4 ms·

It does, because when you do, "the third parties (...) just refuse to provide their services to you". Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the at

It does, because when you do, "the third parties (...) just refuse to provide their services to you". Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well.

charcircuit 10mo ago
>the third parties (...) just refuse to provide their services to you 1. The third parties are not your device. 2. This only prevents their app from attesting in the insecure kernel. You can still use the app with it loaded in the secure kernel. >Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well. This is quite different because no Android operating system lets you transparently run those apps in a secure vm that would pass attestation. Needing to reflash your device is totally different than the OS transparently loading the app in a secure environment.
- seba_dos1 10mo ago
  > The third parties are not your device. Nobody says they are, but that's a distinction without difference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555963 The end result is that you're restricted from computing on your own device if you wish to participate in the society. Only pre-approved software gets a pass. > You can still use the app with it loaded in the secure kernel. That's not how it works. The secure kernel is the one that attests the report regardless of whether the user kernel has been modified or not, and the application itself does not run in the secure realm at all. It's quite similar to how it works on Android. > This is quite different because no Android operating system lets you transparently run those apps in a secure vm that would pass attestation. Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about here. You're not going to pass this attestation process inside a VM, or to be more exact: you'll get a signed report that effectively signals "don't accept this client" to the server.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    >you're restricted from computing on your own device if you wish to participate in the society. You are restricted from hiding that you tampered with apps from servers that ask for it. You can still do whatever computing you want on your device. The fact that an app required for society has to run in a secure vm, doesn't take away from all that you can do with the rest of your system. >That's not how it works. Please take a charitable interpretation. What you are saying is what I meant. The app is using the secure kernel instead of an unsecured one you may have for extra computing freedom. >I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'm talking about adopting the approach Windows is taking but on Android. Allowing both insecure and secure virtual machines running on the same host, seamlessly integrated so the user can't tell. >You're not going to pass this attestation process inside a VM Yes, you are. Android VMs are designed to be isolated which means that you could have one VM that is fully trusted, and one that isn't. So you can do all your crazy things in the insecure vm while simultaneously having another secure vm available for apps that need it. The hypervisor ensures that this would be secure.
    - seba_dos1 10mo ago
      > You can still do whatever computing you want on your device. Maybe there's some alternate reality where that's the case, but it's not this one. > Please take a charitable interpretation. What you are saying is what I meant. It's hard to figure out what you meant, you seem confused about how this works. Have you read the article? "Secure Kernel" is what Microsoft calls the piece of software that runs within the trusted context and is distinct from the NT kernel which state it inspects and attests.
3abiton 10mo ago
> Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well. Speaking of which, tangentially, what are the latest workaround for play integrity these days?

It does, because when you do, "the third parties (...) just refuse to provide their services to you". Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well.

charcircuit 10mo ago

>the third parties (...) just refuse to provide their services to you 1. The third parties are not your device. 2. This only prevents their app from attesting in the insecure kernel. You can still use the app with it loaded in the secure kernel. >Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well. This is quite different because no Android operating system lets you transparently run those apps in a secure vm that would pass attestation. Needing to reflash your device is totally different than the OS transparently loading the app in a secure environment.

seba_dos1 10mo ago
> The third parties are not your device. Nobody says they are, but that's a distinction without difference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555963 The end result is that you're restricted from computing on your own device if you wish to participate in the society. Only pre-approved software gets a pass. > You can still use the app with it loaded in the secure kernel. That's not how it works. The secure kernel is the one that attests the report regardless of whether the user kernel has been modified or not, and the application itself does not run in the secure realm at all. It's quite similar to how it works on Android. > This is quite different because no Android operating system lets you transparently run those apps in a secure vm that would pass attestation. Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about here. You're not going to pass this attestation process inside a VM, or to be more exact: you'll get a signed report that effectively signals "don't accept this client" to the server.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  >you're restricted from computing on your own device if you wish to participate in the society. You are restricted from hiding that you tampered with apps from servers that ask for it. You can still do whatever computing you want on your device. The fact that an app required for society has to run in a secure vm, doesn't take away from all that you can do with the rest of your system. >That's not how it works. Please take a charitable interpretation. What you are saying is what I meant. The app is using the secure kernel instead of an unsecured one you may have for extra computing freedom. >I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'm talking about adopting the approach Windows is taking but on Android. Allowing both insecure and secure virtual machines running on the same host, seamlessly integrated so the user can't tell. >You're not going to pass this attestation process inside a VM Yes, you are. Android VMs are designed to be isolated which means that you could have one VM that is fully trusted, and one that isn't. So you can do all your crazy things in the insecure vm while simultaneously having another secure vm available for apps that need it. The hypervisor ensures that this would be secure.
  - seba_dos1 10mo ago
    > You can still do whatever computing you want on your device. Maybe there's some alternate reality where that's the case, but it's not this one. > Please take a charitable interpretation. What you are saying is what I meant. It's hard to figure out what you meant, you seem confused about how this works. Have you read the article? "Secure Kernel" is what Microsoft calls the piece of software that runs within the trusted context and is distinct from the NT kernel which state it inspects and attests.

3abiton 10mo ago

> Anyone who uses an Android device that doesn't pass the attestation know this well. Speaking of which, tangentially, what are the latest workaround for play integrity these days?