Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcow | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't the solution be to allow people who have legitimately unlocked their boot loader to also install a custom attestation root so that safety net can still say “the software running on this phone is the software the user intended and not a malicious 3rd party”? Or maybe safety net is not so much about user safety as it is about platform lockdown and vendor safety.

The number of times I’ve been laughed out of a product meeting because I’ve advocated for making decisions that don’t require the apps I’ve worked on to be run on google play services systems... it makes me wonder what is actually important in our industry. It’s certainly not the user privacy, freedom, and advocacy that everyone seems to be milking these days... sad times.

View on HN

> Or maybe safety net is not so much about user safety as it is about platform lockdown and vendor safety.

Sadly, it's exactly this. It's not for your safety at all. It's for keeping stuff on your phone safe from you.

Bootloader unlock is under user control by definition - it won't happen unless you're physically interacting with the device. The legitimate case for safety net is platform lockdown for things like financial apps. Banks and other financial services like to provide some form of insurance to users wrt. losing money in a security breach, and they can't do this unless the app really is being run on a pristine, locked-down platform. Unfortunately it also impacts sillier things like media streaming and online video games. But the best way to cope with that is simply not to use those.

> Banks and other financial services like to provide some form of insurance to users wrt. losing money in a security breach, and they can't do this unless the app really is being run on a pristine, locked-down platform.

This seems like a weird policy, though. I can access my bank via a web browser on a desktop computer, which is certainly not even remotely a "pristine, locked-down platform".

That even makes it weirder that a no-name Chinese phone with an unknown ROM is considered more secure than a stock LineageOS just because it's not unlocked...

Or an exploitable stock ROM (either due to slow updates or eol status after 6mo-2yrs)

Indeed, there's a LOT of cheap and outdated Android devices out there, even without talking about dodgy stock ROM.

> Bootloader unlock is under user control by definition - it won't happen unless you're physically interacting with the device.

Root exploits more common, but bootloader exploits aren't unknown. String them both together and you can remotely root a device, unlock the bootloader, install another OS, and relock the bootloader. All of this without removing apps or data; do it properly (custom recovery for flashing the new OS) and all the user knows is that the device wasn't working for a while (until they notice the giant new notification Google services puts up now, but some users don't even know what notifications are and either won't notice or will ignore it) https://github.com/segv11/boot-unlocker

Wait, this is possible without wiping data/apps? That's insane.

I would be more sympathetic to this plan if it were also tied to update status.

Imagine manufacturers having the incentive to issue monthly security updates, else their users get very angry they can't watch Netflix/log into their bank app/use google pay...

My bank telling me what software I may use on my personal property is not legitimate.

Isn't Google pay the same?

It is, that is no excuse. Also it's harder to avoid banks than Google Pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com