4 ms·

Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software. Consumers will be fine with the pre

Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software. Consumers will be fine with the preexisting software and such a feature is unneeded complexity that almost no one will use.

realusername 8mo ago
If consumers are fine with the pre-existing software and will never try to use anything else, why do we lock them out though? Something doesn't add up.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  >why do we lock them out though? It reduces security, expands attack surface, reputational damage from people complaining about their phones bricking doing something unsupported.
  - tavavex 8mo ago
    That's how all these vendors justify their actions once they decide it's time to kill off their competition and impose arbitrary limitations. But how real is this "damage", actually? How big do you think the overlap between 'users who want to install custom operating systems', 'users who have no idea what they're doing' and 'users who would loudly complain after an obvious mistake on their own part' is? The #1 source of reputational damage for vendors is people breaking something within their controlled environments. The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector, just because of how niche it is. We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years, custom firmware for phones goes back at least 25 years, and despite all of this, the world hasn't gone up in flames yet. The security pressure exists, but it's minimal compared to everything else. The real reasons are profit-driven.
    - charcircuit 8mo ago
      >The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector >We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years And the PC platform has had terrible security. Do not use it as an example of everything being fine. You are forgetting the malware for PCs which would spread by writing a custom operating system on a removal media. Then that removable media is plugged into another PC and when that PC boots up it boots that operating system which goes ahead and infects the OS installed to the hard disk along with any other removable media.
      - tavavex 8mo ago
        I'm using PCs as an example precisely because they're not absolutely secure, yet despite this, everything is going fine, because the vectors of attack are so esoteric. Tell me, when's the last time you've heard of an attack like what you described? Would you say that these attacks are equal in scale and threat to the countless times when millions of people were endangered through a botched OS security update, sandbox escape exploits, and other normal ways of doing malware? Is this a scalable attack that actually happens day-to-day? Is this something you worry about as much as securing your PC from normal exploits from the internet? And your example is ignoring two things that make it even more absurd. One, I've never seen a computer that will auto-boot into removable media, the default is always existing media first, and changing that requires user input. But also, if you have direct physical access to the PC, you don't need these complex basically-nonexistent boot exploits. If you have physical access, it's already over. You can invisibly MitM the network, monitor, keyboard/mouse inputs even if the device doesn't allow custom systems. You can wait for the system to be logged in, then take any data you need. If you're a government actor, you may even have devices that extract unencrypted data from almost anything using zero-days, even the most 'secure' computers or phones.
        charcircuit 8mo ago
        >everything is going fine Stealer malware is running rampant on the PC platform. It is not going fine. >One, I've never seen a computer that will auto-boot into removable media Look into late 20th century PCs. They are designed to boot from a floppy disk first. >But also, if you have direct physical access to the PC It does not take physical access to write to a floppy disk.
  - realusername 8mo ago
    Do they even care about reputational damage? Since you picked the phone as an example, right now when I search for ChatGPT in the Play Store, the top app is a fake app with a counterfeit logo. Is it really this platform which was supposed to improve security?
    - charcircuit 8mo ago
      Play Store moderation is imperfect and adversarial. That is a harder problem then protecting the boot chain.
      - realusername 8mo ago
        It's not even moderation, the Play Store manually put results before of the actual results in exchange of money. It's a harder problem for sure but harder because Google earns money from the problem.
yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
> Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software. That's not true? Nearly every laptop, desktop, and server can trivially run whatever OS+software, of course, but also currently at least virtually all Android devices can run arbitrary user built/supplied software (I grant that, unfortunately, replacing the OS is often harder). Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  Being able to play Doom on a microwave has novelty because microwave manufacturers don't support running random software on their microwaves since they are optimizing the product to be a microwave.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
    As I said, >> Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced. A microwave isn't generally viewed as a computer. In particular, if not even the manufacturer isn't running arbitrary code on it (only a tiny little program to do... microwave stuff...) then I view it as out of scope to an argument about artificially-restricted computers.
ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
I HATE this argument. If the PC had been locked down like smartphones are today, we would never have had Linux on the desktop. Also, replace "consumers" by "people" who might need to control their devices to do things that may be against the interests of the manufacturer, like removing ads and surveillance.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  >we would never have had Linux on the desktop. In such an alternate timeline there may be another operating system even better than Linux.
  - ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
    I highly doubt that. Monopolies do not tend to develop what is best for consumers, but what is best for their bottom lines. It also depends on the criteria on which you judge it. I may be better in terms of compatibility because everything would be an expensive walled garden like Apple's. It would be worse in terms of choice because niche peripheral makers might not be able to enter the market at all. And it would certainly, almost guaranteed, be much much worse in terms of personal freedom because no-one would be allowed to modify any parts of any piece of software without some cryptographic hardware module stopping them. Imagine that situation, and then imagine how a government would use that to impose surveillance on all personal computing devices.
    - charcircuit 8mo ago
      There is no monopoly on operating systems. Anyone is free to implement one and anyone is free to implement the APIs of another to support the other's apps on their own.
- hdgvhicv 8mo ago
  we would never have had Linux at all Maybe sco and similar would have managed to fight against windows, but i suspect online would be decades behind what it is without the freedom we knew in the 80s and 90s that so many HN pundits are salivating to grow away. Maybe a minitel system would be better - we would t have the problems of social media at least.

realusername 8mo ago

If consumers are fine with the pre-existing software and will never try to use anything else, why do we lock them out though? Something doesn't add up.

charcircuit 8mo ago
>why do we lock them out though? It reduces security, expands attack surface, reputational damage from people complaining about their phones bricking doing something unsupported.
- tavavex 8mo ago
  That's how all these vendors justify their actions once they decide it's time to kill off their competition and impose arbitrary limitations. But how real is this "damage", actually? How big do you think the overlap between 'users who want to install custom operating systems', 'users who have no idea what they're doing' and 'users who would loudly complain after an obvious mistake on their own part' is? The #1 source of reputational damage for vendors is people breaking something within their controlled environments. The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector, just because of how niche it is. We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years, custom firmware for phones goes back at least 25 years, and despite all of this, the world hasn't gone up in flames yet. The security pressure exists, but it's minimal compared to everything else. The real reasons are profit-driven.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    >The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector >We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years And the PC platform has had terrible security. Do not use it as an example of everything being fine. You are forgetting the malware for PCs which would spread by writing a custom operating system on a removal media. Then that removable media is plugged into another PC and when that PC boots up it boots that operating system which goes ahead and infects the OS installed to the hard disk along with any other removable media.
    - tavavex 8mo ago
      I'm using PCs as an example precisely because they're not absolutely secure, yet despite this, everything is going fine, because the vectors of attack are so esoteric. Tell me, when's the last time you've heard of an attack like what you described? Would you say that these attacks are equal in scale and threat to the countless times when millions of people were endangered through a botched OS security update, sandbox escape exploits, and other normal ways of doing malware? Is this a scalable attack that actually happens day-to-day? Is this something you worry about as much as securing your PC from normal exploits from the internet? And your example is ignoring two things that make it even more absurd. One, I've never seen a computer that will auto-boot into removable media, the default is always existing media first, and changing that requires user input. But also, if you have direct physical access to the PC, you don't need these complex basically-nonexistent boot exploits. If you have physical access, it's already over. You can invisibly MitM the network, monitor, keyboard/mouse inputs even if the device doesn't allow custom systems. You can wait for the system to be logged in, then take any data you need. If you're a government actor, you may even have devices that extract unencrypted data from almost anything using zero-days, even the most 'secure' computers or phones.
      - charcircuit 8mo ago
        >everything is going fine Stealer malware is running rampant on the PC platform. It is not going fine. >One, I've never seen a computer that will auto-boot into removable media Look into late 20th century PCs. They are designed to boot from a floppy disk first. >But also, if you have direct physical access to the PC It does not take physical access to write to a floppy disk.
- realusername 8mo ago
  Do they even care about reputational damage? Since you picked the phone as an example, right now when I search for ChatGPT in the Play Store, the top app is a fake app with a counterfeit logo. Is it really this platform which was supposed to improve security?
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    Play Store moderation is imperfect and adversarial. That is a harder problem then protecting the boot chain.
    - realusername 8mo ago
      It's not even moderation, the Play Store manually put results before of the actual results in exchange of money. It's a harder problem for sure but harder because Google earns money from the problem.

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago

> Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software. That's not true? Nearly every laptop, desktop, and server can trivially run whatever OS+software, of course, but also currently at least virtually all Android devices can run arbitrary user built/supplied software (I grant that, unfortunately, replacing the OS is often harder). Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced.

charcircuit 8mo ago
Being able to play Doom on a microwave has novelty because microwave manufacturers don't support running random software on their microwaves since they are optimizing the product to be a microwave.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
  As I said, >> Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced. A microwave isn't generally viewed as a computer. In particular, if not even the manufacturer isn't running arbitrary code on it (only a tiny little program to do... microwave stuff...) then I view it as out of scope to an argument about artificially-restricted computers.

ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago

I HATE this argument. If the PC had been locked down like smartphones are today, we would never have had Linux on the desktop. Also, replace "consumers" by "people" who might need to control their devices to do things that may be against the interests of the manufacturer, like removing ads and surveillance.

charcircuit 8mo ago
>we would never have had Linux on the desktop. In such an alternate timeline there may be another operating system even better than Linux.
- ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
  I highly doubt that. Monopolies do not tend to develop what is best for consumers, but what is best for their bottom lines. It also depends on the criteria on which you judge it. I may be better in terms of compatibility because everything would be an expensive walled garden like Apple's. It would be worse in terms of choice because niche peripheral makers might not be able to enter the market at all. And it would certainly, almost guaranteed, be much much worse in terms of personal freedom because no-one would be allowed to modify any parts of any piece of software without some cryptographic hardware module stopping them. Imagine that situation, and then imagine how a government would use that to impose surveillance on all personal computing devices.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    There is no monopoly on operating systems. Anyone is free to implement one and anyone is free to implement the APIs of another to support the other's apps on their own.
hdgvhicv 8mo ago
we would never have had Linux at all Maybe sco and similar would have managed to fight against windows, but i suspect online would be decades behind what it is without the freedom we knew in the 80s and 90s that so many HN pundits are salivating to grow away. Maybe a minitel system would be better - we would t have the problems of social media at least.