←back to thread

A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

(enaix.github.io)
194 points sleirsgoevy | 5 comments | 31 Oct 25 20:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
gruez ◴[31 Oct 25 21:29 UTC] No.45776910[source]▶
Sounds like the UEFI shim loader that's signed by Microsoft but can load an arbitrary EFI executable (with some signing checks). The difference is that the UEFI shim loader is endorsed/condoned by Microsoft. What about Google? This seems easily patchable, ostensibly for "security purposes" (eg. disabling loading dynamic code).
replies(1): >>45777071 #
p_l ◴[31 Oct 25 21:47 UTC] No.45777071[source]▶
Microsoft also forces manufacturers to provide an option to reset Platform Key aka SecureBoot "root of trust" key - which is supposed to be not possible in spec-compliant UEFI system.

They don't do it out of goodness of their hearts, which is why it's more solid than relying on goodwill - Microsoft simply has an offering that depends on that for certain high profile clients.

replies(1): >>45777490 #
XorNot ◴[31 Oct 25 22:39 UTC] No.45777490[source]▶
I suspect it's also a defense against antitrust law suits - lock in was how they got sued for things circa Internet Explorer.

Frankly they should still be getting sued for the way Edge and Cortana are bundled.

replies(1): >>45777657 #
leptons ◴[31 Oct 25 23:00 UTC] No.45777657[source]▶
Then Apple should get sued for bundling Safari, and also for forcing all browser engines on iOS to use Safari - which is way worse than anything Microsoft ever did with IE.
replies(2): >>45777979 #>>45778231 #
torstenvl ◴[31 Oct 25 23:51 UTC] No.45777979[source]▶
Apple does not have a platform monopoly on smartphones the way Microsoft did on PCs.
replies(2): >>45780128 #>>45793080 #
1. AnthonyMouse ◴[01 Nov 25 08:39 UTC] No.45780128[source]▶
Microsoft was convicted of monopolizing the market for IBM-compatible PCs, i.e. not Macs.

Which makes a lot of sense, because you couldn't run Windows on a Mac nor MacOS on PCs from the likes of Dell or IBM, and you couldn't run third party software for Macs on Windows or vice versa. By contrast, you could run various types of Unix on a Dell, and run Windows software on OS/2 or DOS software on DOS competitors other than MS-DOS.

That distinction seems like it might be relevant to the current situation.

replies(1): >>45781890 #
2. torstenvl ◴[01 Nov 25 14:27 UTC] No.45781890[source]▶
This is utterly irrelevant. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

It remains objectively inarguable that Apple does not have a platform monopoly on (ARM-compatible) smartphones the way Microsoft did on ("Intel-compatible") PCs.

replies(1): >>45783475 #
3. AnthonyMouse ◴[01 Nov 25 17:25 UTC] No.45783475[source]▶
Are Apple's phones compatible with other ARM smartphones? Can you install Android or LineageOS on one, or install Android apps on iOS, or get iOS apps through Google Play or the Epic Games store?
replies(1): >>45784182 #
4. torstenvl ◴[01 Nov 25 18:42 UTC] No.45784182{3}[source]▶
No. Also irrelevant.
replies(1): >>45784259 #
5. AnthonyMouse ◴[01 Nov 25 18:51 UTC] No.45784259{4}[source]▶
It seems extremely relevant to the market definition that the alleged alternatives aren't actually substitutes for one another.

If you have a car that runs on diesel fuel and there is only one company that sells diesel fuel, it seems like you want to claim that it's irrelevant and isn't a monopoly because there is another company of the same size that sells gasoline. Is it not relevant that you can't actually use that in your car?