3 ms·

I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, inst

I can see how trademarks could allow for them to restrict the selling of such phones. This is to fight against people who buy Motorola phones, unlock them, install a new operating system on them including malware, and then sell them to consumers as a Motorola phone. Normal consumers think they are getting a Motorola phone, but in actuality they aren't and they are buying a device that is compromised. The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people.

axoltl 3y ago
Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing, it'd be illegal for the same reasons.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? Unlocking the bootloader is what makes it possible. The security model protects against hackers installing malware on the device otherwise. >If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing Good luck opening up the SoC and trying to modify it that way. This is not a concern as the security is good enough where this isn't a big concern.
  - axoltl 3y ago
    I’ve been an embedded security engineer for the past two decades, have worked on a dozen secure silicon projects, have broken several secure boot chains (albeit only one publicly, in 2014: https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt1/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt...). I’ve also worked on some of the early Wii modchips when I was with Team Twiizers. These days I spend time (though not as much as I’d like) in cleanrooms playing with SEMs, plasma etchers and other fun toys. I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect. Tell me what assumption is wrong so I can learn (unless your point was that software (and hardware :)) can have security bugs which I'm already aware of), else I will continue to repeat this.
      - axoltl 3y ago
        Apologies, I should have been more nuanced in my reply. Your assumptions are correct, for a given threat model. I think I'm simply arguing from a different threat model that includes hardware modifications like the modchips used in the Nintendo Switch, that glitch the power rail to modify the behaviour of the SoC.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people. I am sorry, this is absurd. Firstly my right of ownership over my device is greater that Motorolas twice-removed claim over trademark, which is only a small part of its value. Second -precedent. We have laptops, there is unblocked boot loader and this has never been the norm. If a crime occurs, it’s dealt with by the justice system, not by taking away my rights.

axoltl 3y ago

Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing, it'd be illegal for the same reasons.

charcircuit 3y ago
>Agreed, though that certainly _feels_ orthogonal to unlocking the bootloader? Unlocking the bootloader is what makes it possible. The security model protects against hackers installing malware on the device otherwise. >If I modify the hardware some other way (a la a modchip) and achieve the same thing Good luck opening up the SoC and trying to modify it that way. This is not a concern as the security is good enough where this isn't a big concern.
- axoltl 3y ago
  I’ve been an embedded security engineer for the past two decades, have worked on a dozen secure silicon projects, have broken several secure boot chains (albeit only one publicly, in 2014: https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt1/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/hubcap-chromecast-root-pt...). I’ve also worked on some of the early Wii modchips when I was with Team Twiizers. These days I spend time (though not as much as I’d like) in cleanrooms playing with SEMs, plasma etchers and other fun toys. I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >I can fairly safely say your assumptions are incorrect. Tell me what assumption is wrong so I can learn (unless your point was that software (and hardware :)) can have security bugs which I'm already aware of), else I will continue to repeat this.
    - axoltl 3y ago
      Apologies, I should have been more nuanced in my reply. Your assumptions are correct, for a given threat model. I think I'm simply arguing from a different threat model that includes hardware modifications like the modchips used in the Nintendo Switch, that glitch the power rail to modify the behaviour of the SoC.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> The attackers are using Motorola's trademark to trick people. I am sorry, this is absurd. Firstly my right of ownership over my device is greater that Motorolas twice-removed claim over trademark, which is only a small part of its value. Second -precedent. We have laptops, there is unblocked boot loader and this has never been the norm. If a crime occurs, it’s dealt with by the justice system, not by taking away my rights.