5 ms·

This kind of thing is generally used to disallow downgrading the bootloader once there is a bug in chain of trust handling of the bootloader. Otherwise once bro

by Muromec 9mo ago

This kind of thing is generally used to disallow downgrading the bootloader once there is a bug in chain of trust handling of the bootloader. Otherwise once broken is forever broken. It makes sense from the trusted computing perspective to have this. It's not even new, it was still there on p2k motorollas 25 years ago. You may not want trusted computing and root/jailbreak everything as a consumer, but building one is not inherently evil.

piskov 9mo ago
> It's not even new, it was still there on p2k motorollas 25 years ago. I’m sure CIA was not founded after covid :-)
- obnauticus 9mo ago
  Uhh…Wut?
  - piskov 9mo ago
    Let me remind you the gist of the parent comment: > So that’s how in an event of war US adversaries will be relieved of their devices
pdpi 9mo ago
A discussion you don't see nearly enough of is that there is a fundamental tradeoff with hardware security features — every feature that you can use to secure your device can also be used by an adversary to keep control once they compromise you.
- Muromec 9mo ago
  Fair enough, but so does your front door. Either thing is not smart enough to judge the legitimacy of ownership transitions.
  - pdpi 9mo ago
    Yeah, not disagreeing with you. It's just that, every time we have this discussion, we see comments like GP's rebutted by comments like yours, and vice versa. All I'm saying is that we have to acknowledge that both are true. And, if both are true, we need to have a serious conversation about who gets to choose the core used in our front door locks.
- izacus 9mo ago
  Not only can, but inevitably is. Security folks - especially in mobile - are commonly useful idiots for introducing measures which are practically immediately coopted to take away users ability to control their device and modify it to serve them better. Every single time. We just had the Google side loading article here.
- digiown 9mo ago
  In this case, the "adversary" evaluates to the manufacturer, and "once they compromise you" evaluates to "already". This is the case with most smartphones and similar devices that treats the user as a guest, rather than the owner. See also: https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame
- ihsw 9mo ago
  [dead]
wasmainiac 9mo ago
I’d like to think I’m buying the device, not a seat to use the device, at least if I do not want to use their software.
- Muromec 9mo ago
  You can't have that with phones. You are always at the mercy of the hardware supplier and their trusted boot chain that starts with the actual phone processor (the one running GSM stuff, not user interface stuff). That one is always locked down and decides to boot you fancy android stuff. The fact that it's locked down and remotely killable is a feature that people pay for and regulators enforce from their side too. At the very best, the supplier plays nice and allows you to run your own applications, remove whatever crap they preinstalled and change to font face. If you are really lucky, you can choose to run practically useless linux distribution instead of practically useful linux distribution with their blessing. Blessing is a transient thing that can be revoked any time.
  - the8472 9mo ago
    Not true on the pinephone, the modem is a peripheral module, so the boot chain does not start with it.
    - userbinator 9mo ago
      Nor the Mediatek platforms as far as I know (very familiar with the MT65xx and MT67xx series; not sure about anything newer or older, except MT62xx which also boots --- from NOR flash --- the AP first.)
  - RobotToaster 9mo ago
    > You can't have that with phones. Why not? Obviously we don't have that. But what stops an open firmware (or even open hardware) GSM modem being built?
    - fragmede 9mo ago
wolvoleo 9mo ago
Trusted computing means trusted by the vendor and content providers, not trusted by the user. In that sense I consider it very evil.
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it. The operating system can steal sensitive information. Trusted computing is trusted by the user to the extent that they use the device. For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it.
  - mzajc 9mo ago
    > If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it. Because in the case of smartphones, there is realistically no other option. > For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it. Except when the bank trusts the system that I don't (smartphone with Google Services or equivalent Apple junk installed), and doesn't trust the system that I do (desktop computer or degoogled smartphone), which is a very common scenario.
  - bigyabai 9mo ago
    Do you actually, bottom-of-your-heart believe that ordinary consumers think like this? They use TikTok and WhatsApp and Facebook and the Wal-Mart coupon app as a product of deep consideration on the web of trust they're building? Users don't have a choice, and they don't care. Bitlocker is cracked by the feds, iOS and Android devices can get unlocked or hacked with commercially-available grey-market exploits. Push Notifications are bugged, apparently. Your logic hinges on an idyllic philosophy that doesn't even exist in security focused communities.
    - charcircuit 9mo ago
      Yes, I do believe from the bottom of my heart the users trust the operating systems they use. Apple and Google have done a great job at security and privacy which is why it seems like users don't care. It's like complaining why you have a system administrator if the servers are never down. When things are run well the average person seems ignorant of the problems.

by Muromec 9mo ago

piskov 9mo ago

> It's not even new, it was still there on p2k motorollas 25 years ago. I’m sure CIA was not founded after covid :-)

obnauticus 9mo ago
Uhh…Wut?
- piskov 9mo ago
  Let me remind you the gist of the parent comment: > So that’s how in an event of war US adversaries will be relieved of their devices

pdpi 9mo ago

A discussion you don't see nearly enough of is that there is a fundamental tradeoff with hardware security features — every feature that you can use to secure your device can also be used by an adversary to keep control once they compromise you.

Muromec 9mo ago
Fair enough, but so does your front door. Either thing is not smart enough to judge the legitimacy of ownership transitions.
- pdpi 9mo ago
  Yeah, not disagreeing with you. It's just that, every time we have this discussion, we see comments like GP's rebutted by comments like yours, and vice versa. All I'm saying is that we have to acknowledge that both are true. And, if both are true, we need to have a serious conversation about who gets to choose the core used in our front door locks.
izacus 9mo ago
Not only can, but inevitably is. Security folks - especially in mobile - are commonly useful idiots for introducing measures which are practically immediately coopted to take away users ability to control their device and modify it to serve them better. Every single time. We just had the Google side loading article here.
digiown 9mo ago
In this case, the "adversary" evaluates to the manufacturer, and "once they compromise you" evaluates to "already". This is the case with most smartphones and similar devices that treats the user as a guest, rather than the owner. See also: https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame
ihsw 9mo ago
[dead]

wasmainiac 9mo ago

I’d like to think I’m buying the device, not a seat to use the device, at least if I do not want to use their software.

Muromec 9mo ago
You can't have that with phones. You are always at the mercy of the hardware supplier and their trusted boot chain that starts with the actual phone processor (the one running GSM stuff, not user interface stuff). That one is always locked down and decides to boot you fancy android stuff. The fact that it's locked down and remotely killable is a feature that people pay for and regulators enforce from their side too. At the very best, the supplier plays nice and allows you to run your own applications, remove whatever crap they preinstalled and change to font face. If you are really lucky, you can choose to run practically useless linux distribution instead of practically useful linux distribution with their blessing. Blessing is a transient thing that can be revoked any time.
- the8472 9mo ago
  Not true on the pinephone, the modem is a peripheral module, so the boot chain does not start with it.
  - userbinator 9mo ago
    Nor the Mediatek platforms as far as I know (very familiar with the MT65xx and MT67xx series; not sure about anything newer or older, except MT62xx which also boots --- from NOR flash --- the AP first.)
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  > You can't have that with phones. Why not? Obviously we don't have that. But what stops an open firmware (or even open hardware) GSM modem being built?
  - fragmede 9mo ago

wolvoleo 9mo ago

Trusted computing means trusted by the vendor and content providers, not trusted by the user. In that sense I consider it very evil.

charcircuit 9mo ago
If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it. The operating system can steal sensitive information. Trusted computing is trusted by the user to the extent that they use the device. For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it.
- mzajc 9mo ago
  > If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it. Because in the case of smartphones, there is realistically no other option. > For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it. Except when the bank trusts the system that I don't (smartphone with Google Services or equivalent Apple junk installed), and doesn't trust the system that I do (desktop computer or degoogled smartphone), which is a very common scenario.
- bigyabai 9mo ago
  Do you actually, bottom-of-your-heart believe that ordinary consumers think like this? They use TikTok and WhatsApp and Facebook and the Wal-Mart coupon app as a product of deep consideration on the web of trust they're building? Users don't have a choice, and they don't care. Bitlocker is cracked by the feds, iOS and Android devices can get unlocked or hacked with commercially-available grey-market exploits. Push Notifications are bugged, apparently. Your logic hinges on an idyllic philosophy that doesn't even exist in security focused communities.
  - charcircuit 9mo ago
    Yes, I do believe from the bottom of my heart the users trust the operating systems they use. Apple and Google have done a great job at security and privacy which is why it seems like users don't care. It's like complaining why you have a system administrator if the servers are never down. When things are run well the average person seems ignorant of the problems.