←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.531s | source
Show context
tzury ◴[] No.45088695[source]
We need both options to coexist:

1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation

2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection

This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we should not expect manufacturers of phones and tablets to allow anyone to run any code on every device, since this will cause harm to many users.

There should be more open and hackable products available in the market. The DIY mindset at the junction of hardware and software is crucial for tech innovation - we wouldn't be where we are today without it. However, I also want regulations and restrictions on the phones I buy for my kids and grandparents. They need protection from themselves and from bad actors.

The market should serve both groups: those who want to tinker and innovate, and those who need a safe, managed experience. The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them.

replies(23): >>45088735 #>>45088761 #>>45088840 #>>45088846 #>>45088867 #>>45088917 #>>45088924 #>>45088947 #>>45089091 #>>45089098 #>>45089274 #>>45089445 #>>45089853 #>>45090037 #>>45090783 #>>45091788 #>>45091834 #>>45092235 #>>45092332 #>>45092365 #>>45092417 #>>45092508 #>>45094664 #
mjevans ◴[] No.45088840[source]
Incorrect.

Choice 2. Empowered user. The end user is free to CHOOSE to delegate the hardware's approved signing solutions to a third party. Possibly even a third party that is already included in the base firmware such as Microsoft, Apple, OEM, 'Open Source' (sub menu: List of several reputable distros and a choice which might have a big scary message and involved confirmation process to trust the inserted boot media or the URL the user typed in...)

There should also be a reset option, which might involve a jumper or physical key (E.G. clear CMOS) that factory resets any TPM / persistent storage. Yes it'd nuke everything in the enclave but it would release the hardware.

replies(6): >>45088909 #>>45088912 #>>45088914 #>>45088933 #>>45089048 #>>45091997 #
Barbing ◴[] No.45088912[source]
>big scary message

Open question:

Any idea on making it so difficult that grandma isn't even able to follow a phisher’s instructions over the phone but yet nearly trivial for anyone who knows what they’re doing?

replies(3): >>45088926 #>>45088928 #>>45088960 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45088960[source]
Sure. You ship the device in open mode, and then doing it is easy. The device supports closed mode (i.e. whatever the currently configured package installation sources are, you can no longer add more), and if you put the device in closed mode, getting it back out requires attaching a debugger to the USB port, a big scary message and confirmation on the phone screen itself, and a full device wipe.

Then you put grandma's device in closed mode and explicitly tell her never to do the scary thing that takes it back out again and call you immediately if anyone asks her to. Or, for someone who is not competent to follow that simple instruction (e.g. small children or senile adults), you make the factory reset require a password and then don't give it to them.

replies(2): >>45089001 #>>45091381 #
alkonaut ◴[] No.45091381[source]
Make it an obscure option in the first time setup so all the users that click next next next will end up with the secure mode, while the open mode requires fiddling.

This isn’t a gdpr opt out where both alternatives need to be equally easy. We (as a society) absolutely need the devices to default to the current model when purchased.

replies(1): >>45097097 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45097097[source]
> This isn’t a gdpr opt out where both alternatives need to be equally easy. We (as a society) absolutely need the devices to default to the current model when purchased.

I feel like this is completely the opposite. The case for closed devices is that if grandma is senile she can't be trusted to make sound choices and needs a piece of hardware to limit her options, whereas that isn't the case for random chemists and college students and farmers, i.e. the general population.

It's one of the cases where tech people can't see the forest for the trees. The vast majority of people can make reasonable decisions about their own lives, but then if a tiny percentage make mistakes, those are the ones who come to you with problems and then it seems like everyone who comes to you is having problems because only the people having problems come to you.

Then megacorps use that false perception that everyone is incompetent to try to weasel their way in as a middle man taking a thick margin while locking the doors so the average person can't go to the competition, which is the option that needs to be not just preserved but actually used by ordinary people.

And not just because of the margins. Centralizing everything is a skeleton key for authoritarians. If you want to ban a social media app because people are using it to find out about something you want to censor or organize opposition to your administration and having it banned from Google Play and Apple makes it so 99% of people can't use it, you'd win when we need you to lose.

replies(1): >>45099780 #
1. alkonaut ◴[] No.45099780[source]
I don't think the centralization and security must be mutually exclusive. So long as the alternative is _also_ secure, it's a win-win. But that's the big problem.
replies(1): >>45109121 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45109121[source]
Suppose Apple makes devices and has an app store, but you're not required to use their app store, and then if someone can coerce Apple to censor something, anyone can route around it by using one of the others who can't be coerced, e.g. because they operate in a different jurisdiction. That's not centralized; there is no single party who can serve as a chokepoint for the bad guys to set up their nefarious surveillance/censorship apparatus.

Now suppose that only one company has an app store for a given platform, or the alternatives only exist on paper because there are too many barriers for ordinary people to use something else and then the one store still has 99% market share, or they use their control over the device to exclude apps even if you use a different store. That's still centralized and that type of centralization has to be broken in order to solve the problem.