Apple and Google are gradually expanding their use of hardware-based attestation.
-
It's the goal.
For example, all those new laws for age verification are to prevent you from using an operating system or ROM that cannot be minored or controlled. Blocking reCAPTCHA on a non-approved, non-certified government and corporate sanctioned devices is just 1 piece of the big picture.
For example, the USA has made any new router not made in the USA illegal to import or sell. They can apply for an exception if they agree to include their new control chip or firmware.
Motorola has a security contract with the USA.
They will, depending on need, release a device with GrapheneOS — or delay it — and work closely with you to identify the methods and vulnerabilities you discover, as well as how you implement features to overcome the planned “new normal,” so that, behind the scenes, they can undermine and circumvent your work in the future. The investment — which includes you — is intended to strengthen relations and acquire additional contracts.
-
The purpose of these systems is disallowing people from using hardware and software not approved by Apple or Google. This is wrongly presented as being a security feature. Banks and government services are the main ones adopting it but Apple and Google are encouraging every service to use it.
@GrapheneOS The European Union is developing a digital identity system that incorporates FIDO2 standards for secure authentication. Some governments (like the Austrian) already support FIDO2 for authentication and identification. Banks should just do that, too.
-
Services shouldn't ban people from using arbitrary hardware and operating systems in the first place. Google's security excuse is clearly bogus when they permit devices with no patches for 10 years but not a much more secure OS. It's for enforcing their monopolies via GMS licensing, that's all.
@GrapheneOS
So true! One little thing: This would also be bad if it weren't a bogus excuse. Because Remote Attestation in a device for the general public in itself is evil, and it will always be abused. The whole purpose of Remote Attestation is to enable a service to ban people from using arbitrary hardware and OSes. And in extension, to ban people from using arbitrary client apps for those services. -
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.
@GrapheneOS We are definitely moving towards a two device scenario. One everyday phone with GrapheneOS hopefully and one government device most of the time powered off...
-
Banking and government services increasingly require using a mobile app where they can use attestation to force using an Apple or Google approved device and OS. Apple's privacy pass, Google's 'cancelled' Web Environment Integrity and now reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification are bringing this to the web.
@GrapheneOS My bank has been this way for months already. They got rid of other 2FA methods they used to support and require a Google-approved Android OS or iOS... even to log in to their banking UI on a desktop/laptop.
It's infuriating, and it means I'm now 100% locked in to a proprietary app on a proprietary OS (controlled by 1 of 2 companies, both headquartered in California, USA) on a proprietary phone for banking and public transit (in Europe), with no alternative possible.
-
@GrapheneOS
So true! One little thing: This would also be bad if it weren't a bogus excuse. Because Remote Attestation in a device for the general public in itself is evil, and it will always be abused. The whole purpose of Remote Attestation is to enable a service to ban people from using arbitrary hardware and OSes. And in extension, to ban people from using arbitrary client apps for those services.@thomas Using attestation doesn't imply allowing only a specific set of hardware and operating systems. That's not at all implied and isn't even possible for an implementation only providing pinning-based verification rather than root-based verification.
-
@GrapheneOS My bank has been this way for months already. They got rid of other 2FA methods they used to support and require a Google-approved Android OS or iOS... even to log in to their banking UI on a desktop/laptop.
It's infuriating, and it means I'm now 100% locked in to a proprietary app on a proprietary OS (controlled by 1 of 2 companies, both headquartered in California, USA) on a proprietary phone for banking and public transit (in Europe), with no alternative possible.
@garrett Most banking apps still work on GrapheneOS but Play Integrity API adoption is expanding and it's nearly impossible to convince an app to stop using it once they've started. We've only successfully convinced a couple apps to stop. We've convinced a lot more apps to start permitting GrapheneOS by using the Android hardware attestation API as an alternative which can be used to permit arbitrary hardware and operating systems but that's still very problematic including for GrapheneOS.
-
@garrett Most banking apps still work on GrapheneOS but Play Integrity API adoption is expanding and it's nearly impossible to convince an app to stop using it once they've started. We've only successfully convinced a couple apps to stop. We've convinced a lot more apps to start permitting GrapheneOS by using the Android hardware attestation API as an alternative which can be used to permit arbitrary hardware and operating systems but that's still very problematic including for GrapheneOS.
@garrett We provide documentation at https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide on how apps can use the Android hardware attestation to permit GrapheneOS and other hardware / operating systems which aren't certified by Google. This API supports permitting alternate roots of trust and non-stock operating systems. We use new signing keys for each new device model so new devices won't be listed without them updating it and their list won't include alternate builds of GrapheneOS. Apps should not be doing this at all.
-
Instead of governments stopping Apple and Google from engaging in egregiously anti-competitive behavior, they're directly participating in locking out competition via their own services. Requiring people to have an Apple device or Google-certified Android device is anti-competition, not security.
@GrapheneOS on our way to "privatized care, " information and resources distributed by government subsidized corps(e)
-
Services shouldn't ban people from using arbitrary hardware and operating systems in the first place. Google's security excuse is clearly bogus when they permit devices with no patches for 10 years but not a much more secure OS. It's for enforcing their monopolies via GMS licensing, that's all.
@GrapheneOS i complained on many official service they ignore it, the ombudsman was called and they seem to ignore it too.
they all aswer the bullshit that you are labelled insecure by official tool, because google tool automatically mark non licensed OS as insecure regardless of their actual security.
-
Services shouldn't ban people from using arbitrary hardware and operating systems in the first place. Google's security excuse is clearly bogus when they permit devices with no patches for 10 years but not a much more secure OS. It's for enforcing their monopolies via GMS licensing, that's all.
@GrapheneOS Google has the entirety of its commercial success thanks to the openness and interoperability of the #WWW. To try an captcha it to build a walled garden is, frankly speaking, an act of disrespect for @timbl and the entire web community.
Microsoft has tried it. Apple has tried it as well. Both have finally had the insight that working with the community is much more rewarding and profitable than working against it.
Let's work toward Google having that same revelation as well.
(Sorry for the pun, couldn't resist)
-
Services shouldn't ban people from using arbitrary hardware and operating systems in the first place. Google's security excuse is clearly bogus when they permit devices with no patches for 10 years but not a much more secure OS. It's for enforcing their monopolies via GMS licensing, that's all.
Unified Attestation is another anti-competitive system being pushed by multiple European companies. It will similarly lock people out from using arbitrary hardware and software. That's not a solution and is far worse than Android's much more open hardware attestation API.
-
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.
@GrapheneOS yes, it is hugely problematic.
-
Unified Attestation is another anti-competitive system being pushed by multiple European companies. It will similarly lock people out from using arbitrary hardware and software. That's not a solution and is far worse than Android's much more open hardware attestation API.
Android's hardware attestation shouldn't be used to lock out users not using specific hardware or OSes. However, the fact that it permits arbitrary roots of trust and OSes at least allows services to permit more. Google could use it to permit GrapheneOS for Play Integrity if that was about security.
-
Instead of governments stopping Apple and Google from engaging in egregiously anti-competitive behavior, they're directly participating in locking out competition via their own services. Requiring people to have an Apple device or Google-certified Android device is anti-competition, not security.
@GrapheneOS the irony that it's fine to use a desktop for the same task as long as you use SMS 2FA is also scorching
-
@7cd4a72311bad46117e0f692dddc5f31a543b47ff4265b028f8d820ac808ab3c @MAlBarram We have a partnership with Motorola Mobility (Lenovo) and are working with them towards their 2027 devices providing all of our requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. We're actively working with them on getting the requirements implemented and GrapheneOS ported to their devices. It has nothing to do with the thread we posted though since it's not going to help with any of this.
-
reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification will currently work with sandboxed Google Play on GrapheneOS but it clearly exists to provide a way for them to start using hardware attestation on systems without it. People without an iOS or Android device will be locked out when this is required even without that.
@GrapheneOS does this mean that we gonna have to install sandboxed google play
-
Android's hardware attestation shouldn't be used to lock out users not using specific hardware or OSes. However, the fact that it permits arbitrary roots of trust and OSes at least allows services to permit more. Google could use it to permit GrapheneOS for Play Integrity if that was about security.
@GrapheneOS if it was about security this system would be more close to Https certificate (not identique of course for obvious techical reason) than what google make now (with themselve as sole capable certificate controler).
-
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.
@GrapheneOS I side loaded the EU's sample age verification app - which seems to work on my GrapheneOS phone. Is there a way to know if it is only working because I also have the PlayStore installed?
-
Google's Play Integrity API bans using GrapheneOS despite it being far more secure than anything they permit. It also bans using any other alternative. This isn't somehow specific to an AOSP-based OS. You can't avoid this by using a mobile OS based on FreeBSD instead. You'll just be more locked out.
@GrapheneOS it seems we can't even avoid it by avoiding smartphones altogether. I'm really concerned that for people who eg only have access to the internet through a library/school/borrowed computer, they'll be banned from most of the web for the crime of not being able to afford a smartphone
