←back to thread

845 points the-anarchist | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[] No.44334486[source]
making it nearly impossible for regular users to uninstall it without root access, which voids warranties and poses security risks

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.

replies(12): >>44334515 #>>44334549 #>>44334577 #>>44334616 #>>44334661 #>>44334912 #>>44335283 #>>44335463 #>>44335597 #>>44336211 #>>44336257 #>>44336433 #
ulrikrasmussen ◴[] No.44335283[source]
We need regulation which defines that any hardware device capable of running software developed by a third party different from the hardware manufacturer qualifies as a general purpose computing device, and that any such device is disallowed to put cryptographic or other restrictions on what software the user wants to execute. This pertains to all programmable components on the device, including low-level hardware controllers.

These restrictions extend outside the particular device. It must also be illegal as a commercial entity to enforce security schemes which involve remote attestation of the software stack on the client device such that service providers can refuse to service clients based on failing attestation. Service providers have other means of protecting themselves, taking away users control of their own devices is a heavy handed and unnecessarily draconian approach which ultimately only benefits the ad company that happens to make the software stack since they also benefit from restricting what software users can run. Hypothetically, they might be interested in making it impossible to modify video players to skip ads.

replies(3): >>44335513 #>>44335681 #>>44335780 #
miki123211 ◴[] No.44335681[source]
I agree, but I think three extra conditions would need to be added here.

1. Devices should be allowed to display a different logo at boot time depending on whether the software is manufacturer-approved or not. That way, if somebody sells you an used device with a flashed firmware that steals all your financial data, you have a way to know.

2. Going from approved to unapproved firmware should result in a full device wipe, Chromebook style. Possibly with a three-day cooldown. Those aren't too much of an obstacle for a true tinkerer who knows what they're doing, but they make it harder to social engineer people into installing a firmware of the attackers' choosing.

3. Users should have the ability to opt themselves into cryptographic protection, either on the original or modified firmware, for anti-theft reasons. Otherwise, devices become extremely attractive to steal.

replies(3): >>44336140 #>>44336325 #>>44337094 #
gmueckl ◴[] No.44336140[source]
4. Apps with special security needs are allowed to detect whether a device is unlocked and can either disable themselves or go into a mode that shifts ALL related liability onto the user. It's not the bank's fault if the user disabled protections and some spyware logs the online banking password or something like that.
replies(5): >>44336299 #>>44336371 #>>44336372 #>>44338111 #>>44338723 #
Zak ◴[] No.44336371[source]
I'm pretty sure I'm against this. I could be convinced otherwise by documentation of significant fraud involving compromised devices (especially Android phones) that would have been stopped by a device attestation scheme.

I should note Google has such an attestation scheme, and there are reliable defeats for it in most situations given root access. Apps have been able to insist on hardware-backed attestation which has not been defeated for some time, but that isn't available for old devices. Almost none do so.

If this had a meaningful impact on fraud, more apps would insist on the hardware-backed option, but that's quite rare. Even Google doesn't; I used Google Pay contactless with LineageOS and root this week. I'm currently convinced it's primarily a corporate power grab; non-Google-approved Android won't be a consumer success if it doesn't run your banking app, and the copyright lobby loves anything that helps DRM.

replies(1): >>44337027 #
ulrikrasmussen ◴[] No.44337027[source]
Also, online banking has been a thing for so long on PCs which never had that kind of remote attestation. I also do not believe the security argument, but I believe that the banks believe it.
replies(2): >>44337133 #>>44339352 #
gmueckl ◴[] No.44339352[source]
Online banking doesn't need remote attestation. Some additional locked down hardware with its own minimal display is enough. My banks force me to use devices like those made by Kobil or ReinerSCT.
replies(1): >>44354743 #
1. ulrikrasmussen ◴[] No.44354743[source]
I didn't know about these, but I think they look great. I am not against locking down hardware if that hardware has a very specific and tailor-made purpose for security, and this seems like a really good and fairly cheap solution. I wish my government offered them as an alternative.

You could also imagine having them integrated directly into the phone, but with a physically separated button or fingerprint reader to authenticate. The TAN generator could even have the ability to override the display to replicate the UX of authenticator apps.