The much maligned “Trusted Computing” idea requires that the party you are supposed to trust deserves to be trusted, and Google is DEFINITELY NOT worthy of being trusted, this is a naked power grab to destroy the open web for Google’s ad profits no matter the consequences, this would put heavy surveillance in Google’s hands, this would eliminate ad-blocking, this would break any and all accessibility features, this would obliterate any competing platform, this is very much opposed to what the web is.
This is why we need Firefox.
And Firefox needs to be a market that can’t be ignored.
Firefox depends on google for funding though. Google could probably deal a killing blow quite easily.
They do that because of Firefox goes, Google is open to being trust busted. Killing Firefox would be literal suicide for Google
Mozilla is trying to reduce its dependency on the Google search deal. The dependence is big, but Mozilla has some reserves and receives the money for channeling searches to Google. They could and already make such deals with other search providers.
Firefox will most likely support this, if it doesn’t want to get cut off from most of the web.
However, it would be nice to have a Firefox or Chromium fork with a switch to disable the “feature”, an option to remove any links to websites requiring this stuff, and some search engine free of links to websites requiring it.
Firefox will most likely support this, if it doesn’t want to get cut off from most of the web.
well, if more people used Firefox websites couldn’t just throw them under the bus, which is why I said it’s so important.
We’ll have to see, but I’d hope Firefox puts up at least some resistance.
Note of amusement: The GitHub issues tracker for that proposal got swamped with tickets either mocking this crap or denouncing it for what it is, this morning the person who seems to be the head of the project closed all those tickets and published this blog post, in essence saying “Shut up with your ethical considerations, give us a hand in putting up this electric fence around the web”. Of course that didn’t stop it.
Also somebody pointed out this gem in the proposal, quoted here:
6.2. Privacy considerations
Todo
Quick edit: This comment on one of the closed tickets points out the contact information of the Antitrust authorities of both US and EU, i think i’m gonna drop the EU folks a note
Edit: And they disabled commenting on the issues tracker
My favorite part is when they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt, but also anyone who disagrees with them in a way that doesn’t fit their expectations is “noise.”
Benefit of the doubt, as in “I doubt this is a good idea”
THIS IS NOT (just) ABOUT GOOGLE
Currently, attestation and “trusted computing” are already a thing, the main “sources of trust” are:
- Microsoft
- Apple
- Smartphone manufacturers
- Third party attestators
This is already going on, you need a Microsoft signed stub to boot anything other than Windows on a PC, you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac, your smartphone manufacturer decides whether you can unlock it and lose attestation, all of Microsoft, Apple and Google run app attestation through their app stores, several governments and companies run attestation software on their company hardware, and so on.
This is the next logical step, to add “web app” attestation, since the previous ones had barely any pushback, and even fanboys of walled gardens cheering them up.
PS: Somewhat ironically, Google’s Play Store attestation is one of the weaker ones, just look at Apple’s and the list of stuff they collect from the user’s device to “attest” it for any app.
you need a Microsoft signed stub to boot anything other than Windows on a PC
Not necessarily, most motherboards and laptops (at least every single one I’ve ever owned) allow users to enroll their own Secure Boot keys and maintain an entirely non-Microsoft chain of trust. You can also disable secure boot entirely.
Major distros like Ubuntu and Fedora started shipping with Microsoft-signed boot shims as a matter of convenience, not necessity.
Secure Boot itself is not some nefarious mechanism, it is a component of the open UEFI standard. Where Microsoft comes in to play is the fact that most PC vendors are going to pre-enroll Microsoft keys because they are all shipping computers with Windows, and Microsoft wants Secure Boot enabled by default on machines shipping with with their operating system.
you need a Microsoft signed stub to boot anything other than Windows on a PC
False. Every PC I’ve had has allowed Secure Boot to be turned off, and some of them allow me to add another trusted certificate as well.
you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac
False. The Mac boot process is completely unlocked, at least on Intel Macs.
your smartphone manufacturer decides whether you can unlock it and lose attestation
My Pixel 6 allows me to unlock the boot loader at any time.
Attestation exists, unfortunately, but it’s not nearly as pervasive as you seem to think.
This is the next logical step, to add “web app” attestation, since the previous ones had barely any pushback
Uh, there was huge pushback. That’s why even a Microsoft Surface won’t stop you from installing Linux.
The Mac boot process is completely unlocked, at least on Intel Macs.
On Modern Macs, the process is somewhat convoluted, but you are able to boot into a custom compiled boot loader / operating system while secure boot is enabled. It just needs a few minor hoops to sign the boot loader - steps that would be difficult to social engineer around but perfectly reasonable to do them intentionally if installing an alternate operating system is your thing.
iPhone is, of course, a different story. Hopefully that changes some day. The CPU and boot process is the same as a Mac, so there’s no reason it couldn’t be unlocked. Might require government intervention though.
It just needs a few minor hoops to sign the boot loader - steps that would be difficult to social engineer around but perfectly reasonable to do them intentionally if installing an alternate operating system is your thing.
Does that not create a barrier for entry for non-technical people looking to use an alternative operating system?
My Pixel 6 allows me to unlock the boot loader at any time.
By doing that, you no longer pass SafetyNet, and some apps refuse to work without it. If unlocking your device removes features, then you aren’t really allowed to do so.
I started looking at Mac’s for my next computer. Due to this amazing project. https://asahilinux.org/
While I agree in general, and the overall sentiment/direction here to steer towards (morally) is clear… let’s stick to facts only.
you need Apple’s blessing to boot anything on a Mac
Bootloader is unlocked and alternative OS exist. Or what else did you mean by that?
Macs with the T2 could be configured to unlock the bootloader, but from my understanding, the new Apple Silicon Macs (M1, M2) come with the bootloader locked.
Your understanding is incorrect, I think.
Apple specifically chose to leave it (or some part of the chain, I don’t actually know, not an expert lol) open, otherwise, a project like Asahi Linux would not have had a chance from the getgo.
I might try to read up on it when I find the time whether they still have to rely on something signed by Apple before being able to take over in the boot process.
I see.
I was going on the fact that the T2 has a “No Security” option for its Secure Boot config, while according to Apple Support the Apple Silicon ones (I don’t have one) only offer “Full” or “Reduced” security, which would still require signing: Change security settings on the startup disk of a Mac with Apple silicon
Dunno how the Asahi folks are planning on doing it, but they do indeed say there is no bootlock 🤔
Update: according to the Asahi docs, I seem to understand that Apple Silicon devices allow creating some sort of “OS containers” that can be chosen to boot from separately from the Mac OS one, and in such a custom container the security can be set to “permissive” limited to that container: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Open-OS-Ecosystem-on-Apple-Silicon-Macs Interesting.
Interesting.
Yep, that’s a fitting term. You definitely still have to rely on macOS (and keep a copy of it around, e.g. for firmware upgrades, which of course basically only come bundled with macOS versions), but other than that, you can do more or less what you want to – as long as you’re outside of it.
I quite like this idea though if I’m being honest, normie users get all the hardened security from the regular boot chain without experiencing basically any difference/downsides, while hardware enthusiasts and (Linux) tinkerers still have options open (well, options that you can get if you have a new chip on a rarer architecture with previously no third party OS).
The number of people protesting against them in their “Issues” page is amazing. The devs have now blocked the creation of new issue tickets or of comments in existing ones.
It’s funny how in the “explainer” they present this as something done for the “user”, when it’s clearly not developed for the “user”. I wouldn’t accept something like this even if it was developed by some government – even less by Google.
I have just reported their repository to GitHub as malware, as an act of protest, since they closed the possibility of submitting issues or commenting.
Yeah, as if github aka Microsoft is going to do anything about it … but hey, anything to keep the pressure up and not letting this go through.
Ad blockers are my best disability accommodation. The things they do with ads to capture attention f with my brain. I’m really going to struggle if this happens. And I’m dependent on the internet for so many things, from groceries to prescriptions to people.
I’m a non-techie and don’t understand half of this, but from what I do understand, this is a goddamn nightmare. The world is seriously going to shit.
So, a lot of the replies are highlighting how this is “nightmare fuel”.
I’ll try to provide insight into the “not nightmare” parts.The proposal is for how to share this information between parties, and they call out that they’re specifically envisioning it being between the operating system and the website. This makes it browser agnostic in principle.
Most security exploits happen either because the users computer is compromised, or a sensitive resource, like a bank, can’t tell if they’re actually talking to the user.
This provides a mechanism where the website can tell that the computer it’s talking to is actually the one running the website, and not just some intermediate, and it can also tell if the end computer is compromised without having access to the computer directly.The people who are claiming that this provides a mechanism for user tracking or leaks your browsing history to arrestors are perhaps overreacting a bit.
I work in the software security sector, specifically with device management systems that are intended to ensure that websites are only accessed by machines managed by the company, and that they meet the configuration guidelines of the company for a computer accessing their secure resources.
This is basically a generalization of already existing functionality built into Mac, windows, Android and iPhones.
Could this be used for no good? Sure. Probably will be.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate uses for something like this and the authors are openly evil.
This is a draft of a proposal, under discussion before preliminary conversations happen with the browser community.
Give me Firefox or give me death.
Well good thing they have a company slogan of do no evil… Oh wait.
Like everyone else, I was an avid google user and used google for all its services. Then I started to learn about privacy and switched to chrome to firefox with duckduckgo. Until yesterday I was also often using an adblocker for advertising, I then realized that this does harm to companies and sites that I am interested in. Advertising is fine, I enjoy it if it’s on the site, but I want to be given a choice to behave. That’s it. Tradotto con DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
Years ago i would have agreed with you, but on this era of heavy capitalist surveillance you don’t want to give them the chance, they’ll get every bit of data they can get about you. That and ads are strong dissemination vectors for malware. If i want to support something i’d rather do it directly, ads have proven to be noxious.
I wish there was some kind of “ethical ad” standard, such that we can be served ads, maybe even “relevant” ads (with relevant topics picked by users), but without any tracking or malware, and in fact, with some kind of technology that prevents tracking instead of certifying to the advertisers that the user didn’t “tamper” with their pc so they can track as much as they want (I’m not aware of such a standard or technology. Genuine question: is there such a thing?).
Heck, I’d be even in favor of a standard to “pay to disable ads”, with reasonable fees, so that websites I like get their per-view dues, but without tracking or ads. If there was some kind of technology to send money to others without being tracked, kinda like back in the day when we used to buy newspapers at the newsstand with actual cash, but digital … who said “cryptocurrency”? Right, I heard they were actually invented to be used as currency, rather than high risk investing/speculation device … anyways, let me not digress (too much) …
Can’t agree too much with you. Here, take this as a sign of my appreciation🎖
duckduckgo shows basic ads when you search for anything
OTOH, this will create a massive “in” group, and a much smaller “out” group. It almost formalizes the Indie Web, which would take us back to the early 90’s, but with better bandwidth. I’d be into that.
Until you’re required to use their software for, say, banking or legal procedures. You DO NOT want this to become the status quo
I was not advocating for it at all. Just looking on the bright side.
Yep, that sounds like a very Mega-Corp thing to do.
deleted by creator
