There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom. I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of these other products are locked down by the vendor.
The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.
I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context.
This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves into that risk.
The reason why this will never happen is simply due to things like DRM.
We right now have ENCRYPTED signal going from our computer to our displays, not just computers, but phones too SIMPLY to prevent people from dumping raw data.
All of that extra processing done just so you're allowed to for ex: watch netflix with a resolution higher than 720p. Then comically there's Chinese capture cards that you plug your GPU into, use mirroring mode and completely bypass it.
DRM is just one example, there's many more motivations such as preventing paid apps / pay for currency games from having these things given for free. This is the primary reason why iOS devices make significantly more money than android as it's near impossible to pirate / hack / crack for an average user.
OP here. Really glad to see others engaging with this topic, I wrote up this post because I felt like there wasn't anything out there that was advocating for unlocked hardware as part of the discussion on "right to repair".
As someone that works in security, I fully understand the need for sane defaults that protect the average user. I even advocate in the article that we should keep these defaults in place for the most part.
What I tend to not understand is the argument that there should be no option for more enterprising users to access their hardware at the lowest levels because we need to protect the average consumer. It may be a footgun for some, but that's sort of the point. I expect to be able to modify something I own, whether it's to my detriment or not.
My argument isn't that root access should be the default, but at the very least it should be an option. I just don't think it's right that we've normalized corporations blocking the ability to load / inspect software, which often is marketed as a safety or privacy thing, but is arguably more a business decision meant to protect profit margins.
The way to balance security and freedom is with a hardware switch. By default, keep secure boot etc. But if someone opens the case, takes out the battery, and moves a little switch on the board? Start with a fresh, unprotected context. Because it's a hardware switch, it can't be remotely hacked. An adversary who gets the hardware anyway can get control (are we going to pretend otherwise?). So just do the right thing and make it easier for people to take over their own hardware.
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.
While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?)
If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.
I have talked about this before. The issue goes further in my opinion and starts to effect property rights themselves. In particular locked down hardware starts to effect the owners right of exclusion. The right of exclusion loosely is the right include or exclude something from/usesing some property. When the hardware is locked down the owner can know longer solely make those decisions. Instead in the instance of like an iDevice Apple makes those choices instead of the owner by only allowed code they have signed or signatures they allow.
The problem is larger than that, it's the IT industry's obsession with denying users the ability to evaluate their own risks and take their own responsibility. You do that all the time every day in most other areas of life, but somehow interacting with technology is different. The manufacturer always knows better. Don't want to have a time component to your biometric authentication because you know your risks? Too bad. Google and Apple know better. Password is required to unlock Touch ID.
Yes, please!
Unfortunately, your smartphone doesn't (really) belong to you. It's a shared property between the hardware maker, the low level software producer (Qualcomm or Apple), the os owner (Google or Apple) and maybe finally you.
Undocumented hardware plus closed source drivers for almost everything make all this possible.
> Root access refers to the highest level of privileges a user can be granted to a computer system.
This is no longer true. You might have root access on your smartphone, but you still don't have access to the TEE (on ARM this is implemented using the "TrustZone" "feature").
Also, AVF is coming to Android, and protected VMs won't work with unlocked bootloader.. so expect the situation to deteriorate further once manufacturers make use of pVMs..
At the very least there should be the right to unlock and use a device after it loses support. A whole ecosystem of software could exist (and does in some cases) to help support or repurpose old devices. If the hardware is still good for something, let it be used! I'm still using my MacBook Pro 2013 and it is fine. I worry I will not be able to do this with Apple's newer laptops. In addition, I want to be able to use my Sonos hardware after Sonos inevitably discontinues support. More realistically I'll eventually have to stop using my Sonos speaker, and realizing this I will never buy another Sonos product.
Fully agreed. I was thinking of something similar, only I was calling it "Right to execute", similarly to the "Right to repair". I'm buying a general computing device. It's ridiculous I'm artificially limited in using it for the main purpose of making shareholders rich.
Ideally I'd add a mandatory toolchain to that. At least a C compiler which should be able to target a device I own.
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.
I agree with this, as well as most (or all) of the other stuff mentioned in that article.
However, sometimes it might be reasonable to have a switch inside that you must unscrew it (using a commonly available screwdriver, rather than an obscure one) to switch it (and then later be able to switch it back), in order to enable some functions (e.g. to be able to upgrade EEPROM, or to bypass a secure boot loader). If the user puts glitter on it, then this allows the user to detect tampering, while remaining secure and allowing full control.
The preference has been stated thousands of times. There's nothing to debate. They won't give you root and power. The only question is what you will do to change things:
Do you:
- Buy open devices?
- Sponsor development of open devices?
- Start open device companies?
- Develop open software that competes with walled gardens in quality and ease of use?
- Sponsor open software?
- Use open software?
- Engage in lobbying?
- Drop exploits (that would be worth a pile of gold) to let people jailbreak devices?
If locking the bootloader and comparing signatures against keys burned into a secure enclave allow Apple to make certain security guarantees that helps them sell products, I'm all for their freedom to do so.
Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship?
I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, and I have the Precursor phone and Raptor Talos PowerPC machines on my wishlist, just as soon as I wrap my head around secure boot chains in general before having to implement one myself. But niche hardware is expensive to produce, so we're likely left with what AMD, Intel and Apple provides us.
I guess one quirk that IMO is fair to criticize is that it's not necessarily consumers who are demanding to be locked out of their administrator privileges (the average computer user is of course not aware of the distinction of signed vs unsigned binaries), so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. Is it the data centers buying thousands of chips that don't want to be pwned? government customers who refuse to buy a single die if they can't verify the bootloader? Or just patriotic engineers sensitive to a cybersecurity regime that demands we keep our guard up against enemies, foreign and domestic?
And I'd go even further, and limit the ability of devices to not be "owned outright", since that sound like a loophole. I do not want a EULA interfere with these rights.
not sure if your in the US, but we can't even get net neutrality. Unfortuantely the likelyhood of this is a hell freezing over situation.
I would start with, laws should be logical and informed and go from there... the number of prerequisite changes required to come mildly close to this is unreal. Including but not limited too: copyright law, insurance law, patents, contract law, federal vs state law, an agency competent enough to enforce this, lobby from the most powerful companies in the world, and more.
What the author calls "double standard" could be reframed as "consumer choice." A vendor sells different devices. Some have provisions to make changes to the bootloader and some don't.
The phrase "have provisions to make changes" is on purpose. It has not yet been proven to me that a change to an iPad's bootloader function is impossible. It certainly isn't as easy as that of Mac, but the skill/effort required is a gradient.
This is similar to "soldered" storage. This was commonly thought of as impossible until it was demonstrated that a Mac will happily accept updated storage changed out with a hot air rework device. This method is certainly higher skill/effort/risk than remembering when to terminate 50pin SCSI, but shows that when a hacker has a will, there is a way.
Is it ironic that as computing devices become easier to use, they also require higher skill to fix and modify? No, more likely there is an iron rule that when a device's external complexity is contained, the inner workings of that thing become more complex. Complexity did not decrease but was hidden.
Does a grandfather clock and a tourbillon wristwatch encapsulate the same/similar general principles of timekeeping? Sure. If one has the skill to update parts of the grandfather clock, are those same skills sufficient for the wristwatch? Probably not. Should wristwatches be banned because people who update grandfather clocks do not have the skills to modify them? Surely not, that would be absurd.
Likewise, demanding root in a form you find acceptable is absurd. If you can't take root one a device you possess, it's a skill issue for you to address not the vendor.
> Devices that are locked become e-waste once a manufacturer stops supporting them. This keeps happening like clockwork:
> Spotify’s Car Thing
Contrary to the author's claim, Car Thing is a great example of what can happen with abandoned hardware. The device did not become e-waste when the manufacturer stopped supporting it. There is a lively community of people modifying and updating software and doing really interesting things. I lack one only because I missed the $15 price nadir and they are relatively high priced in the secondary market.
> The main exception to this, I believe, would be for critical systems where compromising operation through software modification presents too high a risk. Examples I'm thinking of include:
> certain medical devices, such as implants and insulin pumps
> subsets of electronic control units for cars
These are precisely the opposite of what should be exceptions. If you have a pacemaker implanted in your body, you need the right to replace whatever software is running on it before the manufacturer goes out of business and takes the signing keys with them.
There exists no thing where the owner of the device should not have the right to replace the software it runs, and the more safety-critical the device the more important the right.
Computers have sharp edges, and people often throw hissy fits when things break. Manufacturers infantalize consumers to dodge lawsuits. Then companies like Apple take it too far by building walled gardens where devices don't have proper file systems, locking you out of your own files.
I used to think this way but then I saw how non-techy people use their devices.
Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
Reminds me of how certain macOS APIs are gated behind the paid apple developer program so you can’t, for example, write a macOS app using Network Extensions on your own Mac until you join the Apple developer program (100USD/year in the US). I understand why they do it but it does feel weird that I can’t write certain code for my own Mac unless I pay for a subscription (on top of already having paid for the Mac).
Contrarian take: you bought the device, that you knew already did not provide that, from a company who has priced in not having to support rooted devices, and who had priced in your future revenue from extras. The company can't complain if you find a way to root it (and they don't), but they're under no obligation to add in this extra feature you're asking for. If you want a mostly-open handheld device, they're for sale, you should buy one of those.
From a consumer rights and environmental standpoint I agree. But it's important that only the actual owner of the device can do this, and not just the person in possession of the device. You don't want to make stolen devices be anything but paperweights. But so long as I (the owner) select the passphrase for unlocking it I don't see a problem.
If I buy my grandma a device that is locked down in a way that NOBODY (including her, under the patient guidance of a scammer on the phone) can root, that is my choice. If you want a device that can be unlocked, the world is full of android tablets. Go wild. Some of us want an un-rootable device!
Personally, I think everything should be hackable, however...
Limiting the ability to _easily_ modify what's running on a system is more about public cyber-health than the individual's freedom. Viruses + malware much more easily infect systems when they are running outside of a sandbox.
The argument that an iPad runs substantially the same OS and hardware as a MacBook weakens the authors case instead of strengthening it.
You can buy from Apple a computer that's locked down (an iPad), or a computer that's not locked down by the author's definition (a MacBook). It's a matter of consumer choice, not the company insisting on control of your devices.
The non-locked-down machines come in a different form factor than the locked-down ones - they usually have a physical keyboard and a larger form factor to accommodate that. This is partly for historical reasons, but very largely also for consumer choice - and also it makes sense that on the more flexible machine users are more likely to need a keyboard. This is all fine, you can't expect every company to sell their products with every combination of features.
I find more convincing the arguments about e-waste, but they need to be framed like that: sometimes we should mandate consumers get something they don't particularly want, for the greater good.
A libertarian and consumer friendly right-to-repair (RTR) / right-to-own (RTO) governance model could be something like Orthodox Union or UL but for consumer devices
The Right-to-Repair union RTR-U could be a simple authority with access to the keys to unlock the device if the vendor breaches certain commitments. Various levels of commitment could be offered similar to copy-left. The basic / lowest level would be "can unlock if the company dies". Higher commitments could be
will unlock if ...
company starts telemetry
company changes licensing
company stops providing timely firmware updates.
This way consumers are guaranteed a certain quality of service and access on their devices. Then vendors get a stamp of approval (like OU or UL) with the level of certification like RTR-open, RTR-private , RTR-long-terms-support etc.
This governance operates within private enterprise while consumers are offered the option to buy into vendors who commit to right-to-repair and right-to-own.
I'm always amazed at the number of folks who are really, really mad that there exist products and services not intended for them.
If you are a very technical person, and you want to have root on every device you own, then iOS is not for you. That's ok. Android exists!
But iOS as an appliance-level, walled-garden environment is absolutely perfect FOR MOST USERS. And that's fine.
Nursing a grudge because Apple makes products that include choices that YOU PERSONALLY don't like is incredibly weird and entitled. Just buy something else! There are options!
Every time this issue comes up, an army of people who've never unlocked a phone comes out of the woodwork to talk about their theoretical fears of malware and piracy and rain falling from the sky if you dare to own your device.
If you've never unlocked a phone, please educate yourself on how the process works before opining. It's really not as terrifying as you imagine.
I don't really agree with this. There's no shortage of computing platforms in a variety of form factors (including tablets) for which root access is possible. When you buy an iPad, you do so knowing what you're getting and what you're not getting. It's a truly optional purchase, because no one really needs an iPad.
I'd be concerned with a move away from root access across the board, but that doesn't appear to be happening.
The amount of hand-waving in this comments section is truly outstanding. Then again, it shouldn't really surprise me considering how many HN users work for the very companies that profit from vendor lockdown. "You will own nothing and you will be happy!"
We should thank all the major copyright holders for that. They are the reason many devices have been crippled. Because for them, the real enemy is the user, - that is you, my dear friend. They assume you to be a criminal by default, you know, like some crazy feminists assume all men are rapists just because they have a penis. Chop your penis off to prove you are not a rapist! Use your device without root access to prove you are not a filthy pirate who is "stealing" money from poor copyright holders who can barely afford women, yaughts and coke they are used to.
For some, the absolute locked down-ness is a selling point. Why should those who want to buy something that can't be messed with not be able to?
If you don't want to buy something you can't install whatever you want onto, don't buy it. 100% the ability or inability to modify the firmware of a device should be disclosed, but if it's disclosed the seller should be able to set the policy to whatever they want
Right to root access
(medhir.com)481 points by medhir 12 January 2025 | 413 comments
Comments
The reason that computers are locked down by the vendors is not that computers are somehow more dangerous than other things we buy. The reason is simply that it's technically possible to lock down computers, and vendors have found that it's massively, MASSIVELY profitable to do so. It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us. We know that the crApp Store is full of scams that steal literally millions of dollars from consumers, and we know that the computer vendors violate our privacy by phoning home with "analytics" covering everything we do on the devices. This is not intended for our benefit but rather for theirs.
This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves into that risk.
We right now have ENCRYPTED signal going from our computer to our displays, not just computers, but phones too SIMPLY to prevent people from dumping raw data.
All of that extra processing done just so you're allowed to for ex: watch netflix with a resolution higher than 720p. Then comically there's Chinese capture cards that you plug your GPU into, use mirroring mode and completely bypass it.
DRM is just one example, there's many more motivations such as preventing paid apps / pay for currency games from having these things given for free. This is the primary reason why iOS devices make significantly more money than android as it's near impossible to pirate / hack / crack for an average user.
As someone that works in security, I fully understand the need for sane defaults that protect the average user. I even advocate in the article that we should keep these defaults in place for the most part.
What I tend to not understand is the argument that there should be no option for more enterprising users to access their hardware at the lowest levels because we need to protect the average consumer. It may be a footgun for some, but that's sort of the point. I expect to be able to modify something I own, whether it's to my detriment or not.
My argument isn't that root access should be the default, but at the very least it should be an option. I just don't think it's right that we've normalized corporations blocking the ability to load / inspect software, which often is marketed as a safety or privacy thing, but is arguably more a business decision meant to protect profit margins.
While I agree, I think even legislation will not fix this, because what is a computing device, and who decides what is and what is not ? I'm sure apple will argue that nothing they sell should be considered computing devices. While the hacker will consider anything they can trick into arbitrary code to be one (is your fridge a computing device?)
If we go the legal route, I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits, and that's probably not going to fly either because lots of legislation already dictates users should be prohibited and prevented.
An other post I have posted regarding this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288
Undocumented hardware plus closed source drivers for almost everything make all this possible.
This is no longer true. You might have root access on your smartphone, but you still don't have access to the TEE (on ARM this is implemented using the "TrustZone" "feature").
Also, AVF is coming to Android, and protected VMs won't work with unlocked bootloader.. so expect the situation to deteriorate further once manufacturers make use of pVMs..
Ideally I'd add a mandatory toolchain to that. At least a C compiler which should be able to target a device I own.
I agree with this, as well as most (or all) of the other stuff mentioned in that article.
However, sometimes it might be reasonable to have a switch inside that you must unscrew it (using a commonly available screwdriver, rather than an obscure one) to switch it (and then later be able to switch it back), in order to enable some functions (e.g. to be able to upgrade EEPROM, or to bypass a secure boot loader). If the user puts glitter on it, then this allows the user to detect tampering, while remaining secure and allowing full control.
Manufacturers will then claim that people don't own devices, merely a perpetual license to use it.
Do you:
- Buy open devices?
- Sponsor development of open devices?
- Start open device companies?
- Develop open software that competes with walled gardens in quality and ease of use?
- Sponsor open software?
- Use open software?
- Engage in lobbying?
- Drop exploits (that would be worth a pile of gold) to let people jailbreak devices?
- ...
- Fake-care or real-care?
Why doesn't OP merely champion competition, instead of encouraging regulation of what software others can write, what hardware others can ship?
I too am afraid of general purpose computing going by the wayside, and I have the Precursor phone and Raptor Talos PowerPC machines on my wishlist, just as soon as I wrap my head around secure boot chains in general before having to implement one myself. But niche hardware is expensive to produce, so we're likely left with what AMD, Intel and Apple provides us.
I guess one quirk that IMO is fair to criticize is that it's not necessarily consumers who are demanding to be locked out of their administrator privileges (the average computer user is of course not aware of the distinction of signed vs unsigned binaries), so I don't know where the pressure for secure enclaves really comes from. Is it the data centers buying thousands of chips that don't want to be pwned? government customers who refuse to buy a single die if they can't verify the bootloader? Or just patriotic engineers sensitive to a cybersecurity regime that demands we keep our guard up against enemies, foreign and domestic?
They sometimes actively search for root evidence.
That's easy to say, but hard to legislate, and impossible to enforce.
There is so much firmware around, small binary blobs burned into micro controllers that can't even be updated. Or that isn't intended to be updated.
There are probably even dimmable LED bulbs without IoT features that still have a microcontroller.
Because a tiny microcontroller is the cheapest way to add logic to anything.
I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. Just not sure we grasp the ramifications.
And I'd go even further, and limit the ability of devices to not be "owned outright", since that sound like a loophole. I do not want a EULA interfere with these rights.
I would start with, laws should be logical and informed and go from there... the number of prerequisite changes required to come mildly close to this is unreal. Including but not limited too: copyright law, insurance law, patents, contract law, federal vs state law, an agency competent enough to enforce this, lobby from the most powerful companies in the world, and more.
In dream land I support you though.
The phrase "have provisions to make changes" is on purpose. It has not yet been proven to me that a change to an iPad's bootloader function is impossible. It certainly isn't as easy as that of Mac, but the skill/effort required is a gradient.
This is similar to "soldered" storage. This was commonly thought of as impossible until it was demonstrated that a Mac will happily accept updated storage changed out with a hot air rework device. This method is certainly higher skill/effort/risk than remembering when to terminate 50pin SCSI, but shows that when a hacker has a will, there is a way.
Is it ironic that as computing devices become easier to use, they also require higher skill to fix and modify? No, more likely there is an iron rule that when a device's external complexity is contained, the inner workings of that thing become more complex. Complexity did not decrease but was hidden.
Does a grandfather clock and a tourbillon wristwatch encapsulate the same/similar general principles of timekeeping? Sure. If one has the skill to update parts of the grandfather clock, are those same skills sufficient for the wristwatch? Probably not. Should wristwatches be banned because people who update grandfather clocks do not have the skills to modify them? Surely not, that would be absurd.
Likewise, demanding root in a form you find acceptable is absurd. If you can't take root one a device you possess, it's a skill issue for you to address not the vendor.
I do think that it should never be illegal to tamper with a device that you own in any way that you find acceptable.
But I do not feel that manufacturers have any obligation to make this easy or possible.
It should be completely legal to hack your devices and to distribute tools and instructions for hacking devices without limitation.
> Spotify’s Car Thing
Contrary to the author's claim, Car Thing is a great example of what can happen with abandoned hardware. The device did not become e-waste when the manufacturer stopped supporting it. There is a lively community of people modifying and updating software and doing really interesting things. I lack one only because I missed the $15 price nadir and they are relatively high priced in the secondary market.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Spotify+Car+Thing
https://www.reddit.com/r/carthinghax/
There exists no thing where the owner of the device should not have the right to replace the software it runs, and the more safety-critical the device the more important the right.
Something like this would inevitably be abused and result in wave of malware so massive that it would render the internet too hostile for all but the most careful, knowledgable and paranoid users.
I'm OK to void any guarantee if I can root it easily, TBH.
Limiting the ability to _easily_ modify what's running on a system is more about public cyber-health than the individual's freedom. Viruses + malware much more easily infect systems when they are running outside of a sandbox.
You can buy from Apple a computer that's locked down (an iPad), or a computer that's not locked down by the author's definition (a MacBook). It's a matter of consumer choice, not the company insisting on control of your devices.
The non-locked-down machines come in a different form factor than the locked-down ones - they usually have a physical keyboard and a larger form factor to accommodate that. This is partly for historical reasons, but very largely also for consumer choice - and also it makes sense that on the more flexible machine users are more likely to need a keyboard. This is all fine, you can't expect every company to sell their products with every combination of features.
I find more convincing the arguments about e-waste, but they need to be framed like that: sometimes we should mandate consumers get something they don't particularly want, for the greater good.
The Right-to-Repair union RTR-U could be a simple authority with access to the keys to unlock the device if the vendor breaches certain commitments. Various levels of commitment could be offered similar to copy-left. The basic / lowest level would be "can unlock if the company dies". Higher commitments could be
will unlock if ...
company starts telemetry
company changes licensing
company stops providing timely firmware updates.
This way consumers are guaranteed a certain quality of service and access on their devices. Then vendors get a stamp of approval (like OU or UL) with the level of certification like RTR-open, RTR-private , RTR-long-terms-support etc.
This governance operates within private enterprise while consumers are offered the option to buy into vendors who commit to right-to-repair and right-to-own.
If you are a very technical person, and you want to have root on every device you own, then iOS is not for you. That's ok. Android exists!
But iOS as an appliance-level, walled-garden environment is absolutely perfect FOR MOST USERS. And that's fine.
Nursing a grudge because Apple makes products that include choices that YOU PERSONALLY don't like is incredibly weird and entitled. Just buy something else! There are options!
If you've never unlocked a phone, please educate yourself on how the process works before opining. It's really not as terrifying as you imagine.
I'd be concerned with a move away from root access across the board, but that doesn't appear to be happening.
Thanks the MPAA and RIAA.
If you don't want to buy something you can't install whatever you want onto, don't buy it. 100% the ability or inability to modify the firmware of a device should be disclosed, but if it's disclosed the seller should be able to set the policy to whatever they want