4 ms·

I think there are some misconceptions in this thread (due to the title). Personally I use CopperheadOS as my daily driver because it stays continually ahead of

by lrvick 9y ago

I think there are some misconceptions in this thread (due to the title). Personally I use CopperheadOS as my daily driver because it stays continually ahead of Google (and groups like AOKP, LineageOS etc) in terms of Android hardening. It goes well beyond just not having Google Play services. See their details on their approach and design: https://copperhead.co/android/docs/technical_overview https://copperhead.co/android/docs/technical_overview They make continued patches to Android as part of a security and privacy first approach. Many of their patches get upstreamed by google months later (if at all) but CopperheadOS users get them right away. Google has their engineering efforts focused mostly on new features and compatibility. They are happy to let firms like CopperheadOS be further ahead in security research and take their patches where it does not break compatibility. It really depends on what you want to optimize for. Security/privacy or being able to run all the latest games and social media apps and the consequences that come with them.

billpollock 9y ago
That's helpful insight. Thank you.
ece 9y ago
Copperhead uses Grsecurity, and I used to use Grsecurity, when it was widely available, now that it's not and the developer has decided to act in hostile ways to the Linux community(1), it's made me rethink using his work and/or supporting him. Plenty of consultants make do fine without resorting to closing off their source code, and decide to act better with the community and/or companies. (1) https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/22/grsecurity_defamation_perens_dismissed/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/22/grsecurity_defamati...
- LukeShu 9y ago
  Copperhead maintains the -hardened patchset, which is essentially a fork of Grsecurity, largely because of those concerns. (I don't use CopperheadOS on my phone, but I do use their work in the form of linux-hardened on my desktop!)
- jemsa 9y ago
  CopperheadOS doesn't use grsecurity anymore afaik. https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/933684025624993792 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/933684025624993792
  - ece 9y ago
    Thanks for the link. Happy to hear they're maintaining Linux-hardened themselves.
  - bubblethink 9y ago
    Actually, copperhead itself is sort of loosely following grsec's model, which is rather unfortunate. Their licences, where required will be GPL or compatible with upstream, but otherwise copperheadOS itself is not FOSS. I kind of get that it's hard to make money in such projects, but I really don't see how this strategy works for them, unless the goal is just to be bought out by someone.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Your otherwise good comment probably should include two things that are critical to Google's stance on Android security: 1. They're a surveillance company that has more actual and potential earnings the more they know about their customers. They get good margins when their customers lack privacy with devices locked into Google by default. 2. They don't care about users' safety since make billions off Android platform but wont even patch vulnerabilities quickly. They have enough money to design a server UNIX from scratch plus a full-custom CPU plus mitigations from code injection at CPU level with all that leaving them with a few billion in revenue left out of Android alone. They just don't care since they're a public company about squeezing out every ounce of profit. So, their incentives ensure they will leave the devices insecure. Someone will have to make their own versions that are secure like Copperhead and separation kernels before them (eg OK Labs) did. Alternatively, convince Google to offer a paid, secure option for their own internal use if nothing else with them recovering costs by eating up the cryptophone market's revenues.
- izacus 9y ago
  Can you explain how 2.) follows from 1.) ? Or at least how exactly has Google incentive to keep Android insecure (especially in terms of all the security research/hardening being done by internal teams, both for Android and iOS)?
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    They're seperate. Bad security follows from both. For one, too little privacy is profitable for a company selling or matching against profiles obtained from surveilling their users' activities. On 2, redoing Android security or just handling it better would cost more for Google even though the problems are externalities: they cost the users, not Google. For-profit, public comoanies ignore externalities as much as possible to maximize profit. So, Google securing Android would cost them a lot of money for fixing the customers' problems that dont affect Google. Then, it might cost them piles of money later in lost ad revenue when now-private services make customers black boxes of sorts. I think there's a lot of middle ground to explore but surveillance or public companies don't usually go for it. Offering a paid, surveillance-off version of each ad service is one of those. You will rarely see that as simple as it is to do.
dang 9y ago
We've reverted the title above to the article title, since that's what the guidelines call for anyhow, unless it's misleading or linkbait. The submitted title was "Copperhead OS – De-Google Your Phone". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  A brief summary of what something is can be helpful. I probably wouldn't have noticed this story if it wasn't explicitly mentioned as being about phones; I like hearing about a new OS but since I don't have the time/urge for kernel hacking I've generally stopped reading such stories.

by lrvick 9y ago

billpollock 9y ago

That's helpful insight. Thank you.

ece 9y ago

Copperhead uses Grsecurity, and I used to use Grsecurity, when it was widely available, now that it's not and the developer has decided to act in hostile ways to the Linux community(1), it's made me rethink using his work and/or supporting him. Plenty of consultants make do fine without resorting to closing off their source code, and decide to act better with the community and/or companies. (1) https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/22/grsecurity_defamation_perens_dismissed/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/22/grsecurity_defamati...

LukeShu 9y ago
Copperhead maintains the -hardened patchset, which is essentially a fork of Grsecurity, largely because of those concerns. (I don't use CopperheadOS on my phone, but I do use their work in the form of linux-hardened on my desktop!)
jemsa 9y ago
CopperheadOS doesn't use grsecurity anymore afaik. https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/933684025624993792 https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/933684025624993792
- ece 9y ago
  Thanks for the link. Happy to hear they're maintaining Linux-hardened themselves.
- bubblethink 9y ago
  Actually, copperhead itself is sort of loosely following grsec's model, which is rather unfortunate. Their licences, where required will be GPL or compatible with upstream, but otherwise copperheadOS itself is not FOSS. I kind of get that it's hard to make money in such projects, but I really don't see how this strategy works for them, unless the goal is just to be bought out by someone.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

Your otherwise good comment probably should include two things that are critical to Google's stance on Android security: 1. They're a surveillance company that has more actual and potential earnings the more they know about their customers. They get good margins when their customers lack privacy with devices locked into Google by default. 2. They don't care about users' safety since make billions off Android platform but wont even patch vulnerabilities quickly. They have enough money to design a server UNIX from scratch plus a full-custom CPU plus mitigations from code injection at CPU level with all that leaving them with a few billion in revenue left out of Android alone. They just don't care since they're a public company about squeezing out every ounce of profit. So, their incentives ensure they will leave the devices insecure. Someone will have to make their own versions that are secure like Copperhead and separation kernels before them (eg OK Labs) did. Alternatively, convince Google to offer a paid, secure option for their own internal use if nothing else with them recovering costs by eating up the cryptophone market's revenues.

izacus 9y ago
Can you explain how 2.) follows from 1.) ? Or at least how exactly has Google incentive to keep Android insecure (especially in terms of all the security research/hardening being done by internal teams, both for Android and iOS)?
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  They're seperate. Bad security follows from both. For one, too little privacy is profitable for a company selling or matching against profiles obtained from surveilling their users' activities. On 2, redoing Android security or just handling it better would cost more for Google even though the problems are externalities: they cost the users, not Google. For-profit, public comoanies ignore externalities as much as possible to maximize profit. So, Google securing Android would cost them a lot of money for fixing the customers' problems that dont affect Google. Then, it might cost them piles of money later in lost ad revenue when now-private services make customers black boxes of sorts. I think there's a lot of middle ground to explore but surveillance or public companies don't usually go for it. Offering a paid, surveillance-off version of each ad service is one of those. You will rarely see that as simple as it is to do.

dang 9y ago

We've reverted the title above to the article title, since that's what the guidelines call for anyhow, unless it's misleading or linkbait. The submitted title was "Copperhead OS – De-Google Your Phone". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

anigbrowl 9y ago
A brief summary of what something is can be helpful. I probably wouldn't have noticed this story if it wasn't explicitly mentioned as being about phones; I like hearing about a new OS but since I don't have the time/urge for kernel hacking I've generally stopped reading such stories.