5 ms·

You are exactly right. To summarise for those who do not want to watch a video, the video shows communications with Graphenes lead developer in which he was ext

• gtsop 1y ago
  Can you elaborate on why this is a risk factor? What do you mean by saying we're giving him root? If a person is paranoid of being chased i would expect them to put even more effort into the security of the OS he develops, not to add backdoors. But please expand your own reasoning.
  • onli 1y ago
    Well, he can do everything to your phone, software and data by pushing software updates. When there was a dispute in the former project copperhead he deleted the cryptographic keys, blocking software updates. Paranoia could result in just making the system more secure, but why not add a backdoor to find the spies in your userbases that communicate with the black suited men that secretly run our government? After all it is easy, they all play a specific game where they communicate via secret messages in chat. You just don't know what will happen is what I'm saying. The "he has root" is also a reference to ubuntus shuttleworth.
    • gf000 1y ago
      > when there was a dispute in the former project copperhead You mean who tried to hijack the project in a very questionable direction, harming their users, he rather lighted the project on fire then let the users' security be compromised? If anything, that is the greatest compliment you could give him. Also, this is fud that he can push any kind of code, like you can easily check any part of the pipeline.
      • bernoufakis 1y ago
        > You mean who tried to hijack the project in a very questionable direction, harming their users, he rather lighted the project on fire then let the users' security be compromised? > If anything, that is the greatest compliment you could give him. On one hand, sure it can be a compliment. On the other hand, it only increases the perception that he is could enact significant harm if he ever comes after you. > Also, this is fud that he can push any kind of code, like you can easily check any part of the pipeline. Who is "you" ? Neither Rossmann, neither me (software dev albeit not in cybersecurity), and even less so the average GOS user, and I would venture to guess that neither you can audit GOS code with enough confidence to declare that the risk of an exploit or backdoor being introduced is zero. Open-source is not a guarantee that code or software is secure (for e.g. CVE in xz utils and many such cases). Edit: some clarifications.
        • other8026 1y ago
          > On the other hand, it only increases the perception that he is could enact significant harm if he ever comes after you. But that would be incorrect. It's not possible for anyone from the GrapheneOS project to target a GrapheneOS user that way. Look into how updates and the update servers work. > neither you can audit GOS code with enough confidence to declare that the risk of an exploit or backdoor being introduced is zero. The updater app is pretty easy to read through. I think a software developer would be able to understand it. The update servers' setups are also very easy to understand. It doesn't take a software developer genius to figure these things out.
          • bernoufakis 1y ago
            > But that would be incorrect. It's not possible for anyone from the GrapheneOS project to target a GrapheneOS user that way. Look into how updates and the update servers work. My point is that from Rossmann's perspective, being target of the lead GOS software dev hostile behavior as per his "Why I deleted Graphene OS" induces Rossmann's --> perception <-- that the GOS could go after him if he really wanted to. First, everyone is busy and has their life, suggesting that his spend hours going through code and documentation he is not familiar with to make sure he is not target is moot. Most people don't read TOS, and same goes for Licences and docs of OSS. Between doing that and stop using it as it's main device OS, the easier choice is the latter. As a software dev myself, your expectation of layman being able to navigate something like a code review, or even an investigating an exploit is hardly reasonable. So it is not "incorrect". I am not even saying Rossmann could be targeted. I cannot even make this claim as I have not gone through the docs nor understand the build and update pipeline, which is kind of my point: I can't be bothered neither for GOS, nor for the most of the FOSS software I use. The majority of OSS user rely on the vague concept that motivated and honest people audit the code, but hardly anyone is going deep dive into how an arbitrary piece of software works. The main issue is the attitude of that GOS developer, whether they like it or not, taints the confidence in the project. it does not matter if Rossmann can or cannot be targeted technically. The issue here is not technical but a reputation issue. > The updater app is pretty easy to read through. I think a software developer would be able to understand it. The update servers' setups are also very easy to understand. It doesn't take a software developer genius to figure these things out. Even then, it could be argued that the rules in place could be changed to introduce malicious exploit if the lead dev(s) were motivated enough. Especially given GOS relatively top-down structure, relying essentially on a benevolent dictator. Even if I made the effort, then ascertain there was no vector attack, now I have to stay on alert every commit / release version and spend as much time looking for a targeted exploit ? etc... Update server setup might be clean, but an admin could SSH or gain access in some way or another and do rogue changes, were they determined enough. The probability is not zero. Again, the problem is eroding the trust of the specific user (Rossmann in this case).
    • other8026 1y ago
      Wow. Reading and responding to your comments in this thread, I can see you are very motivated to trash GrapheneOS and its founder. > Well, he can do everything to your phone, software and data by pushing software updates. Other developers are doing the bulk of development work these days, so this is nonsense. > Paranoia could result in just making the system more secure, but why not add a backdoor to find the spies in your userbases that communicate with the black suited men that secretly run our government? Again with the baseless claims that he's crazy. Your argument here is that "he is crazy, so maybe this happens too." It's nonsense. There are no backdoors, and if there ever were any backdoors, they would be found. GrapheneOS isn't some small project that nobody knows about. It's famous for being very secure, even famous people have said publicly that they use it or others should use it. Cellebrite cannot even hack into it. Backdoors wouldn't go unnoticed. This is also nonsense.
      • onli 1y ago
        [flagged]
    • gf000 1y ago
      This is on a level of "5G causes autism" understanding of the topic. Maybe learn how reproducible builds and cryptographic signatures work.
      • Andromxda 1y ago
        > This is on a level of "5G causes autism" understanding of the topic That sums it up perfectly
  • bernoufakis 1y ago
    To put it simply, the (at the time) lead developer of GOS and Rossmann had some disagreements. At the time, Rossmann was mainly using GOS, but due to what he perceived as hostile behavior from GOS toward him through their communication, he opted to stop using GOS (at least on his main device, as he claims). His rationale was that the behavior of said lead developer was not "rational" and "scary", and since the developer has not only edit access to GOS code but also update publishing infrastructure, Rossmann's data or himself could be targeted through malicious code pushed via an update, for example. While GOS is opensource and malicious code or exploits could be detected by the community, he himself did not have confidence to audit the source code to make sure it was safe, hence his decision to stop using. By risk factor, I think the grandparent suggests that something similar could happen to someone else using GOS, the risk factor being essentially at the mercy of GOS developer, would they wish to harm said user.
    • gtsop 1y ago
      So rossmann literally feared of a patch that was like this getting into graphene if (user is rossmann) { // do bad things } makes me think who is paranoid here.
      • bernoufakis 1y ago
        Your example is a strawman, as a determined enough actor, especially a security expert(s) like GOS developers could pull it off and get such patch / exploit. The probability is not zero. It will probably not be obvious to spot, would be spread over multiple files of code that don't necessarily relate to each other at first glance, as many documented CVE illustrated (one that comes to mind given HN context is the XZ utils backdoor from last year for e.g.) Rossmann himself has no confidence to audit the code, so why take the risk ? Good enough reason to be "paranoid", or at least feel uneasy about it if you ask me.
        • gtsop 1y ago
          Is it really a strawman? At some point, the code would need to identify rossmann. Please elaborate on the techniques required to do it and how it could be obfuscated. GOS doesn't use an account, so the code would have to perform very targeted heuristics in order to verify this is Luis' phone. It would have to compare his sim number against a known one, or dig into application data to find his logins and compare them against known emails. So the only way to not write `if (user is rossmann)` would be to send various diagnostics over the wire, to a service that contains these identifiers and perform the comparison onlinr, meaning he would introduce an imense security whole into everyone's phone, and everyone would see there is a home calling. So it's either a patch of if user == rossmann, or a home calling patch.
• bernoufakis 1y ago
  I second this opinion, with some additional nuance. While I don't think the developers necessarily hallucinates being attacked (i.e. given the nature of the project, I would expect them to be persons of interest, be it from surveillance agencies, or even state actors), the main issue with Rossmann is their claim that he is either personally directing harassment against GOS, or colluding with and encouraging other communities to harass (mainly Kiwifarms, Techlore, CalyxOS, and other Android related FOSS projects). This claim seems to originate then cascade from Rossmann leaving the comment "Informative, but unfortunate" on TechLore's video criticizing GOS's leadership. This is taken as explicit support of TechLore community's / KiwiFarms alleged harrassement on the lead GOS developer, and this has somehow been cascaded and blown out of proportions, and considered by GOS developers as evidence of Rossmann's wrong doing against them. As mentioned somewhere else, I am using GrapheneOS since 2 or 3 years now, based on Rossmann recommendations. The software is very good, pretty much native Android experience, but without the extra alleged Google snooping / root access. Rossmann himself seemed to have stopped using it as his main device because of fear of retaliation given that the GOS devs could potentially target him. Better safe than sorry. I still use it because I am not that high profile of a person, and generally will use throwaway when it comes to discussing anything GOS related at this point. The overall leadership however, based on Rossmann's and later my personal interactions with them however, did leave a bad after taste.
  • other8026 1y ago
    > Rossmann himself seemed to have stopped using it as his main device because of fear of retaliation given that the GOS devs could potentially target him. But he didn't. It's clear in his later videos that he was still using GrapheneOS, I believe even for months after the video. > Better safe than sorry. People who are familiar with how GrapheneOS updates work wouldn't agree. No identifiers are sent to the update server, so targeted updates aren't possible that way. Also, update servers only host static files. If Rossmann was really that worried, all he'd have to do is use a VPN. But that was all just a huge dramatic act so his video would get more views, and possibly to entertain his fellow Kiwi Farms members.
    • bernoufakis 1y ago
• gf000 1y ago
  Calyx has lackluster security practices, and even removes signature checking so they can sell microG as Google Play Store to apps. This is an objective statement, graphene OS is leagues ahead of anything on the market in terms of security, while calyx is basically just a custom ROM to tinker with. As for the personal aspect, the lead developer is definitely not the best representative of the project from a communication perspective as he might not have that kind of social skills (based on his posts). [1] But he (Micay) is an excellent security researcher, and has an excellent track record when it comes to prioritizing his users. There was a sponsorship in the beginning, where the legal entity, CopperheadOS tried to hijack the whole project. But Micay rather kill the project, than let the users' security suffer and revoked the signing keys. And I'm sure such a betrayal would cause anyone to lose a lot of faith in others' actions. > Give that person root Complete bullshit, what root?! And if anything, you are the one who are trying to discredit a project here, by sharing some dumb clickbait video. [1] I see that there is now a project manager doing most of the communication, which is an excellent solution!
  • onli 1y ago
    Do I have to explain what root is, or what are you not understanding about the concept of the software provider having complete control of the software on your phone and thus having root rights? Your CopperheadOS description is one perspective, one that does not look all that believable now after his mental illness became clear. I did not share the video, but I would and it is not clickbait. I will not further respond to you, I don't think this would lead to a fruitful discussion. Kindly think about what kind of trust is necessary to trust in the proper functioning of a device as personal as a modern phone, and think about attack scenarios that could occur when the main developer of your OS is not trustworthy in the slightest.
    • other8026 1y ago
      > after his mental illness became clear. Here you are again in yet another comment repeating these baseless claims about mental illness. > think about attack scenarios that could occur when the main developer of your OS is not trustworthy in the slightest. First of all, he's not the main developer. There are multiple developers. The other developers do most of the development work these days. But to say that the OS is untrustworthy is completely false. You say GrapheneOS's founder has a mental illness based on watching a video where someone turned malicious toward the project recorded a conversation where the founder was extremely upset after being swatted multiple times. The update client doesn't send identifiers when checking for updates, and the update servers only have static files saved to them. You're making stuff up here, and clearly trying to turn people off of using GrapheneOS by repeating baseless claims that the founder is crazy and fake worries of being targeted by them.
• other8026 1y ago
  There's way much more to it than what you said here. > extremely hostile and threatened Rossman At the time, he was very upset. You know, because he was swatted multiple times. Of course he was upset when Rossmann showed his true colors and was trying to talk to him. Rossmann saw this as an opportunity and recorded it as it was happening. He tries to portray Daniel as crazy and people who attack the project and his friends on Kiwi Farms lap that stuff up. It's not true that he stopped using GrapheneOS, though. He continued using GrapheneOS for months after that video, which you can see by watching his later videos. > hallucinates Repeating baseless claims that he's crazy. > You have to be aware that you give that person root when you use Graphene. What? This is a very strange way to say it. Either way, it's literally impossible for someone on the GrapheneOS team to target someone like what was claimed in the video. GrapheneOS devices don't send identifiers when they contact the update server. The update servers also only host static files. > Calyx seems to be the best alternative right now without such a risk factor. The "risk factor" is completely false. It's all made up to attack GrapheneOS, making the founder look like a crazy person, then people are scared of using the OS. CalyxOS is not a hardened OS and rolls back security in some ways. It's not the next best alternative for people who care about these things.
  • onli 1y ago
    Nothing I said is baseless and contrary to you, I do provide sources. > Of course he was upset when Rossmann showed his true colors I saw the chats. You lie. Showing his true colors = not accepting that there is an evil conspiracy and asking for proof. You are completely brainwashed and I will not continue this discussion. If Calyx is not the next best alternative be invited to link to what you think is the best alternative. I still think it's Calyx.
    • other8026 1y ago
      > I do provide sources. You provided exactly 0 sources in all of the comments I've seen posted by you so far. > Showing his true colors = not accepting that there is an evil conspiracy and asking for proof. "Evil conspiracy"? You say that someone else is paranoid and yet you are saying things like this? It's kind of ironic. > You are completely brainwashed Okay. If you say so.