> except a few 'blessed' distros that will then become industry controlled, and not Linux in spirit anymore
You know, I hear this a lot but seldom hear the details of how it might happen. Industry-controlled UNIX is the reason Linux exists - if you take the spirit away from Linux, it gets forked into another community project. Unless you're stripping it of it's GPL license, Linux will be "Linux in Spirit" until it stops being used altogether.
New Android phones have hardware-backed SafetyNet, new Windows devices have Trusted Boot (not to be confused with Secure Boot).
Both can and will be used to attest the browser environment. Linux devices will get hit (unless I guess we see locked down signed kernels, Chromebook-like things).
You can see systemd and it's history about how it hold power.
I apparently don't have the will power to stop going on these sites so maybe stopping me loading content from the other side is exactly what I need.
[1] Not so secretly now I've mentioned it here I suppose.
Linux only exists because it is free and it runs free apps for every category of keyboard-driven task a typical user would want.
The answer to my question of how a predator like IBM is going to take out the other non-RHEL based distros is starting to come into focus. This should help Ubuntu get the Mint monkey off its back too.
Spam destroys everything. The open web has been at war with it forever, and soon it will win just like it has won in every other domain that is not completely locked down.
I love the fediverse but I fully expect it be destroyed by spam as soon as it gets big and influential enough to be a juicy target.
The Internet is a dark forest. The future is private encrypted networks, private forums, etc.
With the advent of SEV, you won't even be able to look at the stuff your hypervisor is running.
When I worked a bank at $oldjob, compliance mandated we had a full-blown anti virus engine (from Microsoft or McAfee, "at your option") deployed in quasi-ephemeral container images.
It does not have to be reasonable, it doesn't have to be a net positive - it just has to tick some box on some compliance sheet for this to be required, and I will never again be able to perform a banking transaction from my personal computer or degoogled phone again.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230309020227/https://www.nytim...
https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/south_korea_activex_c... (2020)
> South Korea knew it had an ActiveX problem way back in 2015, because even then the need to use ActiveX to do business on local websites irked outsiders.
> For locals, the requirement to run the code was so annoying that getting rid of it became an election promise at the nation’s 2017 presidential election.
> That promise has now been delivered: the nation’s Ministry of Science and ICT today (2020) annnouced the service’s planned demise.
Banks might not, but the governments may come to a similar idea, and tell the banks to tell you.
If that catches on, it could rapidly be 90% of websites that won't serve content until they get the magic Google "no-adblock-here" handshake.
They already make demands.
Two of the very large national banks I have accounts with restrict your access if you're not even using the right browser version. One puts a warning in every page. The other won't even let you log in.
To make the second one even worse, it requires a very specific version, not just > $version, so if i update my OS too quickly, it won't let me in.
[1] https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcrip...
The only financial provider I have that supports anything other than backdoors is Vanguard with U2F support.
Shit, AMEX still lowercases your passwords before (hopefully) hashing them.
We got plenty of time for those mandates to occur ;)
Now is the time to fight this. It will impossible to unravel it once it's been implemented.
I don’t think attestation will prevent this, it does however, prevent scraping if attestation is required to even view content.
VPN can be bought outside of a 5 eyes company
Tor is much better at making it easier to hide your browser footprint and thus anonymity browsing across sites as long as you reconnect often and don't change default settings.
One reason I slightly swallow my guilt at having a savings account with Goldman Sachs (marcus.com) is that they offer email-based 2FA. I closed my savings accounts at Chase when they enforced SMS-only 2FA.
BTW, I feel slightly less guilty about saving with these banks instead of my actual credit union after my brother-in-law (who has been in the CU world for decades) told me that if a credit union can't offer competitive savings rates, it means they are lacking in opportunities for significant local lending.
The same thing can happen on desktop. In fact I'd say it's already happening, with Microsoft making TPM2.0 a hard requirement for Windows. The frog is slowly being boiled.
Linux has been making giant strides towards increasing accessibility and lowering the friction of adopting it as a daily driver, while preserving the freedom to choose any distro you want.
Forcing new users to babysit a second installation in a special VM would be wiping out decades of progress.
That's the problem. They do implement things, and they do them in the worst possible way.
My bank forces me to 2FA trough SMS when I connect from a new IP range. This means that I can't do any banking through them when I'm outside of my country.
I wish they just didn't implement any form of 2FA instead. That would be better than the current situation.