6 ms·

Remote attestation is another technology that is not inherently restrictive of software freedom. But here are some examples of technologies that have already re

Remote attestation is another technology that is not inherently restrictive of software freedom. But here are some examples of technologies that have already restricted freedom due to oligopoly combined with network effects: * smartphone device integrity checks (SafetyNet / Play Integrity / Apple DeviceCheck) * HDMI/HDCP * streaming DRM (Widevine / FairPlay) * Secure Boot (vendor-keyed deployments) * printers w/ signed/chipped cartridges (consumables auth) * proprietary file formats + network effects (office docs, messaging)

9NRtKyP4 8mo ago
The authors clearly don’t intend this to happen but that doesn’t matter. Someone else will do it. Maybe this can be stopped with licensing as we tried to stop the SaaS loophole with GPLv3?
cwillu 8mo ago
It very clearly is restrictive of software freedom. I've never suffered from an evil maid breaking into my house to access my computer, but I've _very_ frequently suffered from corporations trying to prevent me from doing what I wish with my own things. We need to push back on this notion that this sort of thing was _ever_ for the end-user's benefit, because it's not.
- avadodin 8mo ago
  To play devil's advocate, I don't think most people would be fine with their car ramming into a military base after an unfriendly firmware update. However, I agree that the risks to individuals and their freedoms stemming from these technologies outweigh the benefits in most cases.
  - rpcope1 8mo ago
    The better question then is why the actual f** can an OTA firmware update touch anything in the steering or powertrain of the car, or why do I even need a computer that's connected to anything, and one which does more than just make sure I get the right amount of fuel and spark, or why on earth do people tolerate this sort of insanity.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 8mo ago
    If a malicious update can be pushed because of some failure in the signature verification checks (which already exist), what makes you think the threat actor won’t have access to signing keys? This is not what attestation is even seeking to solve.
    - avadodin 8mo ago
      Firmware upgrades don't need to use the same protocols. Without secure boot any applet can take a security hole escalate and persist until you take a trip to a zone of interest. With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities, etc. Why do people take DA as "Hail Satan" anyways.
      - hsbauauvhabzb 8mo ago
        If this was about stopping malware, it wouldn’t be targeting Linux endpoints.
      - cwillu 8mo ago
        “With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities” As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded the argument.
- Gigachad 8mo ago
  Remote attestation seems more useful for server hosts to let VPS users verify the server hasn’t been tampered with.
- UltraSane 8mo ago
  YOU can use remote attestation to verify a remote server you are paying for hasn't been tampered with.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    This happens much less frequently than the manufacturer of "my" computing device verifies that I haven't tampered with it. On net, it's a wholesale destruction of user freedom.
    - UltraSane 8mo ago
      "it's a wholesale destruction of user freedom." This is ridiculously hyperbolic language for what are basically fancy digital signatures. There is nothing stopping you from using two different systems, one that passes attestation and one that doesn't.
Foxboron 8mo ago
> * Secure Boot (vendor-keyed deployments) I wish this myth would die at this point. Secure Boot allows you to enroll your own keys. This is part of the spec, and there are no shipped firmwares that prevents you from going through this process.
- digiown 8mo ago
  > Secure Boot allows you to enroll your own keys UEFI secure boot on PCs, yes for the most part. A lot of mobile platforms just never supported this. It's not a myth.
  - Foxboron 8mo ago
    Phones don't implement UEFI.
    - seba_dos1 8mo ago
      Most don't, but they're usually equivalently locked down nevertheless.
      - Foxboron 8mo ago
        UEFI on x86_64 and phones are not comparable when it comes to being "locked down".
        seba_dos1 8mo ago
        Are you sure? Note that the comment you replied to does not even mention phones. Locked down Secure Boot on UEFI is not uncommon on mobile platforms, such as x86-64 tablets.
- 201984 8mo ago
  What about all those Windows on ARM laptops?
- yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
digiown 8mo ago
I am quite conflicted here. On one hand I understand the need for it (offsite colo servers is the best example). Basic level of evil maid resistance is also a nice to have on personal machines. On the other hand we have all the things you listed. I personally don't think this product matters all that much for now. These types of tech is not oppressive by itself, only when it is being demanded by an adversary. The ability of the adversary to demand it is a function of how widespread the capability is, and there aren't going to be enough Linux clients for this to start infringing on the rights of the general public just yet. A bigger concern is all the efforts aimed at imposing integrity checks on platforms like the Web. That will eventually force users to make a choice between being denied essential services and accepting these demands. I also think AI would substantially curtail the effect of many of these anti-user efforts. For example a bot can be programmed to automate using a secure phone and controlled from a user-controlled device, cheat in games, etc.
- yencabulator 8mo ago
  > On one hand I understand the need for it (offsite colo servers is the best example). Great example of proving something to your own organization. Mullvad is probably the most trusted VPN provider and they do this! But this is not a power that should be exposed to regular applications, or we end up with a dystopian future of you are not allowed to use your own computer.
myaccountonhn 8mo ago
It's interesting there's no remote attestation the other way around, making sure the server is not doing something to your data that you didn't approve of.
- tryauuum 8mo ago
  confidential computing?
- minitech 8mo ago
  There is. Signal uses it, for example. https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/ https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/ For another example, IntegriCloud: https://secure.integricloud.com/ https://secure.integricloud.com/
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
trelane 8mo ago
On the other side, Mulvad is looking at remote attestation so that the users can verify their servers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903695

9NRtKyP4 8mo ago

The authors clearly don’t intend this to happen but that doesn’t matter. Someone else will do it. Maybe this can be stopped with licensing as we tried to stop the SaaS loophole with GPLv3?

cwillu 8mo ago

It very clearly is restrictive of software freedom. I've never suffered from an evil maid breaking into my house to access my computer, but I've _very_ frequently suffered from corporations trying to prevent me from doing what I wish with my own things. We need to push back on this notion that this sort of thing was _ever_ for the end-user's benefit, because it's not.

avadodin 8mo ago
To play devil's advocate, I don't think most people would be fine with their car ramming into a military base after an unfriendly firmware update. However, I agree that the risks to individuals and their freedoms stemming from these technologies outweigh the benefits in most cases.
- rpcope1 8mo ago
  The better question then is why the actual f** can an OTA firmware update touch anything in the steering or powertrain of the car, or why do I even need a computer that's connected to anything, and one which does more than just make sure I get the right amount of fuel and spark, or why on earth do people tolerate this sort of insanity.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo ago
  If a malicious update can be pushed because of some failure in the signature verification checks (which already exist), what makes you think the threat actor won’t have access to signing keys? This is not what attestation is even seeking to solve.
  - avadodin 8mo ago
    Firmware upgrades don't need to use the same protocols. Without secure boot any applet can take a security hole escalate and persist until you take a trip to a zone of interest. With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities, etc. Why do people take DA as "Hail Satan" anyways.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 8mo ago
      If this was about stopping malware, it wouldn’t be targeting Linux endpoints.
    - cwillu 8mo ago
      “With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities” As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded the argument.
Gigachad 8mo ago
Remote attestation seems more useful for server hosts to let VPS users verify the server hasn’t been tampered with.
UltraSane 8mo ago
YOU can use remote attestation to verify a remote server you are paying for hasn't been tampered with.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  This happens much less frequently than the manufacturer of "my" computing device verifies that I haven't tampered with it. On net, it's a wholesale destruction of user freedom.
  - UltraSane 8mo ago
    "it's a wholesale destruction of user freedom." This is ridiculously hyperbolic language for what are basically fancy digital signatures. There is nothing stopping you from using two different systems, one that passes attestation and one that doesn't.

Foxboron 8mo ago

> * Secure Boot (vendor-keyed deployments) I wish this myth would die at this point. Secure Boot allows you to enroll your own keys. This is part of the spec, and there are no shipped firmwares that prevents you from going through this process.

digiown 8mo ago
> Secure Boot allows you to enroll your own keys UEFI secure boot on PCs, yes for the most part. A lot of mobile platforms just never supported this. It's not a myth.
- Foxboron 8mo ago
  Phones don't implement UEFI.
  - seba_dos1 8mo ago
    Most don't, but they're usually equivalently locked down nevertheless.
    - Foxboron 8mo ago
      UEFI on x86_64 and phones are not comparable when it comes to being "locked down".
      - seba_dos1 8mo ago
        Are you sure? Note that the comment you replied to does not even mention phones. Locked down Secure Boot on UEFI is not uncommon on mobile platforms, such as x86-64 tablets.
201984 8mo ago
What about all those Windows on ARM laptops?
yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago

digiown 8mo ago

I am quite conflicted here. On one hand I understand the need for it (offsite colo servers is the best example). Basic level of evil maid resistance is also a nice to have on personal machines. On the other hand we have all the things you listed. I personally don't think this product matters all that much for now. These types of tech is not oppressive by itself, only when it is being demanded by an adversary. The ability of the adversary to demand it is a function of how widespread the capability is, and there aren't going to be enough Linux clients for this to start infringing on the rights of the general public just yet. A bigger concern is all the efforts aimed at imposing integrity checks on platforms like the Web. That will eventually force users to make a choice between being denied essential services and accepting these demands. I also think AI would substantially curtail the effect of many of these anti-user efforts. For example a bot can be programmed to automate using a secure phone and controlled from a user-controlled device, cheat in games, etc.

yencabulator 8mo ago
> On one hand I understand the need for it (offsite colo servers is the best example). Great example of proving something to your own organization. Mullvad is probably the most trusted VPN provider and they do this! But this is not a power that should be exposed to regular applications, or we end up with a dystopian future of you are not allowed to use your own computer.

myaccountonhn 8mo ago

It's interesting there's no remote attestation the other way around, making sure the server is not doing something to your data that you didn't approve of.

tryauuum 8mo ago
confidential computing?
minitech 8mo ago
There is. Signal uses it, for example. https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/ https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/ For another example, IntegriCloud: https://secure.integricloud.com/ https://secure.integricloud.com/
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

trelane 8mo ago

On the other side, Mulvad is looking at remote attestation so that the users can verify their servers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29903695