@volla has initiated the industry consortium #UnifiedAttestation for an open-source alternative to Google Play Integrity.
-
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission It has everything to do with a centralized attestation system. Once this system starts being adopted, the EU can require it for banking/government apps as they began the process of doing with the Play Integrity API. They can then hijack it and begin enforcing their own requirements such including disallowing encryption without backdoors. There should be no organization in charge of which devices and operating systems are allowed.
@GrapheneOS
But they, the EU, can do this all along. No matter if there is something like attestation or not.
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission -
@engideer
I don't know about volla trying to forbid me running certain Software, but you are right. I haven't seen real arguments in this case for a long time. That's all I said. No arguments ad hominem, but arguments on this case, please.
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
I was referring exactly to Unified Attestation, the topic of this thread. UA is essentially a direct clone of the Google Play Integrity API. The rough summary is that both technologies offer an API that apps can query, asking whether they (the app) is running on a "certified" operating system. In the case of GPI, Google has a list of OSes they deem "acceptable", while in UA's case, Volla has a list of OSes they deem "acceptable". In either case, the technology forbids you from running an operating system of your choice, since Google/Volla have to approve your choice, or otherwise you won't get to run apps on it. Technologically there's a bit more complexity and nuance here, but this is essentially what it comes down to.
This is why GOS is so strongly opposed to this. Because centralized attestation is fundamentally an anti-freedom technology. It doesn't matter whether the jail is run by company A or B: a jail is always a jail.
-
@GrapheneOS
But they, the EU, can do this all along. No matter if there is something like attestation or not.
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Attestation enables them to enforce it. Otherwise, people can import devices not complying with the rules they place on devices sold within Europe. Banning people from using devices from elsewhere is far more extreme and oppressive so that's a lot less likely. It's also far harder to enforce and if things have gotten that bad then many people are going to be unintentionally breaking oppressive laws regardless.
-
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Attestation enables them to enforce it. Otherwise, people can import devices not complying with the rules they place on devices sold within Europe. Banning people from using devices from elsewhere is far more extreme and oppressive so that's a lot less likely. It's also far harder to enforce and if things have gotten that bad then many people are going to be unintentionally breaking oppressive laws regardless.
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Being able to take away compatibility with banking and government apps based on a system imposing arbitrary rules with certification required for each release is authoritarian. Regardless of the motivation for building this kind of system, the end result is a powerful tool for a police state. Root-based attestation is inherently anti-competitive and primarily useful for controlling people rather than protecting people.
-
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Being able to take away compatibility with banking and government apps based on a system imposing arbitrary rules with certification required for each release is authoritarian. Regardless of the motivation for building this kind of system, the end result is a powerful tool for a police state. Root-based attestation is inherently anti-competitive and primarily useful for controlling people rather than protecting people.
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Pinning-based attestation is a useful security feature for protecting users and has little potential for abuse to prevent competition and enforce authoritarian laws. Root-based attestation is what causes those problems. Root-based attestation has poor security since it depends on none of the TEE/SE implementations getting exploited with their keys extracted. Not much of a security feature when any leaked key can be used to bypass it.
-
@Phobos1641 @GrapheneOS @skywalker2k17 lol, yes, and PERFECTLY fine with that. If GOS says no, well, ok, the consortium moves on without them. (But they will always have a standing invitation nonetheless)
@vollaficationist You still haven't addressed the actual criticism. The point still stands that Volla and the other companies involved in this have a massive conflict of interest. The same conflict of interest Google has with Play Integrity. "Unified Attestation" being European doesn't make this conflict of interest go away. As an EU citizen: You're not helping Europeans, you aren't doing anything good for consumers. This is still an anti-competitive move and needs to be investigated, just like Google needs to be investigated and regulated because of their monopolistic Play Integrity API.
-
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
I was referring exactly to Unified Attestation, the topic of this thread. UA is essentially a direct clone of the Google Play Integrity API. The rough summary is that both technologies offer an API that apps can query, asking whether they (the app) is running on a "certified" operating system. In the case of GPI, Google has a list of OSes they deem "acceptable", while in UA's case, Volla has a list of OSes they deem "acceptable". In either case, the technology forbids you from running an operating system of your choice, since Google/Volla have to approve your choice, or otherwise you won't get to run apps on it. Technologically there's a bit more complexity and nuance here, but this is essentially what it comes down to.
This is why GOS is so strongly opposed to this. Because centralized attestation is fundamentally an anti-freedom technology. It doesn't matter whether the jail is run by company A or B: a jail is always a jail.
@engideer
I can understand this.
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission -
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Attestation enables them to enforce it. Otherwise, people can import devices not complying with the rules they place on devices sold within Europe. Banning people from using devices from elsewhere is far more extreme and oppressive so that's a lot less likely. It's also far harder to enforce and if things have gotten that bad then many people are going to be unintentionally breaking oppressive laws regardless.
@GrapheneOS
That's true but essentially they could forbid it, even with higher impact and less success
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission -
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission Pinning-based attestation is a useful security feature for protecting users and has little potential for abuse to prevent competition and enforce authoritarian laws. Root-based attestation is what causes those problems. Root-based attestation has poor security since it depends on none of the TEE/SE implementations getting exploited with their keys extracted. Not much of a security feature when any leaked key can be used to bypass it.
@GrapheneOS
I guess I don't know enough about THW difference. So you have a link to an explanation?
@danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @guilg @EUCommission -
@khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission This is not just a theoretical concern.
Some European countries border on autocracy. Imagine that this initiative is successful. An autocrat could pressure Volla et al. to only attest phones that have a chat backdoor under the thread of banning them from the market.
It is anti-privacy, anti-security, and anti-freedom.
@danieldk @khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
germany is particularly nasty regarding anyone speaking out against genocide and 80 years of war crimes by Israel
staatsrason they call it
-
@GrapheneOS I can not relate to this, unfortunately. I focus on an opensource alternative to googlag. Looking forward. Positively, constructively. Let's say UA becomes a success. Well, GOS is free to do their own thing. As are everyone else.
@vollaficationist
Just be careful that it doesn't become OpenTorment or LibreNexus. -
@danieldk @khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
germany is particularly nasty regarding anyone speaking out against genocide and 80 years of war crimes by Israel
staatsrason they call it
-
@khw @danieldk @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
1. yes it is, it was a reply to "Some European countries border on autocracy. "
2. fuck off with your policing
3. you sound like that 12 year old school prefect, fuck off
-
@danieldk @khw @vollaficationist @celeduc @GrapheneOS @guilg @EUCommission
germany is particularly nasty regarding anyone speaking out against genocide and 80 years of war crimes by Israel
staatsrason they call it
@rapsneezy
Germany is indeed very nasty regarding denying the Holocaust or Antisemitism.
And that's Staatsräson. -
@meowki @vollaficationist @GrapheneOS Most banking apps work well on GrapheneOS; check out this list : https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compatibility-with-grapheneos/
The attestation compatibility guide is a good, neutral approach that is not controlled by a centralized authority : https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide
Unified Attestation threatens the compatibility of apps for developers who refuse to participate in their illegal cartels. This seriously undermines the efforts of a project like GrapheneOS, which strives to make as many Android apps as possible compatible with a truly secure and privacy-respecting operating system, one without user accounts, AI, age verification, client-side analysis, or any default Google services nor any other tech companies, etc
We need to support it because there’s no one else doing what GrapheneOS does.
@Xtreix I still think it’s an issue that google play services is required for this to work. We need an alternative to this.
-
@Xtreix I still think it’s an issue that google play services is required for this to work. We need an alternative to this.
@meowki It would be great if banking apps could work without Google Play Services; that said, keep in mind that on GrapheneOS, you install Play Services and Google Play as standard, non-privileged apps that run in the hardened sandbox.
This is a significant difference compared to stock Android, where Google Play Services runs as a system app with elevated privileges that you cannot control. MicroG works in the same way and is often mistakenly presented as a more private alternative to Google Play Services.
What cross-app sandboxing doesn't protect is communication between apps based on mutual consent. If you install Instagram and Facebook on the same profile, the apps still only have access to what you authorize them to access, but since they belong to Meta, they could exchange telemetry data with each other.
To stop this, the solution is to use a system-wide secondary profile, which offers excellent isolation but is somewhat cumbersome to use, or the private space, which provides less robust isolation but is easier to use. This decision really depends on your threat model and whether or not you consider plausible communication between these applications to be acceptable.
GrapheneOS usage guide
Usage instructions for GrapheneOS, a security and privacy focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.
GrapheneOS (grapheneos.org)
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
