this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1817 points (98.0% liked)

Memes

45189 readers
1151 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zinggi57@lemmy.world 214 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I think a lot of people here don't understand the danger of this fully and dismiss it with "Just use Firefox, problem solved".
Unfortunately, once this becomes widely available, that is once Chrome ships it, websites will start to use it.
Maybe Amazon will just not sell to you anymore when you're browsing with Firefox?
Maybe YouTube wont serve any videos if you're using Linux?
Your bank will certainly implement this and only allow Windows 11 with Edge or some shit like that.
Once this is implemented, we will all suffer, even if we're using better alternatives right now.

[–] Ushi@sh.itjust.works 111 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Your bank will certainly implement this

My brother in Christ, it was 2020 before my bank supported passwords longer than 8 characters. We have 30 or 40 years before we need to worry about the banks.

[–] vaultdweler13@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some banks are still running windows 98 internally, admitedly so long as said system isnt connected to the internet it should be fine.

[–] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, not to mention Cobalt and other horrors that are lurking in Legacy systems no one has looked at in 50 years.

I'm thinking mainframe terminals, where the character has to be in the right place on the screen in order to store something in RAM.

Even worse, how many systems are still using punch cards? How often do those cards need to be replaced?

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Win 98

This isn't true, this can't be true and I refuse to believe it.

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

I sincerely hope that your local ATM never crashes and you never have to see the windows xp logo.

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@xavier666 @vaultdweler13, it's true, For internal use with PCs connected to the central server itself and not to the network, it is used for compatibility with corporate software, sometimes still very old Windows. This, when using it on the one hand only in a specialized way and on the other hand only locally, is more than enough. The same in factories in production for the automation of some valve or machinery with repetitive processes, a super-pc with a NASA OS is not needed.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For PCs at workshop, I can understand Win98. The OS is just a bootloader to a single application. But for banking, it's a terrible security hazard.

[–] Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@xavier666, only if it is used in subsidiaries where they have to manage money movements over the network, but not in local administrative applications where it is irrelevant, as in all purely local uses. In monoapplications in this area, even an old MsDOS will be worth it.
They have traveled to the Moon with an SO from a Tamagochi.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as it's isolated to local use, I guess it's fine. But if it connects to the internet, may lord have mercy on the firewall.

[–] Gordon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I posted this elsewhere in this thread but hackers have managed to access data on air gapped computers

Unfortunately nothing is safe from determined hackers. The question is if anyone cares enough to steal your bank's data

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have you ever rooted an android phone?

The google SafteyNet Attestation is the precursor to browser DRM. It's essentially phone DRM.

There are many banks that have apps that require you to pass at least the basic level attestation, if not the CTS profile matching that fails the moment you modify any system level resources, even the bootloader

luckily you can force disable CTS so it falls back on the basic level, for most apps at least. You will never have access to Google or Samsung pay though, as it actually knows your phone model should support CTS and will autofail if it no longer reports that it does.

Alongside that apps like Pokemon GO and Netflix also require at least basic attestation to function - demonstrating the DRM and anticheat capabilities of such a system.

[–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://github.com/Magisk-Modules-Repo/MagiskHidePropsConf

This can help you pass CTS. It worked for me. Funny thing is, I don't even remember which app I did it for. Whatever it was, I ended up not using it after all the trouble. As for my banking apps, they only care about root, so Magisk's denylist does the job.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, I'm still running a stock ROM on a pixel 3a. Looking at this guide, it looks like this tool is dead. So unless it works on android 12, I can't use it.

Enabling strict denylist actually causes my phone to break, it will randomly cause my phone to freeze up, and fail to load on phone unlock to the point I have to go into safe boot to disable my Magisk modules, only then will it boot correctly. - maybe I'm denying the wrong system apps for strict mode to work. I have still added apps to the denylist, however.

Im currently using universal Safetynet Fix to pass basic Attestation, and the only thing that fails to work is google wallets "tap to pay" feature. Which doesn't matter as my NFC reader is broken in any case.

[–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh, I didn't notice it's dead. I just had it bookmarked because I remember spending a lot of time trying all sorts of workarounds before it and none of them ever worked (for CTS).

I used this for Android 11; there's a good chance it'll still work for that version. But like I said, I ended up not needing it anyway - my phone doesn't even have NFC! I think I mostly just did it as a FU to Google rather than for actual utility. :D

Just thought it worth mentioning that there are/were workarounds for CTS. Don't know how things are now on Android 12 and 13.

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I find it funny how the most root-resistant app I've ever encountered is McDonald's coupons app. I can trick Google Pay into working on my rooted phone, I tricked Revolut and two national banks. Heck, even my government-issued digital ID was tricky but I eventually got it working despite root and unlocked bootloader, both of which it didn't like. But McDonald's? None of the workarounds work whatsoever .

I'm rooted and on LOS and can use any app I need (including banking apps, paypal, and netflix - i don't use samsung/google pay). The only app i can't get to work is one stupid food delivery app. It's weird af.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, US banks.

Banks in europe are much more up to date with tech.

They have APIs to sink transactions with external providers like nordigen API.

They have 2FA that is linked to your national identity card which is chipped

Nationally used apps that are universal 2FA linked to national IDs that banks, medical, and government services all tap into

Everything is contactless payment nowadays, the US just recently started contactless cards

Inter-bank transfers without external apps like venmo

There are MANY problems with EU people getting their banks to work on a rooted phone.

They will absolutely implement DRM if someone sells the bullshit to them under the illusion of "safety."

Hell, the US had handwritten "vaccine cards" for covid while European nations even had open source user spinoffs on nationally funded apps linked to national IDs to manage COVID vaccination and testing passes.

[–] jungekatz@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if that would be a valid anti trust violition ?

[–] macintosh@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we lived in a sane country all 4 major tech companies would have already been brought to court over this in like, 2016. (Microsoft for the second time…)

[–] Nowyn@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

To be fair to America, I don't think there are any sane countries left. Finland had an actual neo-Nazi as minister and while it didn't last longer than Truss or even half of it, the party that is ministerial party is still there with similar ideas. They just had forethought to not write 14/88 in an old electoral ad. We are tied for first place still in the least corrupt countries and 5th in most democratic countries.

[–] matt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically the idea is that if Chrome has barely any market share (will never happen, but let's pretend), they cannot implement this as it will anger and lock too many users out of day to day life.

However...

With Google Search and YouTube being by far the most 2 popular websites in the world, I think they still could. The vast majority of people would never give those up and if they're told to use another program to access them, they absolutely will, meaning in an ideal world with a browser competition, they can easily destroy it immediately.

[–] Regelfall@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

Google search has become very bad and is easily replaced by basically any search engine. YouTube is still unparalleled though.

[–] Jentu@lemmy.film 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would apple just roll over on this? Or would they fight to make sure safari is also an option to freely use the internet (or at least severely limiting apples ability to do something similar) And websites that depend on ads, the number of Firefox and safari users have to be greater than the number of users who use ad-blockers. So wouldn’t it negatively affect ad income on websites if they implemented it and cut out all non-chromium browsers?

[–] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

I think apple would figure out some very creative ways to fuck it's customers, some more.

[–] llii@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

It's IE6 all over again.

[–] llcoolvm@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did Firefox even say that they would not implement it as well? Are there any informations on that?

[–] rasikww@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Doesn't that also mean they lose customers or possible transactions which could have made them money?