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

    I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

    Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

    So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s even worse. Websites will trust only Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Those of us who value our security enough to install Linux will be left out in the cold. We’ll be such a small minority that no one ever cares enough to give up on attestation. The pressure will cause our numbers to dwindle to nothing as people flee to proprietary platforms in order to avoid losing access to their bank/doctor/government. All hail the eternal compulsory corporate triopoly.

      • fsniper@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.