18 ms·

They couldn't answer the question most on my mind: "We’ve reached out to Google to inquire about why a custom ROM created by volunteers is more resistant to ind

They couldn't answer the question most on my mind: "We’ve reached out to Google to inquire about why a custom ROM created by volunteers is more resistant to industrial phone hacking than the official Pixel OS. We’ll update this article if Google has anything to say."

bigyabai 1y ago
Short answer: Google is a business that can be compelled by the federal government in ways that nonprofits are resistant to. Ron Wyden identified one of these weaknesses in 2023: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
- windexh8er 1y ago
  Let's be very clear: this is still Google's choice. Google could build a phone that they can't be compelled to do anything to after the phone is sold to their customer, but Google alone chooses to not invest in the security of the phones they're selling to their customers. Because: what is good for the government is now equally good for Google. Do we not remember how Google immediately enabled TLS everywhere, internally, post-Snowden [0]? Remember when Google was "outraged"? Where are those people now? They surely don't work at Google anymore. It's amazing how enshittified Google and Apple have become in a decade. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821
  - harambae 1y ago
    > how enshittified Google and Apple have become I don’t know about pop-ups or whatever, but as far as mobile security Apple appears to be running the table. Last cellebrite leak showed they couldn’t do anything in BFU, and you can tell Siri to put it back in BFU without hands while being arrested.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Cellebrite is like the Kmart Blue Light Special of Israeli spyware, when you compare it to Greykey and NSO Group offerings. I would not use their capabilities as the be-all end-all.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        > the Kmart Blue Light Special Hello fellow old timer. Do kids today even get this reference other than possibly just on context? My other favorite old store was a place called Gibsons where their stores signage had each upper case letter as an individual square. After it went under, more than one location became SBINGOS joints where first/last squares were no longer lit.
        doodlebugging 1y ago
        Another old-timer here who grew up with Gibsons. It was the only grocery store in town back in the days before WalMart invaded. Ammunition, camping gear, dry goods, garden supplies, farm and ranch supplies, blue jeans, shirts, ties, overalls, etc. They sold everything under one roof in a town of 2500. I thought they had all been swallowed up and shut down until I moved up here to N Texas and was surprised to find a Gibsons here. It took me a while before curiosity took hold but several years later I visited the store, approx 2003-2004ish, and found they still used old-school cash registers, had no UPC scanning capability and every item had a price tag stuck to it. I think they have since moved into the more modern world locally but the store is still there and is a good source for items that you used to need to go to the town's original hardware stores to find. Some of the items on the shelves may have been in inventory here since the 1970's or 1980's. It's a bit like a time machine where you can get obsolete stuff in a pinch if it is still in stock. I worked slapping price tags on items in KMart back in the day so I too understand the reference. Glad I'm done with that.
        dylan604 1y ago
        > I moved up here to N Texas and was surprised to find a Gibsons here. Curiosity kills the cat. What part of NTX? I'm willing to take a trip this weekend just for the lulz. You talking Sherman/Dennison/Paris/Gainesville north, or just Denton/McKinney north? Only thing I'm seeing is one way out west in Weatherford.
  - Veserv 1y ago
    Ah yes, Google could make a unhackable phone secure against state actors, they just do not feel like it. Not at all a problem that is viewed as so impossible that the very notion of it is beyond belief to the overwhelming majority of software developers. Google can just waltz on down to the corner store and get a jug of unhackable phone software. They just do not want to. The fact of the matter is that they are incapable of making systems consistently secure against even moderately funded professional cyber demolitions teams. This is true across the entire commercial IT industry with literal decades of evidence and proof time and time again. Could it also be a conspiracy? Could they also have deliberate backdoors? Sure. But even without them their systems and everyone else are grossly inadequate for the current threat landscape which only continues to pull further and further ahead of their lackluster system security.
    - wizardforhire 1y ago
      I’ll be asking Anwar down at the bodega to start carrying jugs of unhackable from now on! I want to try the new razzle dazzle berry and 4D cool ranch if he can get them…
  - Youden 1y ago
    Google brings to mind the ship of Theseus - many of the core decision makers have changed over the years, to the point where it's arguably a different company. The biggest change was 2015 (two years after your article): the founders and Eric Schmidt stepped back and a couple of other folks retired, leading to a new CEO, CFO and CBO. Their opinions on how to best run the company were quite different to their predecessors. I think another major change is the attention Google started to get from government and regulators.
    - magtux 1y ago
      > the founders and Eric Schmidt Still have huge influence as demonstrated by them stepping in to lead parts of the AI push. Ezra Klein actually has an interesting perspective that the owner class of Silicon Valley has moved right a lot more and the workers are still the same politically causing companies to behave differently. My experience in Tech largely tracks. I would say the middle management and manager class are largely good people and try to navigate the world as best they can although they will choose to not rock the boat whenever possible. The tolerance for activism has just evaporated so we don't hear as much about it anymore.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      You mean the same Eric Schmidt who admitted that he used a BlackBerry for years after Android was released?
- GeekyBear 1y ago
  No American company has a choice when the Feds want data stored on a company's server. That doesn't stop Apple or any other company from designing devices that attempt to keep prying eyes out of the data stored on your device.
  - bitwize 1y ago
    The government has ways of twisting the arms of uncooperative people/organizations into providing all the backdoors they need. Everything from increased tax and regulatory scrutiny to "discovering" CSAM on executives' computers or phones. The government does what it wants because it's the government. Mere laws generally don't stand in its way for long.
    - gleenn 1y ago
      I think this is a very negative idea to promote: that laws should can be subverted. Everyone should believe that laws work and when they don't we should work to fix that, not assume that it can never be fixed.
      - thisonetimeonly 1y ago
        It’s the truth, however. Blinding yourself to it won’t make governments any less inclined to bend (or outright break) any laws they deem necessary to achieve their goals. We should work to fix that, no question about it, but ignorance will not by itself improve the situation in imaginable any way.
      - underlipton 1y ago
        I think it's healthy to imagine how authorities might abuse power and under what impetus, in order to head off those abuses. Laws have been subverted in the past, so it's rational to assume that they might be subverted in the future. This is actually a cornerstone of any effort to fix issues.
      - clanky 1y ago
        It can be fixed, but not through the same protocols and institutions that have been compromised.
- kangs 1y ago
  google even has specially signed fw that let you root the device and unlock anything that doesn't rely on the passcode. secureboot passing and all. i can't imagine that the nsa doesnt have them. after that you just gotta crack the usually very simple passcode. wouldny be surprised if thats what cellrite has lol.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Is grapheheOS actually harder to hack or does cellebrite just not put a lot of effort into supporting it because the very low odds of LEs running into one in the wild?
- markus_zhang 1y ago
  I read from an old HN post that three letter agencies hate graphen OS. The author heard it from defcon or some similar conference. I couldn’t find the post anyway :/ I think it is buried under one of the posts that discuss Defcon and Blackhat.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    Wouldn't it be a total mindfuck if it turns out that Graphene is less secure[1] than stock Pixel, and this is all part of an ANOM-style honeypot operation that has Feds hyping it up, to trick interesting targets into adopting a less-effective security posture. 1. Such as via slower 0-day responses, for instance. This is a thought experiment, I'm nor alleging that this is what it is.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Anyone can build GrapheneOS from source code, which I doubt is true of any law-enforcement honeypot.
      - embedding-shape 1y ago
        Exactly what someone who sets up a honeypot targeting nerds would want you to think.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        You can actually build it. But who has time to audit all that stuff? Then you know, there could be firmware hacks that make all the system-level backdoors a moot point.
LoganDark 1y ago
GrapheneOS makes security trade-off that are inconvenient to the user. This results in a far more secure device, but nonetheless a device that the general public would find far more annoying. Google would lose a proportion of its user base by implementing the same protections. Example: https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytk1ng/grapheneos_vs_stock_android https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytk1ng/graphen... Also Google Pay is missing.
- zb3 1y ago
  Which particular thing you consider inconvenient or even annoying? You can even install Google Play there. I see just one minor tradeoff - no face unlock.
  - MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
    That is a major feature. It prevents coerced unlocking.
    - tranq_cassowary 1y ago
      That's not the reasoning. The reasoning is lack of proper hardware support on supported devices for secure face unlock. Coerced unlocking also holds true for fingerprint in some instances and that's worked around by using 2FA (fingerprint + password/PIN).
  - LoganDark 1y ago
    Google OS-level integration is absent, and while Google Play Services can be installed, you're still missing things like Chromecast. Also, there's more manual configuration (although I don't remember exactly what, I've never used GrapheneOS). A lot of stuff you do get for free, but not all of it, and stuff that's been removed as a "feature" isn't always stuff that nobody wants.
    - _lyxd 1y ago
      > stuff that's been removed as a "feature" isn't always stuff that nobody wants. Graphene isn't made to cater to what everyone wants. Face ID and fingerprint unlocking so clearly have no place in a hardened OS. "Google OS-level integration is absent" should not be suprising. This said, you ought to be able to have BFU security with stock Android and it's embarrassing Google ships stock vulnerable.
colordrops 1y ago
I'd almost want to avoid GrapheneOS because it gets so much attention from law enforcement that it's probably a big target for various agencies to find vulnerabilities in.
- giantg2 1y ago
  This doesn't make sense. If you're worried about the government targeting you, then what is the alternative... less hardened phones? At least Graphene will protect you better than the stock OS. If you're really that concerned then you shouldn't use anything going through cell tower (or take extreme precautions when doing so).
  - colordrops 1y ago
    I did say "almost". But as you mention there aren't many alternative. It would be a better world if there were several options besides just Graphene that prioritize security.
    - chasil 1y ago
      What they are doing is difficult and expensive. The talent pool that is willing to work in a nonprofit is not likely large.
    - subscribed 1y ago
      In reality you have iPhones (in lockdown mode meaning you mist throw some of the usability away) or GrapheneOS if you prefer android. No other hardware and software solutions come close. Cellebrite matrix shows it pretty well (and from late 2024 cellebrite cannot even extract entire phone form the unlocked GOS.
- Xss3 1y ago
  More attention than stock android?
tranq_cassowary 1y ago
GrapheneOS isn't made by volunteers. They have a team of around 10 paid developers. They are a nonprofit foundation that receives donations and uses those to pay developers, infrastructure etc. Ars Technica has update its article to rectify that mistake. It doesn't mention that anymore.
- isodev 1y ago
  It’s still a valid question. We have this huge corporation that’s doing so many things, constantly lobbying for policy, obscene revenue all while people are exploiting the apk out of their OS. In fact, looking at the news this week, the same question applies to Microsoft and Apple as well. Are they too big and distracted to care about security?
  - saagarjha 1y ago
    No, it's just that the user will not put up with a system like GrapheneOS.
    - Sanzig 1y ago
      How so? Graphene is perfectly useable for a non-technical user. And once you install Play Store, it's almost indistinguishable UX-wise from any other Android phone.
      - udev4096 1y ago
        He's a fucking ignorant normie. He has never even tried to install GOS because if he did, he would know how almost identical the experience is with Android and there are no privileged google processes running on your phone which not only hog the resources but sends every single bit of information about your whole life
        saagarjha 1y ago
        I have tried installing it, for your information
FrequentLurker 1y ago
So much for all the security posturing by Google lol.
- subscribed 1y ago
  I mean, hardware is great, it's literally the only safe and secure hardware for AOSP. Samsung are mostly security theater, all the other brands are shockingly bad.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lucasluitjes 1y ago
GrapheneOS is basically the Android equivalent of iOS Lockdown mode. Considering how the threat landscape has changed, it would be nice if Google offered this itself. Or became a long-term sponsor of GrapheneOS, seeing how great a job they've been doing.
- subscribed 1y ago
  Not really. iOS in lockdown mode has multiple features disabled (or crippled, depending on how you look at it), while GrapheneOS is just..... secure by design with secure defaults. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 In iPhone also you cannot just turn on/off/adjust these protections one by one, it's all or nothing.
  - mike_d 1y ago
    > OS in lockdown mode has multiple features disabled [...] while GrapheneOS is just... ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, SafetyNet, push notifications, support for any apps requiring device integrity, etc. They aren't redesigning and re-implementing these features securely, they are reducing attack surface just like lockdown mode.
    - subscribed 1y ago
      >> [...] while GrapheneOS is just... > ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, This is broadly false, not just misleading but false. - Android Auto: working wired or wireless without problems - Google Pay: app vendor choice to put it behind DEVICE_INTEGRITY check, not OS vendor. NFC payments work just fine with other vendors. - enhanced GPS: whatever that means, is most likely false. Users don't experience any issues with GPS > SafetyNet SafetyNet Attestation API is deprecated and no longer available so also not true. But from the context I think you meant Play Integrity API. This is Google Services feature, not AOSP feature. GrapheneOS is an AOSP-based system. GOS passes MEETS_BASIC_INTEGRITY. It doesn't pass DEVICE_INTEGRITY because it doesn't run privileged, unbound Google Surveillance Services (according to Google 10 year old phone not updated for 8 years is more secure as long as it allows Google Services sniff everywhere). It cannot pass MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY they way Google requires it because AFAIR that thing is signed by the TPM. It does provide an alternative STRONG_INTEGRITY assurance based on the AOSP Hardware Attestation API (which many developers in fact use). > push notifications, This is so false it should be called out as a lie, not just a falsehood. Reliable push notifications are supported both in the standard way (if user decides to do so), via GCM, or in one in the alternative ways, for example UP, exactly like on the standard Android phone. > support for any apps requiring device integrity, etc. This is also a lie or ignorance. See above. For example Starling Bank has explicitly implemented GOS Hardware Attestation API. > They aren't redesigning and re-implementing these features securely, What do you mean? hardened_malloc? Memory tagging for entire kernel? automatic switch to BFU after timeout? USB data blocked by default with the screen locked? Network permission toggle? Storage/contact scopes? Critical patches released seemingly _months_ before the major vendors? LOL. Half of your claims are either lies or misrepresentation. The other half (Google Pay and Play Integrity) are vendor functionality. They would have to spoof (fake) it - exactly like rooted phones do (and which can often be detected). Or allow Google in the privileged mode, which is not going to happen. That has been explained by the development team _so_ many times already. They cannot "re-implement" a feature that *GOOGLE* offers to the developers using *Google store*. That would for example require using leaked private key. They are challenging Google's stance on Play Integrity with EU commission, because there is no technical reason to bar the safe hardware+OS passing a standard AOSP hw attestation. This is an AOSP OS, not a hacked Google Pixel ROM. > they are reducing attack surface just like lockdown mode. They are reducing attack surfaces without locking down functionality. Google deciding to not support the competition is not GOS locking somehow down. Entirely different from Apple's lockdown mode. QED. I wouldn't mind listing _downsides_ of using GOS as a first/main device (because there are many), but I prefer facts over confabulations :)
markstos 1y ago
One idea is that the stock rom by Google may phone home even when locked. Perhaps with a malicious WiFi network, attackers can exploit the phone through a flaw in DNS or HTTP handling. If GrapheneOS skips contacting remote servers like that, they would not be vulnerable. It would be a story of Google prioritizing tracking over security.
bitfilped 1y ago
Googles goal as a company is to raise their stock price, graphenes goal is to make a secure phone OS. It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone that graphene is doing a better job.

bigyabai 1y ago

Short answer: Google is a business that can be compelled by the federal government in ways that nonprofits are resistant to. Ron Wyden identified one of these weaknesses in 2023: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

windexh8er 1y ago
Let's be very clear: this is still Google's choice. Google could build a phone that they can't be compelled to do anything to after the phone is sold to their customer, but Google alone chooses to not invest in the security of the phones they're selling to their customers. Because: what is good for the government is now equally good for Google. Do we not remember how Google immediately enabled TLS everywhere, internally, post-Snowden [0]? Remember when Google was "outraged"? Where are those people now? They surely don't work at Google anymore. It's amazing how enshittified Google and Apple have become in a decade. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821
- harambae 1y ago
  > how enshittified Google and Apple have become I don’t know about pop-ups or whatever, but as far as mobile security Apple appears to be running the table. Last cellebrite leak showed they couldn’t do anything in BFU, and you can tell Siri to put it back in BFU without hands while being arrested.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Cellebrite is like the Kmart Blue Light Special of Israeli spyware, when you compare it to Greykey and NSO Group offerings. I would not use their capabilities as the be-all end-all.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      > the Kmart Blue Light Special Hello fellow old timer. Do kids today even get this reference other than possibly just on context? My other favorite old store was a place called Gibsons where their stores signage had each upper case letter as an individual square. After it went under, more than one location became SBINGOS joints where first/last squares were no longer lit.
      - doodlebugging 1y ago
        Another old-timer here who grew up with Gibsons. It was the only grocery store in town back in the days before WalMart invaded. Ammunition, camping gear, dry goods, garden supplies, farm and ranch supplies, blue jeans, shirts, ties, overalls, etc. They sold everything under one roof in a town of 2500. I thought they had all been swallowed up and shut down until I moved up here to N Texas and was surprised to find a Gibsons here. It took me a while before curiosity took hold but several years later I visited the store, approx 2003-2004ish, and found they still used old-school cash registers, had no UPC scanning capability and every item had a price tag stuck to it. I think they have since moved into the more modern world locally but the store is still there and is a good source for items that you used to need to go to the town's original hardware stores to find. Some of the items on the shelves may have been in inventory here since the 1970's or 1980's. It's a bit like a time machine where you can get obsolete stuff in a pinch if it is still in stock. I worked slapping price tags on items in KMart back in the day so I too understand the reference. Glad I'm done with that.
        dylan604 1y ago
        > I moved up here to N Texas and was surprised to find a Gibsons here. Curiosity kills the cat. What part of NTX? I'm willing to take a trip this weekend just for the lulz. You talking Sherman/Dennison/Paris/Gainesville north, or just Denton/McKinney north? Only thing I'm seeing is one way out west in Weatherford.
- Veserv 1y ago
  Ah yes, Google could make a unhackable phone secure against state actors, they just do not feel like it. Not at all a problem that is viewed as so impossible that the very notion of it is beyond belief to the overwhelming majority of software developers. Google can just waltz on down to the corner store and get a jug of unhackable phone software. They just do not want to. The fact of the matter is that they are incapable of making systems consistently secure against even moderately funded professional cyber demolitions teams. This is true across the entire commercial IT industry with literal decades of evidence and proof time and time again. Could it also be a conspiracy? Could they also have deliberate backdoors? Sure. But even without them their systems and everyone else are grossly inadequate for the current threat landscape which only continues to pull further and further ahead of their lackluster system security.
  - wizardforhire 1y ago
    I’ll be asking Anwar down at the bodega to start carrying jugs of unhackable from now on! I want to try the new razzle dazzle berry and 4D cool ranch if he can get them…
- Youden 1y ago
  Google brings to mind the ship of Theseus - many of the core decision makers have changed over the years, to the point where it's arguably a different company. The biggest change was 2015 (two years after your article): the founders and Eric Schmidt stepped back and a couple of other folks retired, leading to a new CEO, CFO and CBO. Their opinions on how to best run the company were quite different to their predecessors. I think another major change is the attention Google started to get from government and regulators.
  - magtux 1y ago
    > the founders and Eric Schmidt Still have huge influence as demonstrated by them stepping in to lead parts of the AI push. Ezra Klein actually has an interesting perspective that the owner class of Silicon Valley has moved right a lot more and the workers are still the same politically causing companies to behave differently. My experience in Tech largely tracks. I would say the middle management and manager class are largely good people and try to navigate the world as best they can although they will choose to not rock the boat whenever possible. The tolerance for activism has just evaporated so we don't hear as much about it anymore.
  - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
    You mean the same Eric Schmidt who admitted that he used a BlackBerry for years after Android was released?
GeekyBear 1y ago
No American company has a choice when the Feds want data stored on a company's server. That doesn't stop Apple or any other company from designing devices that attempt to keep prying eyes out of the data stored on your device.
- bitwize 1y ago
  The government has ways of twisting the arms of uncooperative people/organizations into providing all the backdoors they need. Everything from increased tax and regulatory scrutiny to "discovering" CSAM on executives' computers or phones. The government does what it wants because it's the government. Mere laws generally don't stand in its way for long.
  - gleenn 1y ago
    I think this is a very negative idea to promote: that laws should can be subverted. Everyone should believe that laws work and when they don't we should work to fix that, not assume that it can never be fixed.
    - thisonetimeonly 1y ago
      It’s the truth, however. Blinding yourself to it won’t make governments any less inclined to bend (or outright break) any laws they deem necessary to achieve their goals. We should work to fix that, no question about it, but ignorance will not by itself improve the situation in imaginable any way.
    - underlipton 1y ago
      I think it's healthy to imagine how authorities might abuse power and under what impetus, in order to head off those abuses. Laws have been subverted in the past, so it's rational to assume that they might be subverted in the future. This is actually a cornerstone of any effort to fix issues.
    - clanky 1y ago
      It can be fixed, but not through the same protocols and institutions that have been compromised.
kangs 1y ago
google even has specially signed fw that let you root the device and unlock anything that doesn't rely on the passcode. secureboot passing and all. i can't imagine that the nsa doesnt have them. after that you just gotta crack the usually very simple passcode. wouldny be surprised if thats what cellrite has lol.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Is grapheheOS actually harder to hack or does cellebrite just not put a lot of effort into supporting it because the very low odds of LEs running into one in the wild?

markus_zhang 1y ago
I read from an old HN post that three letter agencies hate graphen OS. The author heard it from defcon or some similar conference. I couldn’t find the post anyway :/ I think it is buried under one of the posts that discuss Defcon and Blackhat.
- overfeed 1y ago
  Wouldn't it be a total mindfuck if it turns out that Graphene is less secure[1] than stock Pixel, and this is all part of an ANOM-style honeypot operation that has Feds hyping it up, to trick interesting targets into adopting a less-effective security posture. 1. Such as via slower 0-day responses, for instance. This is a thought experiment, I'm nor alleging that this is what it is.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Anyone can build GrapheneOS from source code, which I doubt is true of any law-enforcement honeypot.
    - embedding-shape 1y ago
      Exactly what someone who sets up a honeypot targeting nerds would want you to think.
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        You can actually build it. But who has time to audit all that stuff? Then you know, there could be firmware hacks that make all the system-level backdoors a moot point.

LoganDark 1y ago

GrapheneOS makes security trade-off that are inconvenient to the user. This results in a far more secure device, but nonetheless a device that the general public would find far more annoying. Google would lose a proportion of its user base by implementing the same protections. Example: https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytk1ng/grapheneos_vs_stock_android https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytk1ng/graphen... Also Google Pay is missing.

zb3 1y ago
Which particular thing you consider inconvenient or even annoying? You can even install Google Play there. I see just one minor tradeoff - no face unlock.
- MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
  That is a major feature. It prevents coerced unlocking.
  - tranq_cassowary 1y ago
    That's not the reasoning. The reasoning is lack of proper hardware support on supported devices for secure face unlock. Coerced unlocking also holds true for fingerprint in some instances and that's worked around by using 2FA (fingerprint + password/PIN).
- LoganDark 1y ago
  Google OS-level integration is absent, and while Google Play Services can be installed, you're still missing things like Chromecast. Also, there's more manual configuration (although I don't remember exactly what, I've never used GrapheneOS). A lot of stuff you do get for free, but not all of it, and stuff that's been removed as a "feature" isn't always stuff that nobody wants.
  - _lyxd 1y ago
    > stuff that's been removed as a "feature" isn't always stuff that nobody wants. Graphene isn't made to cater to what everyone wants. Face ID and fingerprint unlocking so clearly have no place in a hardened OS. "Google OS-level integration is absent" should not be suprising. This said, you ought to be able to have BFU security with stock Android and it's embarrassing Google ships stock vulnerable.

colordrops 1y ago

I'd almost want to avoid GrapheneOS because it gets so much attention from law enforcement that it's probably a big target for various agencies to find vulnerabilities in.

giantg2 1y ago
This doesn't make sense. If you're worried about the government targeting you, then what is the alternative... less hardened phones? At least Graphene will protect you better than the stock OS. If you're really that concerned then you shouldn't use anything going through cell tower (or take extreme precautions when doing so).
- colordrops 1y ago
  I did say "almost". But as you mention there aren't many alternative. It would be a better world if there were several options besides just Graphene that prioritize security.
  - chasil 1y ago
    What they are doing is difficult and expensive. The talent pool that is willing to work in a nonprofit is not likely large.
  - subscribed 1y ago
    In reality you have iPhones (in lockdown mode meaning you mist throw some of the usability away) or GrapheneOS if you prefer android. No other hardware and software solutions come close. Cellebrite matrix shows it pretty well (and from late 2024 cellebrite cannot even extract entire phone form the unlocked GOS.
Xss3 1y ago
More attention than stock android?

tranq_cassowary 1y ago

GrapheneOS isn't made by volunteers. They have a team of around 10 paid developers. They are a nonprofit foundation that receives donations and uses those to pay developers, infrastructure etc. Ars Technica has update its article to rectify that mistake. It doesn't mention that anymore.

isodev 1y ago
It’s still a valid question. We have this huge corporation that’s doing so many things, constantly lobbying for policy, obscene revenue all while people are exploiting the apk out of their OS. In fact, looking at the news this week, the same question applies to Microsoft and Apple as well. Are they too big and distracted to care about security?
- saagarjha 1y ago
  No, it's just that the user will not put up with a system like GrapheneOS.
  - Sanzig 1y ago
    How so? Graphene is perfectly useable for a non-technical user. And once you install Play Store, it's almost indistinguishable UX-wise from any other Android phone.
    - udev4096 1y ago
      He's a fucking ignorant normie. He has never even tried to install GOS because if he did, he would know how almost identical the experience is with Android and there are no privileged google processes running on your phone which not only hog the resources but sends every single bit of information about your whole life
      - saagarjha 1y ago
        I have tried installing it, for your information

FrequentLurker 1y ago

So much for all the security posturing by Google lol.

subscribed 1y ago
I mean, hardware is great, it's literally the only safe and secure hardware for AOSP. Samsung are mostly security theater, all the other brands are shockingly bad.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lucasluitjes 1y ago

GrapheneOS is basically the Android equivalent of iOS Lockdown mode. Considering how the threat landscape has changed, it would be nice if Google offered this itself. Or became a long-term sponsor of GrapheneOS, seeing how great a job they've been doing.

subscribed 1y ago
Not really. iOS in lockdown mode has multiple features disabled (or crippled, depending on how you look at it), while GrapheneOS is just..... secure by design with secure defaults. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 In iPhone also you cannot just turn on/off/adjust these protections one by one, it's all or nothing.
- mike_d 1y ago
  > OS in lockdown mode has multiple features disabled [...] while GrapheneOS is just... ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, SafetyNet, push notifications, support for any apps requiring device integrity, etc. They aren't redesigning and re-implementing these features securely, they are reducing attack surface just like lockdown mode.
  - subscribed 1y ago
    >> [...] while GrapheneOS is just... > ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, This is broadly false, not just misleading but false. - Android Auto: working wired or wireless without problems - Google Pay: app vendor choice to put it behind DEVICE_INTEGRITY check, not OS vendor. NFC payments work just fine with other vendors. - enhanced GPS: whatever that means, is most likely false. Users don't experience any issues with GPS > SafetyNet SafetyNet Attestation API is deprecated and no longer available so also not true. But from the context I think you meant Play Integrity API. This is Google Services feature, not AOSP feature. GrapheneOS is an AOSP-based system. GOS passes MEETS_BASIC_INTEGRITY. It doesn't pass DEVICE_INTEGRITY because it doesn't run privileged, unbound Google Surveillance Services (according to Google 10 year old phone not updated for 8 years is more secure as long as it allows Google Services sniff everywhere). It cannot pass MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY they way Google requires it because AFAIR that thing is signed by the TPM. It does provide an alternative STRONG_INTEGRITY assurance based on the AOSP Hardware Attestation API (which many developers in fact use). > push notifications, This is so false it should be called out as a lie, not just a falsehood. Reliable push notifications are supported both in the standard way (if user decides to do so), via GCM, or in one in the alternative ways, for example UP, exactly like on the standard Android phone. > support for any apps requiring device integrity, etc. This is also a lie or ignorance. See above. For example Starling Bank has explicitly implemented GOS Hardware Attestation API. > They aren't redesigning and re-implementing these features securely, What do you mean? hardened_malloc? Memory tagging for entire kernel? automatic switch to BFU after timeout? USB data blocked by default with the screen locked? Network permission toggle? Storage/contact scopes? Critical patches released seemingly _months_ before the major vendors? LOL. Half of your claims are either lies or misrepresentation. The other half (Google Pay and Play Integrity) are vendor functionality. They would have to spoof (fake) it - exactly like rooted phones do (and which can often be detected). Or allow Google in the privileged mode, which is not going to happen. That has been explained by the development team _so_ many times already. They cannot "re-implement" a feature that *GOOGLE* offers to the developers using *Google store*. That would for example require using leaked private key. They are challenging Google's stance on Play Integrity with EU commission, because there is no technical reason to bar the safe hardware+OS passing a standard AOSP hw attestation. This is an AOSP OS, not a hacked Google Pixel ROM. > they are reducing attack surface just like lockdown mode. They are reducing attack surfaces without locking down functionality. Google deciding to not support the competition is not GOS locking somehow down. Entirely different from Apple's lockdown mode. QED. I wouldn't mind listing _downsides_ of using GOS as a first/main device (because there are many), but I prefer facts over confabulations :)

markstos 1y ago

One idea is that the stock rom by Google may phone home even when locked. Perhaps with a malicious WiFi network, attackers can exploit the phone through a flaw in DNS or HTTP handling. If GrapheneOS skips contacting remote servers like that, they would not be vulnerable. It would be a story of Google prioritizing tracking over security.

bitfilped 1y ago

Googles goal as a company is to raise their stock price, graphenes goal is to make a secure phone OS. It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone that graphene is doing a better job.