[izacus]

Sorry but this is nonsense - most users, even the Linux toting power users - don't have the time, ability or knowledge to verify the contents of their OS in a way that would catch issues prevented by attestation.

The problem with modified phones containing malware is very real and unless you want a full on Apple "you're not allowed to touch the OS" model you need some kind of audited OS verification that you as a user or a security sensitive software can depend on.

[seba_dos1]

No, what you're saying is nonsense. I can burn a key into efuses of this phone to make it only boot things signed by me and make the whole boot path verified, OS image immutable etc. and all of this can provide me some value, but it's absolutely not in my interest to let applications be picky on what can or can't happen in the OS (even if they would accept my key being there rather than Google's, which they won't). The only thing it manages to do is to prevent me from using the device the way I want or need it to be used.

[izacus]

I agree about the part where apps shouldn't be able to see whether the OS is trusted.

But to remove that incentive you first need to stop punishing app companies for compromised user OSes from legal perspective.

Are you willing to absolve Google, Apple and Deutsche Bank from responsibility of damage that happens on compromised user OSes?

[seba_dos1]

The attested systems have vulnerabilities too, so how do they deal with that responsibility?

[rep_lodsb]

There's also a problem with unmodified phones containing malware, namely an operating system made by an advertising company, which is designed to collect as much information about you as possible.

And this malware is largely based on open source code (Linux) that was originally developed on open, documented hardware, where the firmware boot loader did nothing more than load the first 512 bytes of your hard disk to address 0x7c00 and transfer complete control to it.

Yes, there were viruses that exploited this openness, but imagine if Linus Torvalds would have needed a cryptographic certificate from IBM or Microsoft to be allowed to run his own code! This is basically the situation we have today, and if you don't see how dystopian this is, I don't know what more to say.

I will never understand why such an overwhelming majority of people seem to just accept this. When frigging barcodes where introduced, there were widespread conspiracy theories about it being the Mark of the Beast -- ridiculous of course, but look at now where in some places you literally can't buy or sell without carrying around a device that is hostile to your interests. And soon it will be mandated by the state for everyone.

Google must be destroyed.

[izacus]

Yeah, randomly calling software that you don't like "malware" isn't making a strong case you think it does. Or helps in this discussion.

[rep_lodsb]

It's doing things that are against the interest of the user. But obviously, that's no longer an acceptable definition! According to our benevolent overlords, Android is definitely not malware, while yt-dlp is </s>