Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. We strongly oppose the Unified Attestation initiative and call for app developers supporting privacy, security and freedom on mobile to avoid it.

We strongly oppose the Unified Attestation initiative and call for app developers supporting privacy, security and freedom on mobile to avoid it.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
163 Indlæg 47 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD danieldnk@hachyderm.io

    @GrapheneOS the system is open source, what stop you to implement it and even better contributing to it to improve security?
    Because this system is a very good idea to reinsure the banking company and European Union and it create a viable alternative to the Play Integrity.
    Your approach to just say the security rely on the user didn't convince any big firm as they are legally still responsible in case of issue and the law on that is still protecting consumers.
    The responsibility will remains on the apps for consumer protection so we need an alternative to make it that way and Graphene OS is not providing anything for that.

    grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
    grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
    grapheneos@grapheneos.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #151

    @DanielDNK This system isn't open. It's a proprietary centralized service built on top of standard Android hardware attestation. The entire purpose of Unified Attestation is centralizing control of which operating systems are allowed with the companies running it. It's absolutely unacceptable to have these companies control over whether apps adopting it can run on GrapheneOS. Participating would help to legitimize this anti-competitive power grab and would give them veto power over app compat.

    grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

      @DanielDNK This system isn't open. It's a proprietary centralized service built on top of standard Android hardware attestation. The entire purpose of Unified Attestation is centralizing control of which operating systems are allowed with the companies running it. It's absolutely unacceptable to have these companies control over whether apps adopting it can run on GrapheneOS. Participating would help to legitimize this anti-competitive power grab and would give them veto power over app compat.

      grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
      grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
      grapheneos@grapheneos.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #152

      @DanielDNK It would give these companies the power to sabotage GrapheneOS through breaking app compatibility at any point they choose. It would give them leverage to make arbitrary harmful demands of GrapheneOS. The system is fundamentally anti-competitive and breaks competition laws.

      As soon as this system is adopted by app which begins permitting these operating systems but not GrapheneOS, we intend to file a lawsuit against these companies and will also raise their existing attacks too.

      grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD 3 Replies Last reply
      0
      • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

        @DanielDNK It would give these companies the power to sabotage GrapheneOS through breaking app compatibility at any point they choose. It would give them leverage to make arbitrary harmful demands of GrapheneOS. The system is fundamentally anti-competitive and breaks competition laws.

        As soon as this system is adopted by app which begins permitting these operating systems but not GrapheneOS, we intend to file a lawsuit against these companies and will also raise their existing attacks too.

        grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
        grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
        grapheneos@grapheneos.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #153

        @DanielDNK

        > Your approach to just say the security rely on the user didn't convince any big firm as they are legally still responsible in case of issue and the law on that is still protecting consumers.

        Absolutely not true. We convinced at least a dozen apps to stop using the Play Integrity API. We convinced several apps to begin permitting specific alternate operating systems which were unwilling to stop using it. You should read what we wrote in the thread about a proper approach to this.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD danieldnk@hachyderm.io

          @TycoonTom @GrapheneOS you will not be, the standard is open for everyone

          grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
          grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
          grapheneos@grapheneos.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #154

          @DanielDNK @TycoonTom The standard is not open to everyone. It's run by a group of companies hostile to GrapheneOS which will be permitting their own products but not GrapheneOS.

          Unified Attestation is a centralized system built on top of the Android hardware attestation API for the sole purpose of a power grab where these companies can control which devices and operating systems are allowed. They haven't made their own attestation system. They've made a system to control use of a standard API.

          tycoontom@infosec.exchangeT 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

            @DanielDNK It would give these companies the power to sabotage GrapheneOS through breaking app compatibility at any point they choose. It would give them leverage to make arbitrary harmful demands of GrapheneOS. The system is fundamentally anti-competitive and breaks competition laws.

            As soon as this system is adopted by app which begins permitting these operating systems but not GrapheneOS, we intend to file a lawsuit against these companies and will also raise their existing attacks too.

            danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
            danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
            danieldnk@hachyderm.io
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #155

            @GrapheneOS you should not, Canada is not Europe, you will just lose a lot of money on it and probably lose as the justice doesn't like GrapheneOS anyway as they know the name as its appear in some drug trial and antitrust is not in the same window in Canada and in Europe. Why should Europe protect a Canadian company for antitrust?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

              @DanielDNK It would give these companies the power to sabotage GrapheneOS through breaking app compatibility at any point they choose. It would give them leverage to make arbitrary harmful demands of GrapheneOS. The system is fundamentally anti-competitive and breaks competition laws.

              As soon as this system is adopted by app which begins permitting these operating systems but not GrapheneOS, we intend to file a lawsuit against these companies and will also raise their existing attacks too.

              danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
              danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
              danieldnk@hachyderm.io
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #156

              @GrapheneOS and why do you say it's not open source, the code seems available, which part do you see hidden and proprietary?

              grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD danieldnk@hachyderm.io

                @GrapheneOS and why do you say it's not open source, the code seems available, which part do you see hidden and proprietary?

                grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                grapheneos@grapheneos.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #157

                @DanielDNK Unified Attestation is a thin wrapper around Android hardware attestation which solely exists to make themselves into a centralized authority for controlling which devices and operating systems will be allowed through it. They haven't turned the overall Android hardware attestation feature into an open source one by layering this on top of it. The only part of Android hardware attestation that's open source is the OS. The overall system doesn't have an open source implementation yet.

                grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

                  @DanielDNK Unified Attestation is a thin wrapper around Android hardware attestation which solely exists to make themselves into a centralized authority for controlling which devices and operating systems will be allowed through it. They haven't turned the overall Android hardware attestation feature into an open source one by layering this on top of it. The only part of Android hardware attestation that's open source is the OS. The overall system doesn't have an open source implementation yet.

                  grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                  grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                  grapheneos@grapheneos.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #158

                  @DanielDNK A centralized service which permits only specific devices and operating systems without it being possible to host it elsewhere is not open.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD danieldnk@hachyderm.io

                    @GrapheneOS the system is open source, what stop you to implement it and even better contributing to it to improve security?
                    Because this system is a very good idea to reinsure the banking company and European Union and it create a viable alternative to the Play Integrity.
                    Your approach to just say the security rely on the user didn't convince any big firm as they are legally still responsible in case of issue and the law on that is still protecting consumers.
                    The responsibility will remains on the apps for consumer protection so we need an alternative to make it that way and Graphene OS is not providing anything for that.

                    hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchangeH This user is from outside of this forum
                    hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchangeH This user is from outside of this forum
                    hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchange
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #159

                    @DanielDNK @GrapheneOS

                    The source model doesnt make the approach of the system sensible. Its approach is already a nonstarter and forking it just means convincing app devs to employ a *second* play integrity clone. The proper approach is for there to be no middleman between services and users, by using the generic attestation API. Play integrity is anti competitive and anything mimicking its approach is similarly anti competitive.

                    GOSs approach to whitelist OSs with the generic attestation API (that GOS fully supports) has worked and will likely keep working as more pressure is applied. A middleman is just harmful to the user and to the service.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD danieldnk@hachyderm.io

                      @TycoonTom @GrapheneOS you will not be, the standard is open for everyone

                      hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchangeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchangeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hybridstaticanimate@infosec.exchange
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #160

                      @DanielDNK @TycoonTom @GrapheneOS Attestation as a process is open. The approved OSs would be controlled by the owners of unified attestation. The approach of just making more play integrity clones makes no sense when the service can just pick the OSs themselves.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

                        @DanielDNK @TycoonTom The standard is not open to everyone. It's run by a group of companies hostile to GrapheneOS which will be permitting their own products but not GrapheneOS.

                        Unified Attestation is a centralized system built on top of the Android hardware attestation API for the sole purpose of a power grab where these companies can control which devices and operating systems are allowed. They haven't made their own attestation system. They've made a system to control use of a standard API.

                        tycoontom@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                        tycoontom@infosec.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                        tycoontom@infosec.exchange
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #161

                        @GrapheneOS @DanielDNK Totally correct "control "👏🏼 see pic👇🏼

                        danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • grapheneos@grapheneos.socialG grapheneos@grapheneos.social

                          If banks and governments insist on checking devices for security they should define actual standards. It should be possible for any tiny project to be certified at no cost and the standards should be fairly enforced so a mainstream device without current patches is disallowed.

                          J This user is from outside of this forum
                          J This user is from outside of this forum
                          josenzhong@mastodon.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #162

                          @GrapheneOS I don't think "security" is ever the real concern here for the government. It's always about control with their limited understanding of cyber security.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • tycoontom@infosec.exchangeT tycoontom@infosec.exchange

                            @GrapheneOS @DanielDNK Totally correct "control "👏🏼 see pic👇🏼

                            danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            danieldnk@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            danieldnk@hachyderm.io
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #163

                            @TycoonTom @GrapheneOS and if you install it in another profile, alone without Bitwarden in the same profile?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • jeppe@uddannelse.socialJ jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
                            Svar
                            • Svar som emne
                            Login for at svare
                            • Ældste til nyeste
                            • Nyeste til ældste
                            • Most Votes


                            • Log ind

                            • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                            • Login or register to search.
                            Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                            Graciously hosted by data.coop
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Hjem
                            • Seneste
                            • Etiketter
                            • Populære
                            • Verden
                            • Bruger
                            • Grupper