[AshamedCaptain]

Great. Let's just require every single computing device to be verified, signed, and attested by a government agency. Just in case it is ever misused to attack a Google online service that cannot be possibly bothered to actually spend one nanosecond thinking on security.

What could possibly go wrong. It's not only morally questionable no matter what "advantages" it provides Google, but it's also technically ridiculous because _even if every single computing device was attested_, by construction I can still trivially find ways to use them to "brute force" Google logins. The technical "advantage" of attestation immediately drops to 0 once it is actually enforced (this is were the seatbelts analogy falls apart).

Next thing I suggest after forcing remote attestation on all devices is tying these device IDs to government-issued personal ID. Let's see how that goes over. And then for the government to send the killing squad once one of these devices is used to attack Google services. That should also improve security.

Here's the dystopian future we're building, folks. Take it or leave it. After all, it statistically improves security!

[brookst]

You just proved the seatbelt analogy.

Yes, for SOME subset of attackers (car crashes), for SOME subset of targets (passengers), the mitigations don’t solve the problem.

This is not the anti-attestation / anti-seatbelt argument many think it is.

All security is mitigation. There is non perfection.

But it makes no sense to say that because a highly motivated attacker with a lot of money to spend can rig real attested devices to be malicious, there must be no benefit to a billion or so legit client devices being attested.

I think your enthusiasm for melodrama and snark may be clouding your judgment of the actual topic.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Yes, for SOME subset of attackers (car crashes), for SOME subset of targets (passengers), the mitigations don’t solve the problem.

I won't solve the problem for _anyone_ once it is required, because it is trivial to bypass once the incentive is there. This is what kills this technically; it does not even go into the other cons (which really should not be ignored). Seatbelts absolutely do not have this problem.

> All security is mitigation. There is non perfection.

This is an absolutely meaningless tautology. It is perfectly true statement. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Say I argue in favor "putting a human to verify each and every banking transaction with a phone call to the source and the destination". And then you disagree, saying that there will be costs, waste of time for everyone, and that the security improvement will be minimal at best. And then I counter with "All security is mitigation, there is no perfection!".

Can you see what you're doing here? This is another textbook example of the politician's fallacy (something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this).

It is trying to bypass the discussion on the actual merits of the proposal as well as its cons by saying "well it does something!" . True, it does something. So what? If the con is bad enough, or if the benefit too small, maybe it's best NOT to do it anyway!

> But it makes no sense to say that because a highly motivated attacker with a lot of money to spend can rig real attested devices to be malicious, there must be no benefit to a billion or so legit client devices being attested.

Not long we had right here in HN a discussion about the merits of remote attestion for anti-cheating: turns out the "lot of money" is a custom USB mouse (or addon to one) that costs cents to make. Sure, its not zero. You have to go more and more draconian in order to actually make it "a lot of money", but then you'll tell me I'm being melodramatic.

[neuralRiot]

>After all, it statistically improves security!

Probably not even that, but it limits liability and that’s the only purpose, just like the manual in your car, nobody will ever read it but it contains a warning for every single thing that could happen.

[brokenmachine]

I've actually read the manual for my car, and it absolutely does not "contain a warning for every single thing that could happen".