actors" also includes the user.
- mjg59 3y agoOne option is that it's not Google protecting you against Google, it's Google attempting to drive other Android vendors towards the same infrastructure in order to protect users against vendors being compelled to produce targeted backdoored firmware images.
- confiq 3y agonot only that, but it also protects you from law enforcement or any state actor. This mainly protects journalists and human right lawyers. I think this is the idea here after NGO shitstorm.