this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
969 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37573 readers
654 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 163 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I don't understand why so many opinion pieces and news keep on saying that Web Environment Integrity could be abused and that's why we should oppose it. This misses the point a great deal.

Implementation of Web Environment Integrity in browsers IS ITSELF AN ABUSE, because I have the right to go around the web without continually proving who I am, even less against a 3rd party.

It's as if someone said that some officer (and not even a government one) should always be by your side when you go out, ready to certify who you are, whenever you speak with people on the street – and even with friends. Would you accept that?

Are we totally out of our minds??

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago

I can only assume these opinion pieces are written by people who use Google for everything they do and trust them.

Dumb fucks, to quote Zuckerberg...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That works until you are forced to interact with a website that only works with it, either by work or school.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's already the case with most corporate managed BYO device policies. The typical scenario is that an employer gives you the choice:

  1. Use the company-owned and company-managed device. No root/admin access, no privileges to install unauthorized software, sometimes policies against personal accounts or files or use.
  2. Bring your own device, but consent to the company's IT department managing your security and potentially monitoring your use. If you're going to connect this device to the company's LAN (through wifi or VPN or otherwise), you're going to let us lock it down.

It's a legitimate concern that these types of things would normalize corporate-managed devices in our personal lives as consumers, and worth resisting in that space, but I don't think it would actually change the status quo in the corporate world to go from proprietary device management lockdowns to some kind of public standard for lockdowns.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is exactly why I will never do 2. Provide a device if you want control. I will not give you the ability to wipe my personal phone remotely just to check my work email on it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. If you're going to lock down and control a device I'm going to need that device provided to me.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Sure. Trust them to keep that button around... :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How would WEI work? What signals does my computer send to convince the other computers that my computer is doing what they want? Is it based on some "trusted computer" hardware level bullshit that's already there? (I just want my computer to do what I want.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's not part of this spec, all it says is that the attester produces a cryptographic proof. What it checks and what that proof means is for the attester to decide.

Google and Apple say they would "just" check if the user is logged into their Google/Apple account, as a way to proof that they are human and not a bot. That would be bad enough, because you should not have to have an account with these companies to browse the web. But they could easily make it even worse, by requiring you to install a kind of anti-cheat software that scans your device, and only provide the proof if they like the results. Heck they could just exclude everyone who visited a certain website in the past or who's name starts with an F if they wanted to, because that's how broad and dangerous this proposal is!

Big companies should not be able to decide if people are allowed to visit certain websites or not, even if they say they have the best intentions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Without having read anything about WEI at all: Microsoft already supports something similar by using Windows Hello (Edge). It's using your TPM to make sure the hardware/OS wasn't tampered with. On Android, this is comparable to safetynet/Play Integrity.