[seba_dos1]

No, the reason is to let application providers decide which platforms you can run their software on. The reasons why they need that are diverse: DRM, preventing reverse engineering, shifting liability, "cheating" prevention - to name a few, but ultimately they're all about asserting control over the user, just motivated differently in various use cases. "Think of the grandmas".

[ruszki]

What's the problem with the current status quo, or the status quo 5 or 10 years ago? 20 years ago there were basically no cheating prevention, but nobody cared. We just didn't play with cheaters. There are still cheaters in all games. No matter what kind of DRM streaming platforms use, their movies are on torrent immediately. The only difference compared to 5-20 years ago is that user experience is worse. I need to install a lot of intrusive bullshits, and I cannot watch movies with proper resolution. For literally nothing.

[seba_dos1]

It's not just that "user experience is worse", it's an existential threat to Free Software.

In the past, when you had a proprietary tool you needed to use to do something, people could analyze and reimplement it. The reasons to do that varied - someone needed "muh freedomz", someone else wanted to do the thing on an unsupported platform, someone else wanted to change something in the way the tool worked (perhaps annoyed by paper jams)... Eventually you could end up with an interoperable FLOSS reimplementation. This has happened with lots of various things - IMs, network service clients, appliance drivers, even operating systems, and this is how people like me could switch away from Windows and have their computers (and later phones) remain fully functional in the society around us, perhaps with minor annoyances, but without real showstoppers.

Remote attestation changes this dynamic drastically. Gaim (Pidgin), Kadu couldn't be made if the service provider like AIM, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu etc. could determine whether you're using the Official App™ from the Official Store™ on the Official OS™ and just refuse to handle requests from your reimplementation. They could still try and be hostile to you without it, and often did, but it wasn't an uneven fight. Currently we're still in the early days and you can still go by in the society by defaulting to use services on the Web, using plastic card instead of phone for payments etc. but this is already changing. And it's not just a matter of networked services either - I bet we're going to see peripheral devices refusing to be driven by non-attested implementations too.

Secure boot chains have some value and are worth having, but not when they don't let the user be in charge (or let the user delegate that to someone else) and when they prioritize the security of "apps" rather than users. The ability for us as users to lie to the apps is actually essential to preserving our agency. Without that we're screwed, as now to connect ourselves to the fabric of the society we'll need to find and exploit vulnerabilities that are going to be patched as soon as they become public.

[Avamander]

> The ability for us as users to lie to the apps is actually essential to preserving our agency. Without that we're screwed, as now to connect ourselves to the fabric of the society we'll need to find and exploit vulnerabilities that are going to be patched as soon as they become public.

The same freedom is being abused by malicious actors. Even on Windows (like BlackLotus), but also on pre-infected phones emptying people's bank accounts. This is an incredibly unfortunate outcome, but what's the solution?

I see no other potential outcome than that free computing and trusted computing are going to be totally separate. Possibly even on the same device, but not in a way that lets anyone tamper with it.

[seba_dos1]

A lot of other freedoms are being abused and always have been, but somehow we don't go and ban kitchen knives, as having them around is valuable. This is a false dichotomy. Systems can be secure and trusted by the user without having to cede control, and some risks are just not worth eliminating.

Most importantly - it's the user who needs to know whether their system has been tampered with, not apps.

[goblin89]

> somehow we don't go and ban kitchen knives

False analogy. You can’t have your kitchen knife exploited by a hacker team in North Korea, who shotgun attacks half of the public Internet infrastructure and uses the proceeds to fund the national nuclear program, can you? (I somewhat exaggerate, but you get the idea.)

> Systems can be secure and trusted by the user without having to cede control

In an ideal world where users have infinite information and infinite capability to process and internalize it to become an infosec expert, sure. I don’t know about you, but most of us don’t live in that world.

I agree it’s not perfect. Having to use liquid glass and being unable to install custom watch faces is ridiculous. There’s probably an opportunity for a hardened OS which can be trusted by interested parties to not be maliciously altered, and also not force so many constraints onto users like current walled gardens do. But a fully open OS, plus an ordinary user who has no time or willingness to casually become a tptacek on the side, in addition to completely unrelated full-time job that’s getting more competitive due to LLMs and whatnot, seems more like a disaster than utopia.

[ruszki]

> You can’t have your kitchen knife exploited by a hacker team in North Korea, who shotgun attacks half of the public Internet infrastructure and uses the proceeds to fund the national nuclear program, can you? (I somewhat exaggerate, but you get the idea.)

Isn’t the status quo, that you need to intentionally choose to allow this?

[Avamander]

> but somehow we don't go and ban kitchen knives, as having them around is valuable

Some countries do :) Though I think physical analogies are misleading in a lot of ways here.

> Systems can be secure and trusted by the user without having to cede control, and some risks are just not worth eliminating.

Secure, yes, trustworthy to a random developer looking at your device, no. They're entirely separate concepts.

> Most importantly - it's the user who needs to know whether their system has been tampered with, not apps.

Expecting users to know things does a lot of heavy lifting here.

[seba_dos1]

I never mentioned users having to know things (what you quoted was about the user getting informed whether their system is compromised, which is the job of a secure boot chain). The user being in control means that the user can decide who to trust. The user may end up choosing Google, Apple, Microsoft etc. and it's fine as long as they have a choice. Most users won't even be bothered to choose and that's fine too, but with remote attestation, it's not the user who decides even if they want to. And we don't need random developers looking at our devices to consider them trustworthy, it's none of their business and it's a big mistake to let them.

[ruszki]

How large is this preinfected phones problem? Is it large enough to sacrifice freedom?

[Avamander]

We have had a large discovery of pre-installed malware every year for the past decade so far. Seems like a fairly big problem.

[seba_dos1]

And how exactly did attestation help there?

Securing apps from the user does not secure the user from malware.