Stop parroting the corporate propaganda that put us into this stupid situation in the first place. Having root access on devices you own should be a fundamental right, as otherwise it's not ownership.
The crazy thing is that on all the devices I've had AVB is implemented on top of secureboot. Being able to set your own secureboot keys is bog standard on corporate laptops. The entire situation makes absolutely no sense.
Also for the record I think it's a silly attack vector for the average person to worry about. A normal person does not have secret agents attempting to flash malicious images to his phone while he's in the shower.
Oh that's pretty cool, wasn't aware.
> The crazy thing is that on all the devices I've had AVB is implemented on top of secureboot. Being able to set your own secureboot keys is bog standard on corporate laptops. The entire situation makes absolutely no sense.
Hold on, could you elaborate a bit on this? I thought it was an either/or type deal cause they do the same thing.
It's possible this has changed or was never widespread in the first place. I have a very limited (and historic) sample size.
In other words, DRM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Criticism
(I knew from the beginning that this was known as the Palladium project, and until recently, a search for "Palladium TCG" would find plenty of information about that history, yet now references to that group and its origins in DRM have seemingly disappeared from Google. Make of that what you will...)
No, but millions of women have controlling partners or friends who betray their trust and, for example, many people going through U.S. Customs are being asked to surrender control of their devices so they can be used without their knowledge. There’s a well-funded malware industry with a lot of customers now.
https://www.tcgplayer.com/product/593140/yugioh-quarter-cent...
Bizarre, I did find it on bing though..
If I want my device to be secure, I want this trust. If I want to sell a copy of my virtual asset to only be used in ways I approve of, I want this trust. You can't have only one of these at the same time, either your device can provide this trust or it cannot. That's not the battle in my view. The battle is to implement this appropriately, such that e.g. if we're representing access control, identity, and ownership, then that representation should match reality. So if I'm said to own a device, the device can and will attest so, and behave accordingly. It's just that instead of that, I'm always somehow just being loaned these things, only have some specified amount of control over these things, and am just a temporary user somehow. That's the issue. And that these systems are not reimplementable, and as such entitlements do not carry around.
Device security and mediated trust between mutually distrustful entities are separate things.
> If I want to sell a copy of my virtual asset to only be used in ways I approve of, I want this trust.
I don't want you to be able to do that. At least not with general purpose computing devices (ie my phone). Maybe for something like a game console or set top box but that doesn't seem to be what's being discussed here.
> either your device can provide this trust or it cannot
It is entirely possible for device firmware to do nothing more than verify that the bootloader was signed with a particular user configurable key.