4 ms·

If Windows wasn't so far behind Apple and the rest of the industry in regards to integrity APIs this wouldn't be necessary. It's embarrassing for Microsoft that

If Windows wasn't so far behind Apple and the rest of the industry in regards to integrity APIs this wouldn't be necessary. It's embarrassing for Microsoft that someone needs to use a separate, more secure device since their security is so bad.

chadgpt3 6mo ago
It's embarrassing for Hacker News that people here are commenting to support attestation systems that prevent you from owning the device you bought.
- charcircuit 6mo ago
  Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device. It just means that if you want other people to trust your custom device you need to get them to trust your signing key.
  - foltik 6mo ago
    Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, but a signing key means nothing by itself. What exactly do you think is being attested TO? Thats right: that the user can’t do what they want with their own device. Obviously your key wouldn’t be trusted if they could. There is no other conceivable purpose that attestation could serve.
    - dns_snek 6mo ago
      > Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse Yes, they are. If there's a thread on HN about user-hostile features, you can be pretty confident that they've written a comment defending it.
    - charcircuit 6mo ago
      There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications. >the user can’t do what they want with their own device In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account. Once other people are in the picture you can't always have your way.
      - foltik 6mo ago
        > Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device. “Prison isn’t against being able to go wherever you want.” > There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications. “Well there’s a lot of places you can go in prison, you just can’t leave.” Uh-huh. > In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account. This is completely incoherent. You and I both know that a bank refusing to give away someone else’s money has nothing to do with being able to run whatever code and operating systems we want to on our own devices. Obviously the decision happens on some remote server which would require a username and password to authorize. It doesn’t matter one bit what piece of code sent it over.
        charcircuit 6mo ago
        >“Prison isn’t against being able to go wherever you want.” This isn't a good analogy since the user really able to do whatever they want with their computer. A better analogy is that. "You can go wherever you want, but if you are trespassing on other people's property they can report you to the police." Just because you have the freedom to go anywhere does not mean you are not accountable for your actions or that people should not be able to tell that you are trespassing. >has nothing to do with being able to run whatever code and operating systems we want to on our own devices. My point is that one's freedom of how they want one's computer to work does not mean they can force other people's server to run code they want. Microsoft is in control of what there servers do.
        chadgpt3 6mo ago
        Distinguish between trespassing-style "you can go there but there might be consequences" and prison-style "you are physically unable to go there" Currently it's trespassing-style. If you modify your Google client, Google reserves the right to ban you. With attestation it's prison-style: you can't modify your Google client. If you try, the modified client just won't work. Trying to walk out of the prison wall does not actually put you outside - you just bang into the wall and then you are still inside.
  - dns_snek 6mo ago
    Pray tell, how might you get them to trust your signing key? Do you just email Mr. Pichai and ask nicely, is that enough?
    - charcircuit 6mo ago
      I would try reaching out to the Recaptcha team so you can create a legal contract around what guarantees and compensation are needed to get your key trusted.
      - RandomGerm4n 6mo ago
        But that would only be possible for large companies. If I'm just tinkering with my own Linux distribution for fun, Google won't even bother responding to my request.
  - RandomGerm4n 6mo ago
    The intention behind it doesn't matter at all. In the end, it just means that only a few major operating systems are allowed, and the market is divided up among the established manufacturers. Anyone new to the market faces a major problem right off the bat, and trying to build something yourself doesn't work either.
realusername 6mo ago
Integrity doesn't guarantee any security to your device, just that the device is same as from the factory. That's a common misconception.
- jeroenhd 6mo ago
  "strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough. I don't believe hardware integrity spoofing has been accomplished on Android yet. Software integrity and compatibility with old hardware has been used to spoof device IDs and pretend a phone doesn't have the ability to do hardware attestation. It's technically possible to exploit a kernel and get root access on a running device, of course, but the persistent root that is used most often will be detected by hardware integrity mechanisms. Exploit based root might be as well if it makes itself detectable enough.
  - realusername 6mo ago
    > "strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough. My Galaxy S10, last update in 2023 passes strong integrity. With the little amount of security updates most Android devices have, I'm pretty sure you can find an exploit for pretty much everything except the most expensive flagships. What does integrity really means when nobody really knows what's in the device and with a terrible software update policy anyways.
    - jeroenhd 6mo ago
      The exact requirements for security updates depends on the Android version you're running and the one your device came with. From the docs: MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY The app is running on a genuine and certified Android device with a recent security update. On Android 13 and higher, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict requires MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY and security updates in the last year for all partitions of the device, including an Android OS partition patch and a vendor partition patch. On Android 12 and lower, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict only requires hardware-backed proof of boot integrity and does not require the device to have a recent security update. Therefore, when using the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY, it is recommended to also take into account the Android SDK version in the deviceAttributes field. A single device will return multiple device labels in the device integrity verdict if each of the label's criteria is met. The S10 should be on Android 13, so it should not pass STRONG_INTEGRITY. If it does, perhaps it's possible Google updated the docs early in anticipation of a change? The software update requirement wasn't always there.
jeroenhd 6mo ago
Windows Hello offers an attestation API according to the releases I found, though because Microsoft has called at least four products "hello" now, I can't easily find the details. I don't think there's a technical reason why Google couldn't have released an app with a URL handler that uses that API except maybe for the Windows TPMs being less secure than mobile ones in general.
- charcircuit 6mo ago
  That attestation is for attesting you are using a TPM for user authentication. Which is different than attestation of integrity.
  - jeroenhd 6mo ago
    They do have some kind of attestation mechanism to actually attest the device state: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/attestation/tpm-attestation-concepts https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/attestation/tpm-atte... It seems like the documentation for the feature is aimed entirely at MDM setups, though. The basic API requirements are all there, and Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0, so I believe it should be possible for Google to build a Play Integrity equivalent around that.
    - charcircuit 6mo ago
      It's a lot of work and outside of the scope of the Recaptcha team at Google to roll their own compared to a simple API like macOS has. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcappattestservice https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcappa...
      - jeroenhd 6mo ago
        Definitely, Android/iOS/macOS are easy in comparison. But Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they can figure this out.
        6mo ago

chadgpt3 6mo ago

It's embarrassing for Hacker News that people here are commenting to support attestation systems that prevent you from owning the device you bought.

charcircuit 6mo ago
Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device. It just means that if you want other people to trust your custom device you need to get them to trust your signing key.
- foltik 6mo ago
  Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, but a signing key means nothing by itself. What exactly do you think is being attested TO? Thats right: that the user can’t do what they want with their own device. Obviously your key wouldn’t be trusted if they could. There is no other conceivable purpose that attestation could serve.
  - dns_snek 6mo ago
    > Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse Yes, they are. If there's a thread on HN about user-hostile features, you can be pretty confident that they've written a comment defending it.
  - charcircuit 6mo ago
    There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications. >the user can’t do what they want with their own device In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account. Once other people are in the picture you can't always have your way.
    - foltik 6mo ago
      > Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device. “Prison isn’t against being able to go wherever you want.” > There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications. “Well there’s a lot of places you can go in prison, you just can’t leave.” Uh-huh. > In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account. This is completely incoherent. You and I both know that a bank refusing to give away someone else’s money has nothing to do with being able to run whatever code and operating systems we want to on our own devices. Obviously the decision happens on some remote server which would require a username and password to authorize. It doesn’t matter one bit what piece of code sent it over.
      - charcircuit 6mo ago
        >“Prison isn’t against being able to go wherever you want.” This isn't a good analogy since the user really able to do whatever they want with their computer. A better analogy is that. "You can go wherever you want, but if you are trespassing on other people's property they can report you to the police." Just because you have the freedom to go anywhere does not mean you are not accountable for your actions or that people should not be able to tell that you are trespassing. >has nothing to do with being able to run whatever code and operating systems we want to on our own devices. My point is that one's freedom of how they want one's computer to work does not mean they can force other people's server to run code they want. Microsoft is in control of what there servers do.
        chadgpt3 6mo ago
        Distinguish between trespassing-style "you can go there but there might be consequences" and prison-style "you are physically unable to go there" Currently it's trespassing-style. If you modify your Google client, Google reserves the right to ban you. With attestation it's prison-style: you can't modify your Google client. If you try, the modified client just won't work. Trying to walk out of the prison wall does not actually put you outside - you just bang into the wall and then you are still inside.
- dns_snek 6mo ago
  Pray tell, how might you get them to trust your signing key? Do you just email Mr. Pichai and ask nicely, is that enough?
  - charcircuit 6mo ago
    I would try reaching out to the Recaptcha team so you can create a legal contract around what guarantees and compensation are needed to get your key trusted.
    - RandomGerm4n 6mo ago
      But that would only be possible for large companies. If I'm just tinkering with my own Linux distribution for fun, Google won't even bother responding to my request.
- RandomGerm4n 6mo ago
  The intention behind it doesn't matter at all. In the end, it just means that only a few major operating systems are allowed, and the market is divided up among the established manufacturers. Anyone new to the market faces a major problem right off the bat, and trying to build something yourself doesn't work either.

realusername 6mo ago

Integrity doesn't guarantee any security to your device, just that the device is same as from the factory. That's a common misconception.

jeroenhd 6mo ago
"strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough. I don't believe hardware integrity spoofing has been accomplished on Android yet. Software integrity and compatibility with old hardware has been used to spoof device IDs and pretend a phone doesn't have the ability to do hardware attestation. It's technically possible to exploit a kernel and get root access on a running device, of course, but the persistent root that is used most often will be detected by hardware integrity mechanisms. Exploit based root might be as well if it makes itself detectable enough.
- realusername 6mo ago
  > "strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough. My Galaxy S10, last update in 2023 passes strong integrity. With the little amount of security updates most Android devices have, I'm pretty sure you can find an exploit for pretty much everything except the most expensive flagships. What does integrity really means when nobody really knows what's in the device and with a terrible software update policy anyways.
  - jeroenhd 6mo ago
    The exact requirements for security updates depends on the Android version you're running and the one your device came with. From the docs: MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY The app is running on a genuine and certified Android device with a recent security update. On Android 13 and higher, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict requires MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY and security updates in the last year for all partitions of the device, including an Android OS partition patch and a vendor partition patch. On Android 12 and lower, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict only requires hardware-backed proof of boot integrity and does not require the device to have a recent security update. Therefore, when using the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY, it is recommended to also take into account the Android SDK version in the deviceAttributes field. A single device will return multiple device labels in the device integrity verdict if each of the label's criteria is met. The S10 should be on Android 13, so it should not pass STRONG_INTEGRITY. If it does, perhaps it's possible Google updated the docs early in anticipation of a change? The software update requirement wasn't always there.

jeroenhd 6mo ago

Windows Hello offers an attestation API according to the releases I found, though because Microsoft has called at least four products "hello" now, I can't easily find the details. I don't think there's a technical reason why Google couldn't have released an app with a URL handler that uses that API except maybe for the Windows TPMs being less secure than mobile ones in general.

charcircuit 6mo ago
That attestation is for attesting you are using a TPM for user authentication. Which is different than attestation of integrity.
- jeroenhd 6mo ago
  They do have some kind of attestation mechanism to actually attest the device state: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/attestation/tpm-attestation-concepts https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/attestation/tpm-atte... It seems like the documentation for the feature is aimed entirely at MDM setups, though. The basic API requirements are all there, and Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0, so I believe it should be possible for Google to build a Play Integrity equivalent around that.
  - charcircuit 6mo ago
    It's a lot of work and outside of the scope of the Recaptcha team at Google to roll their own compared to a simple API like macOS has. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcappattestservice https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcappa...
    - jeroenhd 6mo ago
      Definitely, Android/iOS/macOS are easy in comparison. But Google is a multi-billion dollar company, they can figure this out.
      - 6mo ago