4 ms·
To play devil's advocate, I don't think most people would be fine with their car ramming into a military base after an unfriendly firmware update. However, I a
by avadodin 9mo ago
To play devil's advocate, I don't think most people would be fine with their car ramming into a military base after an unfriendly firmware update.
However, I agree that the risks to individuals and their freedoms stemming from these technologies outweigh the benefits in most cases.
- rpcope1 9mo agoThe better question then is why the actual f** can an OTA firmware update touch anything in the steering or powertrain of the car, or why do I even need a computer that's connected to anything, and one which does more than just make sure I get the right amount of fuel and spark, or why on earth do people tolerate this sort of insanity.
- hsbauauvhabzb 9mo agoIf a malicious update can be pushed because of some failure in the signature verification checks (which already exist), what makes you think the threat actor won’t have access to signing keys? This is not what attestation is even seeking to solve.
- avadodin 9mo agoFirmware upgrades don't need to use the same protocols. Without secure boot any applet can take a security hole escalate and persist until you take a trip to a zone of interest. With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities, etc. Why do people take DA as "Hail Satan" anyways.
- hsbauauvhabzb 9mo agoIf this was about stopping malware, it wouldn’t be targeting Linux endpoints.
- cwillu 9mo ago“With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities” As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded the argument.