this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

37585 readers
319 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
remington@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
0
Google is working on essentially putting DRM on the web (github.com)
submitted 1 year ago by jherazob@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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
  • Google
  • 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.

[–] zzz@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] zzz@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] zzz@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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).

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] buckykat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For now. They're boiling the frog slow.

[–] beefcat@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Microsoft doesn't control the standard, and the entire rest of the industry has no reason to ban non-Windows operating systems.

Widnows doesn't have the stranglehold over the market that it once did.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope you're right. Microsoft could try incentivising a shift.

[–] Scrath@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

The entire internet depends on machines running linux as servers. I highly doubt that any company has the power to change that

[–] Gsus4@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] this_is_router@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] Gsus4@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] this_is_router@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Gsus4@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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_router@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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

[–] TheYang@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is why we need Firefox.

And Firefox needs to be a market that can't be ignored.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firefox depends on google for funding though. Google could probably deal a killing blow quite easily.

[–] vinhill@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] at_an_angle@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've never donated to Mozilla before, but will now.

[–] vinhill@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.