|
|
|
|
|
by solatic
3224 days ago
|
|
>There's something a bit unsavoury about saying that "only truly official signed apps are allowed to participate in this open network", and it gives a huge amount of power to those responsible for the secure enclave/trusted computing stuff. Maybe it's a bit naive, but isn't that what federation is supposed to solve? People who are more security-paranoid can forbid clients which don't have the highest security certification, and operators who aren't so diligent will be fine with signed clients being run on untrusted hardware. I mean... is there any open-source software being developed today which enforces key security in secure hardware enclaves? Verifying the GPG signatures on binary packages is "good-enough" for most operators. Build reproduceability will help to further reduce trust of unverified hardware. It seems to me the job of the protocol, and baseline/recommended UI/UX, is merely to help users make informed decisions. Security is a spectrum, and if signed clients improve security (while not fraudulently representing itself as perfect or near-perfect security, if it were running on trusted hardware), then that's a net benefit to the open network. |
|
This certainly needs more thought :)