logoalt Hacker News

Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

693 pointsby ChuckMcMyesterday at 5:54 PM259 commentsview on HN

Comments

miohtamayesterday at 7:03 PM

The EU Digital (identity) Wallet EUDI requires hardware attestation by Google or Apple, effectively tying all the digital EU identities to American duopoly. Talk about digital sovereignity. Apparently protecting the children > sovereignity.

https://gitlab.opencode.de/bmi/eudi-wallet/wallet-developmen...

show 11 replies
coppsilgoldyesterday at 7:39 PM

Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here.

They do not use zero knowledge proof systems or blind signatures. So every time you use your device to attest you leave behind something (the attestation packet) that can be used to link the action to your device. They put on a show about how much they care about your privacy by introducing indirection into the process (static device 'ID' is used to acquire an ephemeral 'ID' from an intermediate server) but it's just a show because you don't know what those intermediary severs are doing: You should assume they log everything.

And this just the remote attestation vector, the DRM 'ID' vector is even worse (no meaningful indirection, every license server has access to your burned-in-silicon static identity). And the Google account vector is what it is.

Using blind signatures for remote attestation has actually been proposed, but no one notable is currently using it: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Anonymous_Attestation>

There are several possible reasons for this, the obvious one is that they want to be able to violate your privacy at will or are mandated to have the capability. The other is that because it's not possible to link an attestation to a particular device the only mitigation to abuse that is feasible is rate limiting which may not be good enough for them - an adversary could set up a farm where every device generates $/hour from providing remote attestations to 'malicious' actors.

show 4 replies
ChuckMcMyesterday at 5:54 PM

This is a really good thread on why this technology is becoming a problem for "open" anything. The argument "we can create our own separate web" is fine until all of your services are behind the web that locks you into owning a Google approved or Apple approved mobile device.

show 6 replies
userbinatoryesterday at 9:09 PM

In 1999, Intel received an absolutely massive amount of opposition when they decided to include a software-readable serial number in their CPUs, so much that they reversed the decision.

Then the "security" and Trusted Computing authoritarians continued pushing for TPMs and related tech, and contributed to the rise of mobile walled gardens. Windows 11's TPM requirements were another step towards their goal. The amount of propaganda about how that was supposed to be a good thing, both here and elsewhere, was shocking.

It turns out a significant (but hopefully decreasing) number of the population is easily coerced into anything when "security" is given as a justification.

The war on general-purpose computing continues, and we need to keep fighting.

Stallman was right, as always. Time to give his "Right to Read" another read. (If it hasn't been done already, an AI-generated short film of it would be a great idea...)

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

show 1 reply
grishkayesterday at 6:20 PM

Our civilization desperately needs a method to modify modern microelectronics after manufacturing that can be used at least in a well-equipped repair shop, and it needs it yesterday.

Alternatively, just make it illegal to ship any kind of initial bootloader as part of a CPU's/SoC's mask ROM in any computing device that is marketed as a general-purpose one. I.e. the first instruction that the CPU executes after reset must come from a storage device that is physically external to the CPU package.

show 7 replies
dminikyesterday at 7:52 PM

It's amazing that we're letting the Google Apple duopoly completely decide who can and cannot use completely unrelated services.

Imagine getting banned from Google services for anti-google views and being unable to log into your bank account. We really should breakup the Alphabet.

OhMeadhbhyesterday at 10:03 PM

Partially apropos... There's a Heinlien quote that goes "When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere."

Which I think in this case may mean that I'm hoping an Apple or Google exclusive id system couldn't be ubiquitous enough to be required. But forethought doesn't seem to be modern man's strong suit.

revolvingthrowyesterday at 7:28 PM

Is it possible to dual-boot on android? It sounds defeatist but I no longer believe it’s possible to change course - the increasingly authoritarian governments, google and most moneyed interests are all on the same side, so it’s just a matter of when.

Being on the palantir-approved google ranch for the few Apps You Need + graphene (or some other alt OS) for everything else would be quite inconvenient, but still better than carrying two phones, which nobody wants to do.

show 1 reply
CharlesWyesterday at 6:33 PM

The thread is a bit vague. Am I understanding correctly that GrapheneOS Foundation's objection isn't to attestation per se, but that they can't participate in Google-controlled attestation APIs? In other words, although GrapheneOS can be cryptographically attested, apps using Google Play Integrity won’t accept it because it isn't Google-certified/GMS-licensed?

show 5 replies
acgourleyyesterday at 6:29 PM

It's so obvious to me states need to create a soul bound identity system, replace social security numbers with it, and then let everyone else use cryptography on top of that (which is now cheap when you don't care about sybil attacks) to do private stuff.

show 5 replies
GeekyBearyesterday at 7:30 PM

I am reminded of the period when secure boot was being developed for PCs.

Microsoft certainly wanted to be the only company whose OS was allowed to boot with secure boot turned on.

Google should not be allowed to close the supposedly "open" ecosystem they created any more than Microsoft was allowed to.

thecatappsyesterday at 7:44 PM

With all of the discourse around hardware attestation, digital ID, and age verification in recent weeks/months, is there actually any good solution to the problems these existing tools (Privacy Pass, WEI, Fraud Defense, uploading IDs) claim to solve? Are there open and privacy-preserving standards that can solve the problem of bots and minors? If not, what would be required to establish one, and is it realistic?

Businesses will do what businesses will do, but it seems to me having something to point to and saying "do this instead" is more effective than "this sucks and isn't even about security, don't do this at all" even though it's true.

show 2 replies
mattmaroonyesterday at 6:29 PM

So basically, ReCaptcha should be spun off into a not-for-profit.

ajdudeyesterday at 8:46 PM

> Google's reCAPTCHA is planning an approach where they use Privacy Pass on Apple hardware, their own approach on Google Mobile Services Android devices and a QR code scanning system to require an iOS or Google certified Android device for Windows and other systems

I wonder if we'll get something similar happening with cloudflare

show 1 reply
yowoyesterday at 7:38 PM

I literaly switched away from banks whose apps dont work on GrapheneOS

aleksejsyesterday at 8:25 PM

> It doesn't provide a useful security feature, but it does lock out competition very well.

This seems to presuppose that service providers using reCAPTCHA are either clueless idiots or actively expending resources and lowering their conversion rates to support the supposed Google/Apple duopoly. That does not strike me as a plausible claim.

bobmarleybicepsyesterday at 8:41 PM

it's so great to see people boosting "security" in a way that also just happens to require locking in to big-tech approved apps that send all your data to big-tech so that they can deliver ads to you via your big-tech approved device using your big-tech approved os running your big tech approved browser showing your big-tech approved video platform with your big-tech approved content (oh, and also sends your data to your big-tech approved government)

SilverElfinyesterday at 6:38 PM

It is definitely a monopoly enabler. But also a threat to speech. You can only participate online if you have attested hardware. And that hardware will be tied back to you. It’s another threat to privacy like age verification laws.

show 1 reply
p0w3n3dyesterday at 9:35 PM

To think I'm gonna live in a cross-state totalitarian world

gib444yesterday at 6:54 PM

GrapheneOS would do well to get a grip on its marketing/PR, especially at this pivotal moment of partnering with Motorola. This topic deserves to be a proper article. Please, not everyone wants to read a stream of tweets and replies.

And the audacity to reply rudely to someone in the thread with "Read the rest of the thread once it's posted". Absurd

(Wrote this on a Pixel running grapheneos fwiw)

show 1 reply
vvpanyesterday at 8:15 PM

Miss that monopoly busting of yesteryear. The elephant in the room is that private forces who do not have public good in mind have gotten way too powerful to the detriment of everybody's well-being. Everybody's except the state's surveillance wings.

Break them up. Break them up. Break them up.

minrawsyesterday at 7:46 PM

I mean sure Google & Apple are evil, but don't we all need some evil in our lives, EU citizens doesn't matter we love the evil and honestly we enjoy it.

What can't we do for these two companies we will beg, we will bend, we might even consider grovelling as long as the evil is around, to help us find the greater evils in the world. That is, the people we don't like, might be the bad guys today, but just don't worry you will be the bad guy too, just wait until the bad guys get into power...

I haven't read the hobbit or lord of the rings but man if this isn't greed corrupting all men then I don't know what is.

I feel sick of all this, I might really just move out and live the rest of my life out on the farm somewhere.

tamimioyesterday at 9:50 PM

The best workaround for now is -as the solution is always to change these regulations not the technical workarounds- is to have a secondary smaller phone that has the sim card, google botnet services, etc., and use that for any verification needed or login to banks or whatever, and keep this device turned off in your house so they don’t track you too and use it where needed. That while also pressuring web services not to use recaptchas and similar invasive services.

iamkrazyyesterday at 6:45 PM

It's still not too late. With the help of Claude et. al, we can make a truly open mobile OS from ground up. We can make an app translater that can translate Android and iOS apps to our OS. We can make deals with manufacturers to start shipping phones with this OS. We have the will, there's enough of us on this site to make an impact. All ee need is good leadership. Please somebody with enough clout step up.

show 2 replies
TZubiriyesterday at 7:39 PM

Ironically, the other top article on HN right now is CVE-2024-YIKES.

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Maybe we need to close some doors, especially if the barrier for publication is literally just a couple of prompts and uploading the result to distributor like npm or play store.

einpoklumyesterday at 9:20 PM

Not to rain on the parade, but doesn't GrapheneOS only works on Google Pixel devices? I mean, that's still in the Google jail on a physical level, even if they swap out the software.

show 1 reply
mrexcessyesterday at 8:58 PM

There are a number of technological / legal hybrid policies developing that come at the very jugular vein of computing freedom - the notion of a “general purpose” computer itself. OS level identity / age verification, hardware attestation, walled garden app signature requirements. All evincing the same aim.

dickywadyesterday at 8:40 PM

Its actually worse than people seem to understand.

Hardware attestion will spread like a plague and you will soon no longer be able to log into anything without using "an approved computer". Which will mean a computer of someone elses choosing.

I could easily see large companies using this as a way to charge employees for their desktop access and a million other perversions of this nonsense.

Its bad enough we cant use our computers without being spied on, now they want to install their spyware and force us to use "their computers"

derelictayesterday at 8:49 PM

Mark my words: in ten years from now on, the Chinese web will be more free and open than any Western country.

show 1 reply
comandillosyesterday at 6:52 PM

These kind of things just make me want to use Graphene even more, or literally any platform that isnt the monopoly ones. Somehow I think AI and vibecoding, even if it may sound as an unpopular opinion, will allow people to build free ecosystems and actually usable devices that dont rely on the usual providers.

rasenganyesterday at 6:33 PM

I agree hw attestation is net negative when forced upon end users. OTOH, when service providers use it, it results in transparency to end users [1] so it's really about how it is used.

[1] https://bmail.ag/verify

rvzyesterday at 6:19 PM

Well there you have it.

> Governments are increasingly mandating using Apple's App Attest and Google's Play Integrity for not only their own services but also commercial services. The EU is leading the charge of making these requirements for digital payments, ID, age verification, etc. Many EU government apps require them.

Even the "beloved" EU government is also in on it as well as banking apps are pushing for this too. They do not care about you and the so-called "Open Web" is already dead on arrival.

[0] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116551068177121365

show 1 reply
MilkyFlooryesterday at 6:30 PM

[dead]

ls612yesterday at 6:18 PM

Asymmetric cryptography and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. I’m not even joking all of the centralization of power and the rise of totalitarianism tech is driving is downstream from asymmetric cryptography.

show 5 replies
gibbsrichyesterday at 7:00 PM

This was a wild ride, what an adventure. So many moving pieces, this really is just one big house of cards.