Summary: From the attack on software freedom (including Richard Stallman and other leaders/luminaries) we've seen a shift to attacks on privacy itself, e.g. auditable encryption; today we discuss the troubling developments in the FIDO/FIDO2 space

THE ESSENCE of Free/libre software is control, liberty, autonomy, independence, security, decentralisation and sometimes privacy too. Those are all just words that convey concepts in English. It's better understood in the absence of those things (when one lacks or loses freedom). As RMS puts it, to paraphrase a bit, either the user controls the program or the program is an instrument by which some corporation (or government) controls the user. It's really that simple. To alleviate that unjust leverage of power (developers or developers' employer) over computer users we need freedom-respecting software that is audited by many and forked if mischief occurs. This helps ensure that the public interest is prioritised, not the bottom line of some business/es. That does not mean that no business can exist; many businesses are based around distributing and supporting Free software. Perfectly moral and ethical business practices are compatible with the Four Freedoms.

"Earlier this year there was a major incident, which saw millions of rogue certificates being issued by Let’s Encrypt..."With all that in mind, we've grown cynical if not deeply concerned about the Linux Foundation. The institution itself is a misnomer (it promotes operating systems other than Linux), its biggest players (leadership) are monopolistic proprietary software companies, it advocates mass surveillance, and it works for Microsoft (which in turn works to undermine Linux).

Earlier this year there was a major incident, which saw millions of rogue certificates being issued by Let’s Encrypt, which is connected to the Linux Foundation and hosted/coded on Microsoft servers. These certificates were later revoked, but there was no transparency about what had happened. Can we trust one CA to manage so many certificates? Look at its backers and sponsors. These certificates aren't free; if they seem to be free, it's because someone foots the bill to gain something, such as the US government receiving back door access to undermine encryption (by access to private keys or similar). They're already done that even inside Switzerland, covertly of course! So do we trust Let’s Encrypt? Not really, even less so after that incident. There was never clarity and now even an explanation of what was done, who the culprit was and so on.

But this article isn't about Let’s Encrypt. It's about FIDO2. The patterns may be similar, at least some salient points. "I don't know if you've been keeping up with the developments in hardware security tokens," one reader told us this week, "but I have been very alarmed with the developments that are happening with regards to FIDO2. I feel like this is another attempt to stomp out competition just like TLS CAs did before Let's Encrypt was a thing."

"We use GnuPG a great deal here in Techrights. Most of our messages are encrypted."The reader is a bit of an expert in that domain. Also remember how the founder of Ubuntu originally amassed his wealth. "Right now," the reader noted, "companies that make products like Yubikey and Titan Security Key are selling obscenely overpriced hardware just because it has a "FIDO2 Certified" logo on it. I feel like hardware security tokens are going to end up in the same situation that happened with TLS CAs where a few bodies monopolise the system and dictate who gets to be a "trusted provider". A FIDO2 certification costs about $6500 USD, last time I checked. As someone that uses GnuPG and its open ecosystem of hardware, it pains me to see the monopolisation and profiteering that's happening around the security space."

We use GnuPG a great deal here in Techrights. Most of our messages are encrypted.

"I hope you can share this message with the right people," our reader appealed, "to combat the monopolisation and anti-competitive attempts by organisations like FIDO Alliance. There's nothing open about the FIDO Alliance. The firmware for most of those devices are closed-source and the only reason people are duped into buying them is because of the "FIDO2 Certified" seal on those products. I feel like this is a turning point in cybersecurity history and we need to kill this attempt at monopolisation before we end up with the tragedy that happened with TLS CAs."

"A mechanism for trust among parties, e.g. encryption, is crucial in a free and democratic society."How many billions of dollars were washed down the drain because of these? And we ended up with "trusted" CAs that are mostly in bed with the world's biggest spying operation. Which means they might be worse than useless...

"We decide who to trust with our OpenPGP certificates," our reader noted. "We don't let other bodies make that decision for us. Let's work together to make sure we nip this FIDO nonsense in the bud. We've got the platforms and people. The WebAuthn W3C steering members are stuffed with Google, Microsoft, and (surprise) Yubico people. I'm almost certain that they're using embedded cryptography MCUs in their closed proprietary products and then making a eye-watering profit margin."

Notice that their stuff is controlled partly by Microsoft and the NSA (in GitHub). So they clearly do not value or grasp basic security.

Our reader noted: "The OpenSK project on GitHub (by Google, I believe) uses an overpriced board and there's a nice disclaimer at the bottom that OpenSK is not FIDO certified (this is blatant FUD). They aren't even using the embedded crypto MCUs on the Nordic chip. They have gone with the excuse that their software-driven crypto is "research quality" code. OpenSK is a blatant attempt to spread FUD about uncertified FIDO hardware. Yubico are in on it as well.

"We might be the first site to touch this subject, but there's more on the way for sure.""Nitrokey has a FIDO2 product and I think it's uncertified by the looks of things. I know Nitrokey people are very closely linked to GnuPG devs because I've been around GnuPG dev a lot recently. I'm pretty sure the folks at Nitrokey see the dangers of monopolisation but they're keeping it quiet (probably in fear of the media pull Google et al have). I would also prefer remaining anonymous, thanks for allowing that..."

A mechanism for trust among parties, e.g. encryption, is crucial in a free and democratic society. Those who undermine the encryption basically maintain keys to the castle. They've long attempted to put back doors (or back door access, e.g. via third parties) to everything. Sometimes the media describes that as "weakening" encryption, but that actually means breaking; weak means broken.

We might be the first site to touch this subject, but there's more on the way for sure. "Wanted you to be the first to throw a punch though," our reader noted, "because people in the community trust you on these things."

But there's lots more on the way. Stay tuned. ⬆