3 ms·

The problem with Rust in the boot process is that it's going to become much harder to find vulnerabilities for roots/jailbreaks. Still, this is great work!

kelnos 2y ago
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that there will still be vulnerabilities that are of similar difficulty to exploit as would be found in a C bootloader, but will be harder to find by security researchers? Or are you just saying that there will be fewer vulnerabilities, but the ones that do exist will be more "obscure" than would be the case if it were written in C, because Rust eliminates some of the more "obvious" vectors? Either way, do you consider this a bad thing?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  It's neither of those. The trade-off is that features like this are often used against users, preventing them from actually controlling their own machines. Under those circumstances, bugs in the "security" of the machine are a mixed bag: malware can exploit them to break out, but users can exploit them to get full control over the machine that they own. This has happened with Android phones, for instance, allowing people to root phones and/or replace the ROM with a community version that gets security patches not available in the stock ROM, which is probably a net security improvement even with the bootloader left vulnerable. So it's really hard to call it a good thing or a bad thing; it's a trade.
quohort 2y ago
Yes, ironically increased transparency and more secure systems will lead to less freedom for the user, because trusted computing is most often securing the interests of manufacturers against users (what RMS refereed to as "Treacherous Computing") I think that we have been able to thwart "treachery" in the meantime by exploiting side-channels in trusted computing implementations. Ultimately it may be necessary to amend the constitution to prevent manufacturers from distributing locked-down hardware for the good of free society (competition, democracy, etc.) at large. Otherwise, computer giants will have ultimate control over the distribution of information (given that the economics of manufacturing are driven by economies of scale).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that there will still be vulnerabilities that are of similar difficulty to exploit as would be found in a C bootloader, but will be harder to find by security researchers? Or are you just saying that there will be fewer vulnerabilities, but the ones that do exist will be more "obscure" than would be the case if it were written in C, because Rust eliminates some of the more "obvious" vectors? Either way, do you consider this a bad thing?

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
It's neither of those. The trade-off is that features like this are often used against users, preventing them from actually controlling their own machines. Under those circumstances, bugs in the "security" of the machine are a mixed bag: malware can exploit them to break out, but users can exploit them to get full control over the machine that they own. This has happened with Android phones, for instance, allowing people to root phones and/or replace the ROM with a community version that gets security patches not available in the stock ROM, which is probably a net security improvement even with the bootloader left vulnerable. So it's really hard to call it a good thing or a bad thing; it's a trade.

quohort 2y ago

Yes, ironically increased transparency and more secure systems will lead to less freedom for the user, because trusted computing is most often securing the interests of manufacturers against users (what RMS refereed to as "Treacherous Computing") I think that we have been able to thwart "treachery" in the meantime by exploiting side-channels in trusted computing implementations. Ultimately it may be necessary to amend the constitution to prevent manufacturers from distributing locked-down hardware for the good of free society (competition, democracy, etc.) at large. Otherwise, computer giants will have ultimate control over the distribution of information (given that the economics of manufacturing are driven by economies of scale).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]