2 ms·

>What good is free software if using it marks our devices as untrusted That is not what remote attestation is for. The operating system maintains isolation bet

>What good is free software if using it marks our devices as untrusted That is not what remote attestation is for. The operating system maintains isolation between apps, so a free software app being installed doesn't mean an app that needs high security is compromised.

marmarama 3mo ago
I think you've misunderstood. It's not an app problem. The problem is that it makes Free Software OSes unviable. The copy of Android you compile and install yourself - or your copy of desktop Linux where you upgraded the kernel yourself - will never pass remote attestation, and it gives both the attestation provider and software that checks attestation the ability to unilaterally shut out any OS they like with no workaround, even those that do pass attestation. In a world of deeply untrustworthy Big Tech, and trend of governments, banks and other basic services needed to exist in society relying on apps and in the future, websites that use remote attestation, that is very troubling. There are better ways of dealing with the bad actors problem, but Big Tech has chosen violence.
- floam 3mo ago
  I don’t see how it’s incompatible with open source, just because my development builds aren’t being blessed.
  - dpark 3mo ago
    It’s not incompatible with open source. It’s incompatible with free software. If Apple or Google or Microsoft or the government needs to “bless” your build, then you have no freedom to actually use your build.
  - marmarama 3mo ago
    Your "development build" is another person's daily driver. Case in point: GrapheneOS (or any other custom Android distro) is unlikely to be able to ever pass remote attestation, even a signed, secure boot build with the bootloader relocked, because it's not the original OS for the hardware. Same goes for any desktop Linux.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      GrapheneOS implements its own attestation so you can attest that it's real GrapheneOS. The valid approach they've chosen is to try and get on a level playing field with the big guys rather than destroy the playing field. They have a good argument their OS is very secure, so you should accept its attestation. This is how a user-friendly OS backdoors into the attestation system. I still think destroying the playing field is better, but less likely to succeed.
      - HybridStatAnim8 3mo ago
        GrapheneOS doesnt implement its own attestation. It simply inherits the existing, generic attestation system provided in the android open source project. Any fork of AOSP can provide this, the keys would just need to be whitelisted per OS.
      - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
        > so you can attest This isn't about you attesting anything though. It's about corporations attesting that your device is 100% corporate owned. Can't have you running software that impacts their bottom line after all. GrapheneOS could be the most secure operating system to ever exist, it doesn't matter to the corporation because it's still under your control. When they say "security", they mean "the corporation's security against the user", not "the user's security against the hostile world out there".
        inigyou 3mo ago
        They have to come and outright say "we block this because we don't control it". They can't say "we block this because it isn't secure" because it's obviously very secure. And you can sue them for that.
- charcircuit 3mo ago
  You can apply my same comment 1 layer up. The hypervisor maintains isolation between operating systems, so a free operating system being installed doesn't mean an app that needs a high security operating system is compromised.
  - Schweigerose 3mo ago
    That still requires you to have an OS installed that can not be trusted. And who maintains and "runs" that hypervisor?
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
Then why can't we install whatever we want on "our" devices?
- charcircuit 3mo ago
  Because you are buying a device without the feature of installing a custom OS. If you want a feature, buy a device offering it.
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    The whole point of this discussion is the trend towards societal scale denial of that feature by both market forces and governmental forces. There is no such a thing as "just buy a different device" when this "different device" is actively discriminated against to the point it's a paper weight. I wouldn't be surprised if remote attestation becomes necessary to even get an internet connection in the future.

marmarama 3mo ago

I think you've misunderstood. It's not an app problem. The problem is that it makes Free Software OSes unviable. The copy of Android you compile and install yourself - or your copy of desktop Linux where you upgraded the kernel yourself - will never pass remote attestation, and it gives both the attestation provider and software that checks attestation the ability to unilaterally shut out any OS they like with no workaround, even those that do pass attestation. In a world of deeply untrustworthy Big Tech, and trend of governments, banks and other basic services needed to exist in society relying on apps and in the future, websites that use remote attestation, that is very troubling. There are better ways of dealing with the bad actors problem, but Big Tech has chosen violence.

floam 3mo ago
I don’t see how it’s incompatible with open source, just because my development builds aren’t being blessed.
- dpark 3mo ago
  It’s not incompatible with open source. It’s incompatible with free software. If Apple or Google or Microsoft or the government needs to “bless” your build, then you have no freedom to actually use your build.
- marmarama 3mo ago
  Your "development build" is another person's daily driver. Case in point: GrapheneOS (or any other custom Android distro) is unlikely to be able to ever pass remote attestation, even a signed, secure boot build with the bootloader relocked, because it's not the original OS for the hardware. Same goes for any desktop Linux.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    GrapheneOS implements its own attestation so you can attest that it's real GrapheneOS. The valid approach they've chosen is to try and get on a level playing field with the big guys rather than destroy the playing field. They have a good argument their OS is very secure, so you should accept its attestation. This is how a user-friendly OS backdoors into the attestation system. I still think destroying the playing field is better, but less likely to succeed.
    - HybridStatAnim8 3mo ago
      GrapheneOS doesnt implement its own attestation. It simply inherits the existing, generic attestation system provided in the android open source project. Any fork of AOSP can provide this, the keys would just need to be whitelisted per OS.
    - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      > so you can attest This isn't about you attesting anything though. It's about corporations attesting that your device is 100% corporate owned. Can't have you running software that impacts their bottom line after all. GrapheneOS could be the most secure operating system to ever exist, it doesn't matter to the corporation because it's still under your control. When they say "security", they mean "the corporation's security against the user", not "the user's security against the hostile world out there".
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        They have to come and outright say "we block this because we don't control it". They can't say "we block this because it isn't secure" because it's obviously very secure. And you can sue them for that.
charcircuit 3mo ago
You can apply my same comment 1 layer up. The hypervisor maintains isolation between operating systems, so a free operating system being installed doesn't mean an app that needs a high security operating system is compromised.
- Schweigerose 3mo ago
  That still requires you to have an OS installed that can not be trusted. And who maintains and "runs" that hypervisor?

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

Then why can't we install whatever we want on "our" devices?

charcircuit 3mo ago
Because you are buying a device without the feature of installing a custom OS. If you want a feature, buy a device offering it.
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  The whole point of this discussion is the trend towards societal scale denial of that feature by both market forces and governmental forces. There is no such a thing as "just buy a different device" when this "different device" is actively discriminated against to the point it's a paper weight. I wouldn't be surprised if remote attestation becomes necessary to even get an internet connection in the future.