Comment by ahepp
Comment by ahepp 5 days ago
as you say, a lot of this stuff is already happening. Won’t it be good to have a FOSS attestation stack that breaks the iOS/android duopoly?
Comment by ahepp 5 days ago
as you say, a lot of this stuff is already happening. Won’t it be good to have a FOSS attestation stack that breaks the iOS/android duopoly?
Well summarised.
Another point is (often )the apps that banks makes are 3rd party developed by outsourcing (even if within the same developed country). If someone uses some MiTM or logcat to see some traffic and publishes it then banks get bad publicity. So to prevent this the banks, devs tell anything that is not normal (i.e) non-stock ROM is bad.
FOSS is also something many app-based software devs don't like on their products. While people in cloud, infra like it the app devs like these tools while developing or building a company but not when making end resulting apps.
Remote attestation absolutely provides increased security. Mobile banking fraud rates are substantially lower than desktop/browser banking fraud. Attestation is major reason why.
I think ever compute professional needs to spend at least a year trying to secure a random companies windows network to appreciate how impossible this actually is without hardware based roots of trust like TPMs and HSMs
>Attestation is major reason why.
It's not. Mobile applications just don't have unrestricted access to everything in your user directory, attestation have nothing to do with it.
It's not even that. The main reason is probably that attackers are going to be writing code to automate their attacks, and desktops are easier to develop on than phones, so that's what they use with no reason to do otherwise.
Even if you stopped supporting desktops, then they would just reverse engineer the mobile app instead of the web app and extract the attestation keys from any unpatched model of phone and still run their code on a server, and then it would show up as "mobile fraud" because they're pretending to be a phone instead of a desktop, when in reality it was always a server rather than a phone or a desktop.
And even if attestation actually worked (which it doesn't), that still wouldn't prevent fraud, because it only tries to prove that the person requesting the transfer is using a commercial device. If the user's device is compromised then it doesn't matter if it can pass attestation because the attacker is only running the fake, credential stealing "bank app" on the user's device, not the real bank app. Then they can run the official bank app on an official device and use the stolen credentials to transfer the money. The attestation buys you nothing.
If the user's device isn't compromised then everything is fine regardless of whether or not it can pass attestation. If the user's device is compromised, the device doesn't need to pass attestation to run a fake bank app and steal the user's credentials. Once the attacker has the user's credentials they can use them to transfer money regardless of whether or not they have to use a different device that can pass attestation.
It doesn't really provide any security.
On top of that, there are tons of devices that can pass attestation that have known vulnerabilities, so the attacker could just use one of those (or extract the keys from it) if they had any reason to. But in the mobile banking threat model they don't actually need to.
Well, it depends. I can now do banking from my desktop computer because there is no way our banks can attest that we're running our browsers in their approved hardware+software stack. Of course they can already disable banking from the browser but if they choose to keep it open but require attestation in your browser when it becomes possible, I don't think it's a good thing.
It would but how and who to run it? Ideally some one like Linux Foundation sits on the White house meetings or EU meetings. But they don't. Govts don't understand. I was once participating in a Youth meeting with MEPs - most of them have only iPhones. Most (not all) lawmakers live on a different planet.
Also IIRC, linux foundation etc are not interested in doing such standardisations.
Banks don't use these things because they provide any real security. They use them because the platform company calls it a "security feature" and banks add "security features" to their checklists.
The way you defeat things like that is through political maneuvering and guile rather than submission to their artificial narrative. Publish your own papers and documentation that recommends apps not support any device with that feature or require it to be off because it allows malware to use the feature to evade malware scans, etc. Or point out that it prevents devices with known vulnerabilities from being updated to third party firmware with the patch because the OEM stopped issuing patches but the more secure third party firmware can't sign an attestation, i.e. the device that can do the attestation is vulnerable and the device that can't is patched.
The way you break the duopoly is by getting open platforms that refuse to support it to have enough market share that they can't ignore it. And you have to solve that problem before they would bother supporting your system even if you did implement the treachery. Meanwhile implementing it makes your network effect smaller because then it only applies to the devices and configurations authorized to support it instead of every device that would permissionlessly and independently support ordinary open protocols with published specifications and no gatekeepers.