• deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m getting here too late for this to be visible, but fuck it.

    The difference is Apple doesn’t pass any information on to the website. It just tells the website whether or not it passes their integrity check. Your web environment gets the Apple stamp of approval or it doesn’t, that’s all the sites will know.

    Googles shit is going pass actual information about the browser state, add-ons, and the device to the site so they can restrict access based on any criteria they choose. That creates endless more avenues for abuse by giving the websites the ability to judge you for themselves and micromanage how you are allowed to visit their site.

    Apple’s is the equivalent of a metal detector before walking into a building. It will go off but it doesn’t violate your privacy or enable targeted screening by telling anyone what it detected.

    Google’s is the equivalent of a strip search, where it will drop your clothes and pictures of your junk onto the property managers desk so they can decide if you’re worthy to enter. Maybe they don’t like your brand of underwear, or a tattoo you have, and refuse to let you in.

    • realharo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you post any source at all that would back your claims? Or any technical details at all?

      Neither the actual proposal https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#what-information-is-in-the-signed-attestation, nor the article itself seem to show that there would be a difference when it comes to privacy.

      The entire problem with this proposal is that it limits client choice, similar to how Google Play integrity API on Android restricts some apps from running on rooted/unlocked phones.

      That same problem obviously also exists in Apple’s implementation.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your comment was on the top for me, Lemmy’s default “hot” sorting brings fresh takes to the front, so don’t worry too much about your answers always getting buried.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Transmitting that info to Apple is still a problem. Why do you trust Apple, but not Google?

      Google’s version will likely ask you first, and you’ll know which sites are asking for it. Apple’s won’t.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Big tech tries hard to act like the Internet Government, don’t they… Who elected them?

  • SaintFlow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Somehow, I am not surprised. Both, that Apple already did it and that there was no public outcry about it.

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well it’s already integrated into cloudfare and fastly. So good luck with that.

      Pretty much all major sites use one of those two as a CDN.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t cloudflare’s client (the website you’re trying to visit) be the one to implement this, while cloudflare simply does the verification?

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it would be cloudfare. That’s their whole business.

          So, for example, right now if you visit a website using cloudfare as their CDN, and your browser looks “suspicious”, cloudfare will grab you and redirect you to a verification page to put a captcha in to verify that you’re human before they will direct you back to the website you’re trying to go to. That’s why people use cloudfare in the first place instead of trying to implement some verification themselves. It’s easier and cheaper to outsource to a specialist.

          Attestation would just be a “fast pass” for users. If your browser looks “suspicious” then you would be redirected to cloudfare for verification. Instead of a captcha though, it would automatically negotiate with your browser that would present a token generated on device to cloudfare. Cloudfare would reach out to the attestor for that browser with that token to validate it. For safari it would be Apple, for edge it would be Microsoft, for other chromium browsers it would be Google. The attestor would look at the token and be able to say “yes this is a valid, unmodified version of macOS/Windows/ChromeOS/etc and likely to be a normal human” and you would be directed back to the website you want to go to instead of having to put a captcha in.

          The danger is when these companies start to control attestation. If you have a modified OS? Sorry we don’t know if they’re human. And you’ll have to enter a captcha. Potentially, if your phone/machine is not the latest version? Sorry don’t know, enter a captcha. Using lineage instead of a licensed version of Android (like Samsungs skin, etc), sorry not validated, enter a captcha.

          If attestation becomes mainstream, then it will be the default because it’s cheaper for the CDNs and everyone to do. But it puts the power in the hands of like 3 companies for attestation. And it’s very very likely they will start limiting attestation as a “feature”. Have a galaxy phone? Well if you haven’t upgraded in a few years and are no longer in recurrent supported devices list, sorry no attestation. And they only offer like 3-4 years of official support. So if you don’t want to enter a captcha every time you change webpages, better upgrade homie.

          So naturally it will push your average consumer to just upgrading a perfectly fine device instead of keeping it. And it will discourage a ton of FOSS stuff because that will all be “unvalidated modifications” or won’t implement it. If Google implements it, that will be the nail because chrome has like a 70% market share and pretty much everyone will develop for that. So they’ll all develop with Google’s attestation in mind. If you’re using Firefox which won’t implement it, you’ll be entering a captcha every time. And that will push people over to the big companies.

          Attestation is a MUCH bigger thing than people think. You don’t need to worry about every website implementing it. You only need to worry about like 3. Cloudfare and Fastly are two huge ones, which have already implemented it on an as available basis. Right now it’s just Safari but they have it available if Google and Microsoft implement it.

          Google themselves are the third one since the way operate their own CDN for themselves and clients. If they implement attestation there will be immediately a huge chunk of the web using it. Like 70%+. Cloudfare has 20%+ of the market and Fastly is like 18%. Google makes up another huge chunk but I couldn’t find any figures.

          That would be such a huge immediate usage that it would very rapidly become the default and would lock people into only the big companies.

    • spokenlollipop@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hard when those sites are things like your bank, your government official stuff pages, etc.

      This attestation stuff is a “not such a bad idea in its basic principle” thing that will actually absolutely get abused everywhere in every way including being used to kill off browser competitors, enhance monopoly positions, etc.

      It needs to be stopped now.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        what good does it do? why should the server see or care about anything on this side? spit out the damn content

        what worries me is that ‘web environment integrity’ is the perfect bullshit smarmy business school name for it

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would a list of “offenders” be necessary? I’d say a list of alternative sites that don’t implement this BS would be better.

  • Mwalimu@baraza.africa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    your treatment on the web depends on whether Apple says your device, OS & browser configuration are legitimate & acceptable.

  • phx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a problem until more sites start REQUIRING it, and then it’s too late. Even if some Apple already provides it, it’s more dangerous as use grows

  • redditReallySucks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I don’t understand is how does the attester check the device is not modified? Anything client side is just a matter of time until its get bypassed.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It needs integration with the TPM/secure element chip in the CPU and a device key issued by the manufacturer to sign an attestation that nothing in the software chain from kernel to browser has been modified .

      These schemes tends to get regularly broken, just look at SGX

  • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What does this mean? Do they now own the internet ? Can someone please TLDR it?

    • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      A very short TLDR would be:

      Apple (in this case) decides if your device should be trusted as a human, or if it’s suspicious / a robot, which could break parts of the Internet for those not joining this “attestation”, or using software that doesn’t support it.

      A more ELI5 version would be that Apple has implemented a controversial API (The Web Environment Integrity API) that indicates if a combination of OS + Browser + User behaviour is to be trusted as being human.

      Attestation before used to mean “is this device who it says it is”, and one can check that in some ways as part of WebAuthN (aka “Passwordless login”), where it would be useful to know if an Android device a site knows you have (as you’ve logged in before) is that same device. It’s a system to trust devices. The WEI-API expands this to look at your OS, your browser and your environment, like installed applications.

      Problem with this, is that the requirements don’t have to be public. Apple can decide what makes a “trustworthy device” and what can be considered “suspicious”.

      Bad examples like these are to “fail” attestation if you have torrent clients installed, of if you’re connected via a VPN, or if you’re not using Bing + Edge on Windows.

      Browsers and OS’es refusing to support attestation are likely to become a minority (most users use Chrome, and Google seems to be in favour). Should sites start blindly trusting this “attestation” - in replacement of captcha’s -, we could start seeing more privacy-prone combinations being locked out of these kind of sites.

      • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks mate. I’ll tell everyone to stop buying apple products but people are really ignorant and would not careless. Their $2000 phone is more imp. to showoff than fucking Internet.

        • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ehh, way to miss the point. This article is about Apple, but Google is doing the same with Android and Chrome.

          Parties that have issues with this are Linux distros and browsers like Firefox, that leave control and “humanness indicators” more in the hands of the users, instead of in the hands of big, influential companies.

  • elouboub@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The danger would be important entities like governments and banks using attestation. Then you’d be limited to using only Chrome, Safari and Edge, and Firefox could kiss its ass goodbye.

    • kitonthenet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bank: my bank is too boomercore to ever implement something like this, we only recently got 2fa

      Government: my government still makes me file my taxes on paper and mail it to them so I’m ok for now

  • kitonthenet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    These schemes all have the same problem that reddit and Twitter have: they need me more than I need them. If your website or app or whatever won’t work if I’m not on the right device I won’t visit it, and that’s not a bad thing

    • Zoidberg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately.

      What happens when Microsoft adds something to their web building tools that forces all visitors to websites using these tools to use IE? Or when your bank (or even worse, utilities) start requiring Windows and IE?

      • kitonthenet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be very surprised for one thing, because IE is no longer a product Microsoft supports in any capacity. I’d also be confused as to which tools the web hosting market just shifted to that they’re using Microsoft tools, there are monopolists out there I’m worried about but Microsoft isn’t my main one right now