←back to thread

756 points dagurp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.266s | source
Show context
rcxdude ◴[] No.36882331[source]
This is especially rich coming from google's, who's 'safetynet' for android results in a significant reduction in security (contrary to its stated purpose): it locks out 3rd-party up-to-date and secure ROMs while allowing horrificly insecure manufacturer-provided ROMs to still pass, because to disable those would cause a massive user outcry. So it functions as a vendor lock-in but no meaningful increase in security for the average user, while preventing more advanced users from improving their security without needing to buy more hardware. This needs to be called out more to push back against the claim that this kind of attestation somehow has a legitimate benefit for the users.
replies(6): >>36882444 #>>36883913 #>>36884154 #>>36885533 #>>36885781 #>>36890534 #
lern_too_spel ◴[] No.36884154[source]
You're using it wrong. SafetyNet is able to assert that the build the device asserts is what it claims. After you know that, it's up to you to decide whether you trust communications from that build or not. If it's a known-insecure build, you can say that you don't. SafetyNet cannot assert that a third party ROM is what it claims to be, so you have to decide whether you trust communications from that device or not based on not knowing at all what build is on the device.
replies(5): >>36884229 #>>36884517 #>>36884788 #>>36885296 #>>36886555 #
1. ◴[] No.36885296[source]