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.
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.”
And if you have issues with the “use case” itself, you’re shit out of luck, shut it, shithead!
If you raise legal issues with the ‘use case’ of their ‘web platform’ thing, ppl will just not respond to you!
Meaning: we don’t care if the shot we plan might be illegal, and we won’t be stopped by you fucks telling us if it is or not "
What benefit of the doubt?
The absolute best possible case is repulsive.
Benefit of the doubt, as in “I doubt this is a good idea”
[Don’t assume consensus nor finished state]
Often a proposal is just that - someone trying to solve a problem by proposing technical means to address it. Having a proposal sent out to public forums doesn’t necessarily imply that the sender’s employer is determined on pushing that proposal as is.
It also doesn’t mean that the proposal is “done” and the proposal authors won’t appreciate constructive suggestions for improvement.
[Be the signal, not the noise]
In cases where controversial browser proposals (or lack of adoption for features folks want, which is a related, but different, subject), it’s not uncommon to see issues with dozens or even hundreds of comments from presumably well-intentioned folks, trying to influence the team working on the feature to change their minds.
In the many years I’ve been working on the web platform, I’ve yet to see this work. Not even once.
…?
What is this, “Good vibes only?”“Good vibes only” seems to be embedded in the culture of web development today. Influential devs’ Twitter accounts have strong Instagram vibes: constantly promoting and congratulating each other, never sharing substantive criticisms. Hustle hustle.
People with deep, valid criticisms of popular frameworks like React seem to be ostracized as cranks.
It’s all very vapid and depressing.
Do you have an article about react? I’d love to read it. And yes tech is chock full of egos and fakers.
Alex Russell is a good read on React. His position gives him a broad view of its impacts and has kept him from being sidelined. This Changelog podcast is a decent distillation of his criticisms – it was recorded earlier this year, a few days after his Market For Lemons blog post.
(Sorry for the late reply! I’ve been a bit swamped lately and away from kbin.)
The amount of noise IS the signal
Never seen it work? These faang people are totally delusional. Google keeps putting off their third party cookie retirement exactly because of outcries like this.
This is why we need Firefox.
And Firefox needs to be a market that can’t be ignored.
@TheYang Exactly! Came here to say this. Everybody actively using chromium based browsers is a part of the problem.
Stop with this excuse and stop Insulting people. I’ve been on Firefox for nearly 20 years, but Mozilla has ruined it for me little by little. The last straw has been the horrible UI redesign. So I switched to a Chromium browser. Tell Mozilla to make a better browser and to listen to their community, instead of blaming people for using what serves them best.
I’ve never donated to Mozilla before, but will now.
Great idea, Mozilla does good things for the internet. Though, please keep in mind that donations to Mozilla never reach Firefox. That is, as donations go to the foundation, a non-profit, while Firefox is developed by a for-profit subsidiary.
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.
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 can’t disable secure boot if you want to use your Nvidia GPU :( though. [edit2: turns out this is a linux mint thing, not the case in Debian or Fedora]
Edit: fine, there may be workarounds and for other distros everything is awesome, but in mint and possibly Ubuntu and Debian for a laptop 2022 RTX3060 you need to set up your MOK keys in secure mode to be able to install the Nvidia drivers, outside secure mode the GPU is simply locked. I wasn’t even complaining, there is a way to get it working, so that’s fine by me. No need to tell me that I was imagining things.
Hogwash. Running Fedora on closed source nvidia drivers with secure boot disabled.
“works for me”
What does that even mean?! Yes it works for me. That’s the whole bloody point of saying it. Someone was saying “it won’t work for anyone” and I was saying “well it works for me”.
“We can’t land at the moon!” “Eh, we already have” “‘Works for me’, so that’s not really valid”
Head_scratch.gif
My experience is that Nvidia plays nicer without secure boot. Getting Fedora up and running with the proprietary Nvidia drivers and fully working SecureBoot was quite a headache, whereas everything just worked out of the box when I disabled it.
But this is very much an Nvidia problem and not a SecureBoot problem. There is a reason basically no-one else provides their drivers as one-size-fits-all binary kernel modules.
Source?
Me installing Linux Mint on a 2022 laptop with a Nvidia GPU (had windows 11 preinstalled, this was an alongside install). I disabled secure boot at first, but still had to go all the way back and set up my MOK keys and turn on secure boot properly with another password to unlock the GPU.
When are people gonna learn to stop buying NVIDIA products?
I used fedora in 2022 with an Nvidia GPU and used the proprietary drivers just fine. Perhaps there was something different between your system and mine. Newer GPU perhaps? Mine was a 1080.
RTX3060, I suspect this is the case for newer laptops, yes.
Never heard of this before and couldn’t find anything about secure boot being required to be enabled to use the Nvidia drivers with Linux.
But since you used dual boot you need to have secure boot enabled anyway, because win 11 would not work without it, would it?
https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=343833
You can search duckduckgo for Nvidia mok secure boot mint and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/535434/what-exactly-is-mok-in-linux-for#535440
This is about signing the driver when secure boot is enabled. It doesn’t say that Nvidia won’t work with secure boot disabled.
I’m using Nvidia with debian and secure boot disabled btw. So the statement, “Nvidia won’t work with secure boot disabled” is still wrong. Might be some Linux mint bug, but not a problem of Nvidia per se
I started looking at Mac’s for my next computer. Due to this amazing project. https://asahilinux.org/
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.
your smartphone manufacturer decides whether you can unlock it and lose attestation
My Pixel 6 allows me
GOTO 10
My point is that at least some smartphone manufacturers make phones with unlocked boot loaders. As long as there’s at least one such manufacturer, does that not disprove your argument?
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.
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).
Unsupported browser, please install Chrome.
You are logged out, please log in or sign up for an account.
To verify your identity, please enter your phone number, a text message will be sent, please enter verification code.
Error, your account has been flagged for further review, please submit 3 different government IDs, with at least 2 containing your photo, and 2 containing your address.
Error, name doesn’t match, if you have changed you name, please submit proof of name change.
Error, no citizenship status detected, please submit birth certificate or naturalization certificate
Please wait 7-14 bussiness days. A phone call will be made to the number you’ve submitted.
Error, missed call. Please wait 30 days for another call.
Error, unsupported operating system, please use Chrome OS, Android, or Google Smart TV OS
Error, Google Smart Home assistant not installed, please purchase one within the next 3 days to avoid losing signup process.
Error, could not confirm identity, please purchase Google 360 cameras to verify identity.
Error, server maintenance in progress, please retry signup at a later time.
Thank you for using Google!
Please drink verification can
Thanks for this. I skimmed the proposal doc itself and didn’t quite understand the concern people have with it – most of the concerns that came to my own mind are already listed as non-goals. The first few lines of this comment express a realistic danger that’s innate to what’s actually being proposed.
Glory to
Arstotzka… I mean Alphabet.I’m sorta sitting here in that same scenario. My iphone screen was severely broken last week, I don’t use any other apple services. When I tried to get into it, my phone went into security lock mode. Coincidentally all of my 2FAs for my other accounts did their monthly checkin. No phone, no checkin so now I’m locked out of nearly all of my work accounts. Apple ID will renew in a few days, but I didn’t think to take my broken phone with me on a trip, so my SIM with my phone number is now 1000s of miles away. So now I’m boned til I get home. 2FA works well until it works too well.
I would just move on at step 3
It’s time for Alphabet to be broken up into separate letters.
Or have some letters removed all together.
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.
Give me Firefox or give me death.
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.
This is a total affront to the ethos of the web and everyone involved in drafting this awful proposal should be publicly shamed. Stick sandwich boards on each of them saying “I tried to build the Torment Nexus”, chain them together and march them through the streets while ringing a bell and chanting “shame”.
Here you go
Those names read like some characters in a bad novel…
Well good thing they have a company slogan of do no evil… Oh wait.
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.
Alright, I’m kinda slow today, so tell me if I got it right: We, the users, will be “kindly asked” to get one thingamabob signature/identifier of “integrity”, so websites “know” whether we’re good or bad guys?
Your hardware and OS already gets asked to verify whether it’s safe to run an app on it (see: banking apps).
Same thing, but now with web browsers.
deleted by creator
