Hacker News Reader

Comment by __MatrixMan__ | Hacker News Reader

Devices that are smart enough to talk to the internet but not smart enough to let the user install their own certs should not exist.

View on HN

"let the user install their own certs should not exist"

are you sure that this is not opening to more attack vector ?????

Users aren't supposed to be considered an attack vector. I don't care what the advertisers think.

The infected devices on the LAN are an attack vector, though.

If I want my IOT garbage to be infected that's between me and my local botherder.

The vendor loses the right to decide how my things are used the minute they take my money.

Not in the EU. If devices you made get hacked in the EU and you have a business presence there, you're liable for the resulting damages under the Cyber Resiliency Act. If you don't notify the authorities promptly upon discovery, you might also be criminally liable.

What if your company doesn't exist anymore, and you have checks billions of devices out there that won't be getting firmware updates?

Not sure. You're probably out of luck in that case if someone can't prove that your out of business was a manipulative attempt to avoid liability.

Users are attack vectors in one of the more commonly successful attacks: social engineering.

Like: To verify you are human, clik on the two ducks and install this new certificate.

Bonus points if it's during a fake job interview.

Absolutely. "To access our secure site, install this certificate as follows..."

I did a job interview in a VM once and my legitimate accounts on some platforms got banned for using them in a VM. So you can't even protect yourself.

> my legitimate accounts on some platforms got banned for using them in a VM

Which legitimate accounts get banned for use in a VM?

That seems like an incredibly important thing I should know as I use legitimate accounts in VMs.

Bullshit. How would a website even detect a VM?

They can ask your web browser what GPU you have.

If it says QEMU, the jig is up.

See here:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/GPUAdapterI...

Live demo here:

https://www.checkadevice.com/tests/gpu/ (random web site that came up in a quick search)

You have to make sure your VM + GPU hide or falsify all identity information. They just have to find one API or signal that you missed that reveals it.

RCE then run an exploit to break out VM. If it's success, then you are on VM.

Yes, however, this causes people who know what they do suffer because of people who don't. My question is whether this affects innovation, because the same thing at different places definitely does, and we actively fight against this exactly to help innovation.

Right. Let's no longer sell computers then.

Which is better - two attack vectors that can be mitigated by an expert, or one attack vector that can't be mitigated by anyone?

You can even install your own certs into the golden cage (also known as iPhones).

Yes. We're giving the user the ability to protect themselves from the vendor.

Your logic only makes sense if the user is your enemy.

I am the vendor and the user is my enemy. Fortunately I get to decide his capabilities and not the other way around, so I win.

Oops, claude just cracked your system!

The device is in the user's possession, so you'll lose eventually, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com