4 ms·

We need regulation which defines that any hardware device capable of running software developed by a third party different from the hardware manufacturer qualif

We need regulation which defines that any hardware device capable of running software developed by a third party different from the hardware manufacturer qualifies as a general purpose computing device, and that any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute. This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers. These restrictions extend outside the particular device. It must also be illegal as a commercial entity to enforce security schemes which involve remote attestation of the software stack on the client device such that service providers can refuse to service clients based on failing attestation. Service providers have other means of protecting themselves, taking away users control of their own devices is a heavy handed and unnecessarily draconian approach which ultimately only benefits the ad company that happens to make the software stack since they also benefit from restricting what software users can run. Hypothetically, they might be interested in making it impossible to modify video players to skip ads.

akoboldfrying 1y ago
> any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files? > This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  It wouldn't forbid shipping the device with a virus scanner. It would only forbid refusing the user control over what software does and does not run. There might be a couple messy edge cases if applied at the software level but I think it would work well. Applied at the hardware level it would be very clear cut. It would simply outlaw technical measures taken to prevent the user from installing an arbitrary OS on the device. Regarding warranties, what's so difficult about flashing a stock image to a device being serviced? At least in the US wasn't this already settled long ago by Magnuson-Moss? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    > what's so difficult about flashing a stock image to a device being serviced? Yes, I think that would cover most cases if we take it to its logical conclusion of wiping all device state (hard disk). OTOH, a few points: 1. I would accept the need to wipe the hard disk if I had messed with firmware or the OS, but not if a couple of keys on the keyboard had stopped working. This implies that (for me at least) a meaningful distinction remains between these two "levels" of warranty service. Do you agree? 2. Activities like overclocking or overvolting a CPU have the potential to cause lasting damage that can't be reversed by re-flashing. Under the policy you're suggesting, it would be illegal for manufacturers to offer users the option "You can pull this pin low to overclock outside the supported range, but you will void the warranty by doing so", and too expensive for them to endlessly replace parts damaged by these activities for free under warranty, so that consumer option, rare as it already is, would go away completely. 3. I still think there may be some devices that are impractical to completely re-flash. According to this 2021 Porsche article [0], modern cars contain 70-100 ECUs (microcontrollers), each of which will have its own flash/EEPROM. [0]: https://medium.com/next-level-german-engineering/porsche-future-of-code-526eb3de3bbe https://medium.com/next-level-german-engineering/porsche-fut...
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      I think there's somewhat of a misunderstanding. The suggestion is that warranties not be denied due to user modifications that are unrelated or trivial to revert. It's the logical extension of Magnusun-Moss from aftermarket parts to aftermarket software packages. 1. I expect wiping any given component to be entirely up to the manufacturer's discretion. If doing so is not trivial and is legitimately required for the repair to proceed then I'd expect the user to be charged for the additional service. 2. Violating manufacturer specifications and being at fault for damages are sometimes distinct. A manufacturer arbitrarily saying "you must not do X" should not necessarily mean that doing X will void the warranty. It might though. Discretion is obviously required. 3. If your car stops working after you mess with the firmware and you take it in to the dealer I imagine they'd charge you to reflash things since the issue was caused by your own actions. That doesn't mean they should be able to decline to cover entirely unrelated defects. Also I don't think vehicle firmware would be caught up by the original proposal in the first place since cars aren't generally intended to run third party software. There's a grey area with infotainment systems that have an app store depending on if those are viewed as standalone or part of the larger vehicle. However reframing the proposal to revolve around intent would likely leave the firmware on unrelated embedded components in the clear to be locked down so long as those components don't interfere with the ability to freely use the general purpose computing element. Personally I'd like vehicle firmware to be covered by similar protections but I recognize that falls outside the scope of a proposal about products intended for use as general purpose computing devices.
- afeuerstein 1y ago
  > Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files? Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted It is very reasonable and already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    > Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning. I agree. > already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software. Do you have any examples of such jurisdictions? I think whether this is reasonable turns on how "reversible" is interpreted. If it means "reversible to factory settings", including wiping all built-in storage media, then it seems reasonable to me that manufacturers should support this (possibly modulo some extreme cases like cars that have dozens of CPUs). But I would not be happy with having my hard disk wiped if I sent in my laptop for repairs because a couple of keys stopped working, which tells me that (to me) there remain at least two classes of "problem that should be fixed for free under warranty by the manufacturer".
- encom 1y ago
  >virus scanners You can (and should, imho) remove anti-virus software.
miki123211 1y ago
I agree, but I think three extra conditions would need to be added here. 1. Devices should be allowed to display a different logo at boot time depending on whether the software is manufacturer-approved or not. That way, if somebody sells you an used device with a flashed firmware that steals all your financial data, you have a way to know. 2. Going from approved to unapproved firmware should result in a full device wipe, Chromebook style. Possibly with a three-day cooldown. Those aren't too much of an obstacle for a true tinkerer who knows what they're doing, but they make it harder to social engineer people into installing a firmware of the attackers' choosing. 3. Users should have the ability to opt themselves into cryptographic protection, either on the original or modified firmware, for anti-theft reasons. Otherwise, devices become extremely attractive to steal.
- gmueckl 1y ago
  4. Apps with special security needs are allowed to detect whether a device is unlocked and can either disable themselves or go into a mode that shifts ALL related liability onto the user. It's not the bank's fault if the user disabled protections and some spyware logs the online banking password or something like that.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Screw that. I want nearly the opposite. I don't really own my device if apps will look at my ownership flag and refuse to run. We can talk about the consequences of spyware but definitely not a total liability shift. Also preventing root doesn't prevent spyware.
  - mmh0000 1y ago
    It is the banks fault if they allow non-reversible, weird or large transactions without a secondary authorization capability. The bank’s bad processes are not an end device fault.
  - Zak 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure I'm against this. I could be convinced otherwise by documentation of significant fraud involving compromised devices (especially Android phones) that would have been stopped by a device attestation scheme. I should note Google has such an attestation scheme, and there are reliable defeats for it in most situations given root access. Apps have been able to insist on hardware-backed attestation which has not been defeated for some time, but that isn't available for old devices. Almost none do so. If this had a meaningful impact on fraud, more apps would insist on the hardware-backed option, but that's quite rare. Even Google doesn't; I used Google Pay contactless with LineageOS and root this week. I'm currently convinced it's primarily a corporate power grab; non-Google-approved Android won't be a consumer success if it doesn't run your banking app, and the copyright lobby loves anything that helps DRM.
Sophira 1y ago
While I agree in theory, this is never going to happen. There's too much DRM in use for it to work out.
- const_cast 1y ago
  DRM can still stick around and be popular. For example, consider an Apple TV. They make the hardware and software, so it can be locked down under the provided rules. Or a console. We might consider devices which are used for streaming or movies to not be general purpose computation devices. Which, historically, they haven't been. Watching copyrighted stuff on general purpose computers is a very new phenomena, and it's still quite atypical IMO.
- jimjimwii 1y ago
  Repeal and outlaw drm. It was a mistake that violates everyone's constitutional rights.
  - mmh0000 1y ago
    “constitutional rights” Words written on toilet paper. Only thing that exists today are “billionaire rights”.
    - reactordev 1y ago
      Exactly. DRM isn’t going anywhere so long as copyrights exist.
      - xg15 1y ago
        Not even that. Companies are already lobbying massively for selective enforcement of copyright as to not harm the AI boom (immediate jail terms for individuals torrenting a movie, "it's a complex issue" for AI companies scraping the entire internet) But even the DRM that is already there often only uses copyright laws as suggestions. E.g. YouTube's takedown guidelines are defined through their TOS, not through the DMCA.
    - 1y ago

akoboldfrying 1y ago

> any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files? > This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted.

fc417fc802 1y ago
It wouldn't forbid shipping the device with a virus scanner. It would only forbid refusing the user control over what software does and does not run. There might be a couple messy edge cases if applied at the software level but I think it would work well. Applied at the hardware level it would be very clear cut. It would simply outlaw technical measures taken to prevent the user from installing an arbitrary OS on the device. Regarding warranties, what's so difficult about flashing a stock image to a device being serviced? At least in the US wasn't this already settled long ago by Magnuson-Moss? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  > what's so difficult about flashing a stock image to a device being serviced? Yes, I think that would cover most cases if we take it to its logical conclusion of wiping all device state (hard disk). OTOH, a few points: 1. I would accept the need to wipe the hard disk if I had messed with firmware or the OS, but not if a couple of keys on the keyboard had stopped working. This implies that (for me at least) a meaningful distinction remains between these two "levels" of warranty service. Do you agree? 2. Activities like overclocking or overvolting a CPU have the potential to cause lasting damage that can't be reversed by re-flashing. Under the policy you're suggesting, it would be illegal for manufacturers to offer users the option "You can pull this pin low to overclock outside the supported range, but you will void the warranty by doing so", and too expensive for them to endlessly replace parts damaged by these activities for free under warranty, so that consumer option, rare as it already is, would go away completely. 3. I still think there may be some devices that are impractical to completely re-flash. According to this 2021 Porsche article [0], modern cars contain 70-100 ECUs (microcontrollers), each of which will have its own flash/EEPROM. [0]: https://medium.com/next-level-german-engineering/porsche-future-of-code-526eb3de3bbe https://medium.com/next-level-german-engineering/porsche-fut...
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    I think there's somewhat of a misunderstanding. The suggestion is that warranties not be denied due to user modifications that are unrelated or trivial to revert. It's the logical extension of Magnusun-Moss from aftermarket parts to aftermarket software packages. 1. I expect wiping any given component to be entirely up to the manufacturer's discretion. If doing so is not trivial and is legitimately required for the repair to proceed then I'd expect the user to be charged for the additional service. 2. Violating manufacturer specifications and being at fault for damages are sometimes distinct. A manufacturer arbitrarily saying "you must not do X" should not necessarily mean that doing X will void the warranty. It might though. Discretion is obviously required. 3. If your car stops working after you mess with the firmware and you take it in to the dealer I imagine they'd charge you to reflash things since the issue was caused by your own actions. That doesn't mean they should be able to decline to cover entirely unrelated defects. Also I don't think vehicle firmware would be caught up by the original proposal in the first place since cars aren't generally intended to run third party software. There's a grey area with infotainment systems that have an app store depending on if those are viewed as standalone or part of the larger vehicle. However reframing the proposal to revolve around intent would likely leave the firmware on unrelated embedded components in the clear to be locked down so long as those components don't interfere with the ability to freely use the general purpose computing element. Personally I'd like vehicle firmware to be covered by similar protections but I recognize that falls outside the scope of a proposal about products intended for use as general purpose computing devices.
afeuerstein 1y ago
> Won't this also forbid virus scanners that quarantine files? Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manufacturer to uphold a warranty if making unlimited changes to the system is permitted It is very reasonable and already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  > Yes. If I really _want_ to execute malware on my device, I should be allowed to do so by disabling the antivirus or disregarding a warning. I agree. > already the rule of law in "sane" jurisdictions, that manufacturer and mandated warranties are not touched by unrelated, reversable modifications to both hard- and software. Do you have any examples of such jurisdictions? I think whether this is reasonable turns on how "reversible" is interpreted. If it means "reversible to factory settings", including wiping all built-in storage media, then it seems reasonable to me that manufacturers should support this (possibly modulo some extreme cases like cars that have dozens of CPUs). But I would not be happy with having my hard disk wiped if I sent in my laptop for repairs because a couple of keys stopped working, which tells me that (to me) there remain at least two classes of "problem that should be fixed for free under warranty by the manufacturer".
encom 1y ago
>virus scanners You can (and should, imho) remove anti-virus software.

miki123211 1y ago

I agree, but I think three extra conditions would need to be added here. 1. Devices should be allowed to display a different logo at boot time depending on whether the software is manufacturer-approved or not. That way, if somebody sells you an used device with a flashed firmware that steals all your financial data, you have a way to know. 2. Going from approved to unapproved firmware should result in a full device wipe, Chromebook style. Possibly with a three-day cooldown. Those aren't too much of an obstacle for a true tinkerer who knows what they're doing, but they make it harder to social engineer people into installing a firmware of the attackers' choosing. 3. Users should have the ability to opt themselves into cryptographic protection, either on the original or modified firmware, for anti-theft reasons. Otherwise, devices become extremely attractive to steal.

gmueckl 1y ago
4. Apps with special security needs are allowed to detect whether a device is unlocked and can either disable themselves or go into a mode that shifts ALL related liability onto the user. It's not the bank's fault if the user disabled protections and some spyware logs the online banking password or something like that.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  Screw that. I want nearly the opposite. I don't really own my device if apps will look at my ownership flag and refuse to run. We can talk about the consequences of spyware but definitely not a total liability shift. Also preventing root doesn't prevent spyware.
- mmh0000 1y ago
  It is the banks fault if they allow non-reversible, weird or large transactions without a secondary authorization capability. The bank’s bad processes are not an end device fault.
- Zak 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure I'm against this. I could be convinced otherwise by documentation of significant fraud involving compromised devices (especially Android phones) that would have been stopped by a device attestation scheme. I should note Google has such an attestation scheme, and there are reliable defeats for it in most situations given root access. Apps have been able to insist on hardware-backed attestation which has not been defeated for some time, but that isn't available for old devices. Almost none do so. If this had a meaningful impact on fraud, more apps would insist on the hardware-backed option, but that's quite rare. Even Google doesn't; I used Google Pay contactless with LineageOS and root this week. I'm currently convinced it's primarily a corporate power grab; non-Google-approved Android won't be a consumer success if it doesn't run your banking app, and the copyright lobby loves anything that helps DRM.

Sophira 1y ago

While I agree in theory, this is never going to happen. There's too much DRM in use for it to work out.

const_cast 1y ago
DRM can still stick around and be popular. For example, consider an Apple TV. They make the hardware and software, so it can be locked down under the provided rules. Or a console. We might consider devices which are used for streaming or movies to not be general purpose computation devices. Which, historically, they haven't been. Watching copyrighted stuff on general purpose computers is a very new phenomena, and it's still quite atypical IMO.
jimjimwii 1y ago
Repeal and outlaw drm. It was a mistake that violates everyone's constitutional rights.
- mmh0000 1y ago
  “constitutional rights” Words written on toilet paper. Only thing that exists today are “billionaire rights”.
  - reactordev 1y ago
    Exactly. DRM isn’t going anywhere so long as copyrights exist.
    - xg15 1y ago
      Not even that. Companies are already lobbying massively for selective enforcement of copyright as to not harm the AI boom (immediate jail terms for individuals torrenting a movie, "it's a complex issue" for AI companies scraping the entire internet) But even the DRM that is already there often only uses copyright laws as suggestions. E.g. YouTube's takedown guidelines are defined through their TOS, not through the DMCA.
  - 1y ago