5 ms·

My only problem with Graphene is the ridiculous low number of supported devices, i know I know, security reasons and so on. But I would accept an lower security

My only problem with Graphene is the ridiculous low number of supported devices, i know I know, security reasons and so on. But I would accept an lower security hardened version but at least have Graphene instead of Google's junk

metalman 1y ago
https://calyxos.org/ https://calyxos.org/ does a few other devices, seems aimed strait at true privacy
- mbananasynergy 1y ago
  GrapheneOS community manager here. I would recommend checking out https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm for a third-party comparison of these projects. They're not really similar. CalyxOS downgrades security compared to the Android Open Source Project, often falls significantly behind on standard Android privacy and security patches as is the case right now (they still haven't ported to Android 16 which is required to have the latest patches) and doesn't provide similar privacy or security features. Features like Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes and our Sensors permission toggle are some of the privacy features includes in GrapheneOS. Privacy necessitates security. The security provided by GrapheneOS is in order to be able to protect privacy.
  - spaqin 1y ago
    According to the link you provided, it does seem to be ahead of stock Android (assuming AOSP) and LineageOS, disproving your point that it's falling behind. The point of the OP is not that it would be better than your solution anyway; rather, if you have a device unsupported by GrapheneOS, Calyx would be better than nothing.
    - rfoo 1y ago
      > Calyx would be better than nothing. Depends on your threat model. If Google, low-effort scam apps or being profiled by apps are your only adversary, then that's true. If random threats on Internet or APTs pwning your phone, or being forensic-proof are part of your threat model, then Calyx is strictly worse than stock.
    - strcat 1y ago
      > According to the link you provided, it does seem to be ahead of stock Android (assuming AOSP) and LineageOS, disproving your point that it's falling behind. The table shows CalyxOS has substantial delays for important privacy and security patches. It currently doesn't provide the 2025-06-05 patch level. It's better than LineageOS and /e/OS in that regard but still reduces privacy and security through significantly delayed patches. CalyxOS also weakens parts of the privacy and security model through the privileged functionality that's added, which simply isn't covered by the comparison table. > The point of the OP is not that it would be better than your solution anyway; rather, if you have a device unsupported by GrapheneOS, Calyx would be better than nothing. On Pixels, CalyxOS is missing current Android privacy/security patches. GrapheneOS doesn't support those other devices due to lack of a reasonable level of security. Each of those extra devices has significantly delayed privacy/security patches and lacks important hardware-based security features. Despite all the marketing about long term support, Fairphone 5 uses Linux 5.4 which is end-of-life in December 2025 with no plans on their part to move to a supported kernel branch afterwards. Earlier Fairphones are stuck on older end-of-life kernel branches. Those devices are missing basic updates and security protections. Those don't provide proper long term support, so if someone does have one it won't be long before it's time to buy another device.
  - pshirshov 1y ago
    > The security provided by GrapheneOS is in order to be able to protect privacy. But there is still no way to reset/spoof android device ids, and the apps can reliably identify the user after reinstalls.
    - strcat 1y ago
      Hardware identifiers aren't accessible to user installed apps. ANDROID_ID is a per-app-per-profile random ID. Apps don't need ANDROID_ID to identify that it's the same install due to immense fingerprint surface. If you installed the app in another profile, it would have a different ANDROID_ID, but it would still potentially be able to fingerprint it as the same device based on many things like settings. GrapheneOS does have planned features to improve these things but it's not nearly as simple as making ANDROID_ID per-app-install or making the MediaDRM ID more randomized than the current per-app random value (it was meant to be like ANDROID_ID but they make a mistake that's hard to fix without breaking compatibility so we need a toggle).
      - pshirshov 1y ago
        I understand, but think it won't be correct to make claims about strong privacy while fingerprinting remains possible and as easy as on stock devices. I agree that GoS did a lot in order to improve privacy (scoping) and it provides unmatched security, but you shouldn't create false expectations.
  - joemazerino 1y ago
    Why must your team replyguy every single CalyxOS post?
beefnugs 1y ago
Sounds like google is going hostile to the project, so if enough of us miss it i guess we will have to work on new hardware support
- mbananasynergy 1y ago
  GrapheneOS community manager here. Google did make it harder to support Pixels, but we're still doing it and plan to continue supporting new Pixels provided they keep meeting our requirements. At the same time, we're in communication with an OEM to have some of their devices have official GrapheneOS support, so we're moving towards redundancy.
bubblethink 1y ago
What's ridiculous about it ? There are now 4-5 gens of Pixels with their major/minor bumps too (A series, pro, etc.). There's enough variety at different price points for everyone there.
- konstantinua00 1y ago
  4-5 versions of the same phone in the gigantic sea of possible devices
  - bubblethink 1y ago
    The other devices don't meet the criteria. Be happy that Pixels are supported, for Google seems to closing down Pixel OS too, making this whole effort rather difficult.
    - konstantinua00 1y ago
      > The other devices don't meet the criteria you got it wrong way around the CONSUMER criteria is "we want better independent security ON DEVICES WE ALREADY OWN" complaints like in this thread are symptoms of unfullfilled demand - and they can't be solved by saying "oh gosh, what a stupid demand that doesn't agree with our supply"
      - cwillu 1y ago
        Nobody said it was stupid, but you wanting something doesn't make it a requirement for a project with different goals.
      - homarp 1y ago
        car analogy: I want my gazoline car to have hybrid engine. For free. vendor: not possible you: unfulfilled demand me: the way I see it, you get a product for free if you fulfill certain conditions. If not, you buy these conditions.
        1y ago
mbananasynergy 1y ago
GrapheneOS community manager here. Google's devices are currently the only ones that meet our requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices). However, we're currently working with another OEM and are hoping to have a device of theirs meet our requirements that can be launched in 2026 or 2027. Nothing set in stone, but we're optimistic thus far.
- zvmaz 1y ago
  If it's a repairable phone like the Fairphone, that would be fantastic. Otherwise, I'm already very satisfied with what you offer. Thanks for you work.
  - mbananasynergy 1y ago
    Fairphone do not meet our requirements and haven't really been trending towards meeting them generation-by-generation. It doesn't seem to be something that interests them. The unfortunate thing is that they make security promises which aren't upheld in practice (such as shipping security updates on time), so it doesn't inspire confidence as an OEM you could trust to properly support a device for multiple years. We're hoping that there will be people who will enjoy a device from the OEM we're in talks with - we know that there are many people who for various reasons don't want a device from Google, so this will at least offer an option for people who want to use GrapheneOS on a non-Google device.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
      I got curious and found this: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on-fairphone-5-will-the-devs-consider-porting-grapheneos https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on... At the risk of doing their work for them, that seems like a near ideal partnership opportunity for graphene, so it’s extra sad to see.
      - mbananasynergy 1y ago
crossroadsguy 1y ago
I actually like Graphene's focus in Pixel. It is available in a lot of countries unlike Fairphone - via Pixel of course. So Graphene is actually not limited to the developed/western world. As for not supporting other devices, I believe the reason could be the team size and the fact that the fragmented Android world is known for unique shenanigans of every OEM. Besides Google's update/upgrade cycle is another reason it is an appropriate choice.
- beeflet 1y ago
  por que no los dos?
  - gf000 1y ago
    Because as mentioned, Fairphone has lackluster hardware security. You can have the best alarm system in the word, if you leave the back door open and anyone can just walk in from the street.
    - bornfreddy 1y ago
      Meh. Not all people have the strictest security (and privacy!) requirements. While it is admirable that GOS strives for perfection, I would be more than happy with a less secure, but repairable phone, such as Fairphone. So just give me that alarm system for my tent, please. It will do fine for my case.
      - mbananasynergy 1y ago
        We don't really strive for perfection. Pixels aren't really perfect and there are numerous suggestions we could make today for Pixels to drastically improve their hardware. Our requirements are in some way below what even Pixels provide today. Our requirements are not at all exotic or outlandish, the fact that most OEMs don't meet them says more about how far behind most OEMs are, rather than our standards being unrealistic. We've also been told that they're not unrealistic in practice from numerous OEMs who want to build a device that meets our requirements. It is also important to note for Pixels specifically that since the 8th gen Pixels, they receive 7 years of support. Additionally, they partner with iFixIt to provide official replacement parts for the duration of the device's life. I'd say that's pretty sustainable, especially when you consider that the Fairphone doesn't actually provide proper support for the amount of years they claim, since they have consistent delays in providing patches.
const_cast 1y ago
The maintenance burden would be wayyy higher and the satisfaction with the project would plummet. It's a catch 22. Support other devices, the software won't work as well or reliably or maybe buggy - users get pissed off. Spent the time to make it not buggy on other devices = now you're doing mor dev work than even Google.

metalman 1y ago

https://calyxos.org/ https://calyxos.org/ does a few other devices, seems aimed strait at true privacy

mbananasynergy 1y ago
GrapheneOS community manager here. I would recommend checking out https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm for a third-party comparison of these projects. They're not really similar. CalyxOS downgrades security compared to the Android Open Source Project, often falls significantly behind on standard Android privacy and security patches as is the case right now (they still haven't ported to Android 16 which is required to have the latest patches) and doesn't provide similar privacy or security features. Features like Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes and our Sensors permission toggle are some of the privacy features includes in GrapheneOS. Privacy necessitates security. The security provided by GrapheneOS is in order to be able to protect privacy.
- spaqin 1y ago
  According to the link you provided, it does seem to be ahead of stock Android (assuming AOSP) and LineageOS, disproving your point that it's falling behind. The point of the OP is not that it would be better than your solution anyway; rather, if you have a device unsupported by GrapheneOS, Calyx would be better than nothing.
  - rfoo 1y ago
    > Calyx would be better than nothing. Depends on your threat model. If Google, low-effort scam apps or being profiled by apps are your only adversary, then that's true. If random threats on Internet or APTs pwning your phone, or being forensic-proof are part of your threat model, then Calyx is strictly worse than stock.
  - strcat 1y ago
    > According to the link you provided, it does seem to be ahead of stock Android (assuming AOSP) and LineageOS, disproving your point that it's falling behind. The table shows CalyxOS has substantial delays for important privacy and security patches. It currently doesn't provide the 2025-06-05 patch level. It's better than LineageOS and /e/OS in that regard but still reduces privacy and security through significantly delayed patches. CalyxOS also weakens parts of the privacy and security model through the privileged functionality that's added, which simply isn't covered by the comparison table. > The point of the OP is not that it would be better than your solution anyway; rather, if you have a device unsupported by GrapheneOS, Calyx would be better than nothing. On Pixels, CalyxOS is missing current Android privacy/security patches. GrapheneOS doesn't support those other devices due to lack of a reasonable level of security. Each of those extra devices has significantly delayed privacy/security patches and lacks important hardware-based security features. Despite all the marketing about long term support, Fairphone 5 uses Linux 5.4 which is end-of-life in December 2025 with no plans on their part to move to a supported kernel branch afterwards. Earlier Fairphones are stuck on older end-of-life kernel branches. Those devices are missing basic updates and security protections. Those don't provide proper long term support, so if someone does have one it won't be long before it's time to buy another device.
- pshirshov 1y ago
  > The security provided by GrapheneOS is in order to be able to protect privacy. But there is still no way to reset/spoof android device ids, and the apps can reliably identify the user after reinstalls.
  - strcat 1y ago
    Hardware identifiers aren't accessible to user installed apps. ANDROID_ID is a per-app-per-profile random ID. Apps don't need ANDROID_ID to identify that it's the same install due to immense fingerprint surface. If you installed the app in another profile, it would have a different ANDROID_ID, but it would still potentially be able to fingerprint it as the same device based on many things like settings. GrapheneOS does have planned features to improve these things but it's not nearly as simple as making ANDROID_ID per-app-install or making the MediaDRM ID more randomized than the current per-app random value (it was meant to be like ANDROID_ID but they make a mistake that's hard to fix without breaking compatibility so we need a toggle).
    - pshirshov 1y ago
      I understand, but think it won't be correct to make claims about strong privacy while fingerprinting remains possible and as easy as on stock devices. I agree that GoS did a lot in order to improve privacy (scoping) and it provides unmatched security, but you shouldn't create false expectations.
- joemazerino 1y ago
  Why must your team replyguy every single CalyxOS post?

beefnugs 1y ago

Sounds like google is going hostile to the project, so if enough of us miss it i guess we will have to work on new hardware support

mbananasynergy 1y ago
GrapheneOS community manager here. Google did make it harder to support Pixels, but we're still doing it and plan to continue supporting new Pixels provided they keep meeting our requirements. At the same time, we're in communication with an OEM to have some of their devices have official GrapheneOS support, so we're moving towards redundancy.

bubblethink 1y ago

What's ridiculous about it ? There are now 4-5 gens of Pixels with their major/minor bumps too (A series, pro, etc.). There's enough variety at different price points for everyone there.

konstantinua00 1y ago
4-5 versions of the same phone in the gigantic sea of possible devices
- bubblethink 1y ago
  The other devices don't meet the criteria. Be happy that Pixels are supported, for Google seems to closing down Pixel OS too, making this whole effort rather difficult.
  - konstantinua00 1y ago
    > The other devices don't meet the criteria you got it wrong way around the CONSUMER criteria is "we want better independent security ON DEVICES WE ALREADY OWN" complaints like in this thread are symptoms of unfullfilled demand - and they can't be solved by saying "oh gosh, what a stupid demand that doesn't agree with our supply"
    - cwillu 1y ago
      Nobody said it was stupid, but you wanting something doesn't make it a requirement for a project with different goals.
    - homarp 1y ago
      car analogy: I want my gazoline car to have hybrid engine. For free. vendor: not possible you: unfulfilled demand me: the way I see it, you get a product for free if you fulfill certain conditions. If not, you buy these conditions.
      - 1y ago

mbananasynergy 1y ago

GrapheneOS community manager here. Google's devices are currently the only ones that meet our requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices). However, we're currently working with another OEM and are hoping to have a device of theirs meet our requirements that can be launched in 2026 or 2027. Nothing set in stone, but we're optimistic thus far.

zvmaz 1y ago
If it's a repairable phone like the Fairphone, that would be fantastic. Otherwise, I'm already very satisfied with what you offer. Thanks for you work.
- mbananasynergy 1y ago
  Fairphone do not meet our requirements and haven't really been trending towards meeting them generation-by-generation. It doesn't seem to be something that interests them. The unfortunate thing is that they make security promises which aren't upheld in practice (such as shipping security updates on time), so it doesn't inspire confidence as an OEM you could trust to properly support a device for multiple years. We're hoping that there will be people who will enjoy a device from the OEM we're in talks with - we know that there are many people who for various reasons don't want a device from Google, so this will at least offer an option for people who want to use GrapheneOS on a non-Google device.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
    I got curious and found this: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on-fairphone-5-will-the-devs-consider-porting-grapheneos https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on... At the risk of doing their work for them, that seems like a near ideal partnership opportunity for graphene, so it’s extra sad to see.
    - mbananasynergy 1y ago

crossroadsguy 1y ago

I actually like Graphene's focus in Pixel. It is available in a lot of countries unlike Fairphone - via Pixel of course. So Graphene is actually not limited to the developed/western world. As for not supporting other devices, I believe the reason could be the team size and the fact that the fragmented Android world is known for unique shenanigans of every OEM. Besides Google's update/upgrade cycle is another reason it is an appropriate choice.

beeflet 1y ago
por que no los dos?
- gf000 1y ago
  Because as mentioned, Fairphone has lackluster hardware security. You can have the best alarm system in the word, if you leave the back door open and anyone can just walk in from the street.
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    Meh. Not all people have the strictest security (and privacy!) requirements. While it is admirable that GOS strives for perfection, I would be more than happy with a less secure, but repairable phone, such as Fairphone. So just give me that alarm system for my tent, please. It will do fine for my case.
    - mbananasynergy 1y ago
      We don't really strive for perfection. Pixels aren't really perfect and there are numerous suggestions we could make today for Pixels to drastically improve their hardware. Our requirements are in some way below what even Pixels provide today. Our requirements are not at all exotic or outlandish, the fact that most OEMs don't meet them says more about how far behind most OEMs are, rather than our standards being unrealistic. We've also been told that they're not unrealistic in practice from numerous OEMs who want to build a device that meets our requirements. It is also important to note for Pixels specifically that since the 8th gen Pixels, they receive 7 years of support. Additionally, they partner with iFixIt to provide official replacement parts for the duration of the device's life. I'd say that's pretty sustainable, especially when you consider that the Fairphone doesn't actually provide proper support for the amount of years they claim, since they have consistent delays in providing patches.

const_cast 1y ago

The maintenance burden would be wayyy higher and the satisfaction with the project would plummet. It's a catch 22. Support other devices, the software won't work as well or reliably or maybe buggy - users get pissed off. Spent the time to make it not buggy on other devices = now you're doing mor dev work than even Google.