3 ms·

So this feels like an amazing idea...but do we really want to give the federal government the keys to update your equipment remotely and to be able to pinpoint

So this feels like an amazing idea...but do we really want to give the federal government the keys to update your equipment remotely and to be able to pinpoint weaknesses of the source? This feels like Edward Snowden's grimmest nightmare.

Xelynega 3y ago
As I understand that's not what's being proposed. The "keys" in this case would decrypt the encrypted source code that's available in a public repository, and there's some logical mechanism(and actual use for smart contracts) that would key the key in escrow until certain conditions are met(company doesn't renew, goes out of business, etc.) After which it will be publicly released so anyone can decrypt the already available encrypted source code
- kristianbrigman 3y ago
  And what happens if the server holding the keys gets compromised? I guess most manufacturers won’t care, but the more reputable ones would have things in their source they consider proprietary and would definitely not want to have to submit it. Verification that it is, in fact, the actual shipped source might not be trivial either.
  - bick_nyers 3y ago
    What happens when someone hacks GitHub and gains access to private repositories? That slim possibility doesn't stop the vast majority of companies from hosting their source in a private repo.
ics 3y ago
Framed like that, it sounds terrible. However, consider this: [1] This discussion is about a federal agency providing certification of products essentially in the form of a stamp (on a device, website, etc.). Nothing is stopping a vendor from committing to and offering the same thing but without government involvement. This could easily be a selling point for the paranoid. Something something blockchain and smart contracts... [2] Even though we're discussing IoT devices, it's not necessary that they be capable of updating over the air 24/7. Creative engineers could probably devise a method to prevent complete remote takeover by anyone holding the keys– physical switches, additional authentication required during the support period, etc. [3] Personally, I think the federal government getting access to keys for any IoT device made/sold in the US is the only part of this idea that could already be happening. They can knock on doors or mail subpoenas, plant moles, etc. I would be much more comfortable with a technical solution on the physical device than any presumption of privacy in the current state.

Xelynega 3y ago

As I understand that's not what's being proposed. The "keys" in this case would decrypt the encrypted source code that's available in a public repository, and there's some logical mechanism(and actual use for smart contracts) that would key the key in escrow until certain conditions are met(company doesn't renew, goes out of business, etc.) After which it will be publicly released so anyone can decrypt the already available encrypted source code

kristianbrigman 3y ago
And what happens if the server holding the keys gets compromised? I guess most manufacturers won’t care, but the more reputable ones would have things in their source they consider proprietary and would definitely not want to have to submit it. Verification that it is, in fact, the actual shipped source might not be trivial either.
- bick_nyers 3y ago
  What happens when someone hacks GitHub and gains access to private repositories? That slim possibility doesn't stop the vast majority of companies from hosting their source in a private repo.

ics 3y ago

Framed like that, it sounds terrible. However, consider this: [1] This discussion is about a federal agency providing certification of products essentially in the form of a stamp (on a device, website, etc.). Nothing is stopping a vendor from committing to and offering the same thing but without government involvement. This could easily be a selling point for the paranoid. Something something blockchain and smart contracts... [2] Even though we're discussing IoT devices, it's not necessary that they be capable of updating over the air 24/7. Creative engineers could probably devise a method to prevent complete remote takeover by anyone holding the keys– physical switches, additional authentication required during the support period, etc. [3] Personally, I think the federal government getting access to keys for any IoT device made/sold in the US is the only part of this idea that could already be happening. They can knock on doors or mail subpoenas, plant moles, etc. I would be much more comfortable with a technical solution on the physical device than any presumption of privacy in the current state.