←back to thread

596 points pimterry | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.487s | source
Show context
Santosh83 ◴[] No.36862751[source]
Maybe I'm wrong but Web Attestation will also be a death knell for Linux devices (not Android/Chrome OS) as far as being able to use them as equal clients to use the Web goes. They're simply too diverse and 'hackable' as a plotform for remote attestation to work reliably and thus they'll be excluded altogether (except a few 'blessed' distros that will then become industry controlled, and not Linux in spirit anymore).
replies(7): >>36862825 #>>36862993 #>>36863025 #>>36863063 #>>36863230 #>>36864206 #>>36865119 #
onion2k ◴[] No.36863025[source]
I slightly suspect that the only platforms that will actually implement Web Attestation are the ones I'm trying to remove myself from, so I secretly[1] hope this is the catalyst I need to stop going on crappy social networks and video platforms.

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.

replies(3): >>36863057 #>>36863066 #>>36864188 #
tomstockmail ◴[] No.36863057[source]
Banks.
replies(2): >>36863207 #>>36863374 #
N19PEDL2 ◴[] No.36863207[source]
There's a lot of competition in the banking sector, so I don't think banks can afford to start telling customers that they need specific devices to access their online services.
replies(7): >>36863318 #>>36863363 #>>36863432 #>>36863516 #>>36863650 #>>36871174 #>>36874938 #
c0l0 ◴[] No.36863318[source]
The banking sector is EXACTLY where "cyber 'security'" and "compliance" will mandate for this to be implemented.

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.

replies(1): >>36864400 #
1. delfinom ◴[] No.36864400[source]
Most banks have barely implemented 2FA, and when they have, they implement SMS.

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 ;)

replies(3): >>36864658 #>>36866942 #>>36875477 #
2. freedomben ◴[] No.36864658[source]
So what, let's not worry about it until after it's implemented when it's a 10,000 kg gorilla, instead of trying to nip it in the bud now? Is the world going to end tomorrow so lets just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die?

Now is the time to fight this. It will impossible to unravel it once it's been implemented.

3. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.36866942[source]
> Most banks have barely implemented 2FA, and when they have, they implement SMS.

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.

4. diego_sandoval ◴[] No.36875477[source]
> and when they have, they implement SMS.

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.