4 ms·

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 publi

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.
    - LoganDark 1y ago
      > Graphene isn't made to cater to what everyone wants. I know! My entire point is Graphene wouldn't be a good choice for the stock OS on a mass-market phone. The Graphene devices will be great, but if Google were to replace their stock OS with Graphene there would be problems.
      - scheeseman486 1y ago
        Virtually every issue I have with GrapheneOS stems directly from the lack of Google Play Integrity causing app incompatibilities. There's some little bits of friction here and there like security mitigations causing app crashes, but when that happens the OS tells you exactly what happened, why, and how to prevent it in the future (there's toggles to disable specific mitigations on a per-app basis). If the OS was deployed widely, those crashes would likely disappear as patches get deployed by developers. It's very polished and completely usable as a daily driver.
      - subscribed 1y ago
        Okay, but who cares to be honest? :) If the general public prefers unsafe phones, they can chose literally any else brand. This is never going to be a mass market phone because of the tradeoffs that are perfectly fine for the intended recipients (eg people who believe a torch/calculator app REALLY doesn't need internet access, or that their Instagram REALLY doesn't need to have access to ALL the photos/videos.
    - tranq_cassowary 1y ago
      Fingerprint is present in GrapheneOS. Face unlock and pattern unlock are left out because insecure. Patterns unlock is insecure in design. You start at a certain point and the next points you can go to are very limited (not the same point again and you have to be able to reach it). This makes it hard to make a strong lock. Face unlock is insecure because lack of proper hardware for it on the supported phones. Fingerprint is secure. Coercion can be worked around via 2FA feature (fingerprint + pass/PIN).
- tranq_cassowary 1y ago
  The face unlock is deliberately left out. Non-EOL Pixel hardware, the only currently support phones, don't have the hardware to support secure face unlock. They lack the sensors. Face unlock on current Pixels is not secure and should be avoided, on stock OS as well.
- chasil 1y ago
  They removed pattern lock, which makes me uncomfortable. I don't care for touch/fingerprint (or face) because biometrics aren't protected in the fifth amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The only screen lock is PIN.
  - subscribed 1y ago
    Straight from the horse's mouth: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16393-maybe-re-instate-pattern-unlock/14 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16393-maybe-re-instate-patt... > Pattern unlock is a badly designed lock method that's a major downgrade from the security of a PIN for multiple reasons. > Pattern lock is even more dangerous to people who are as you say more casual users. It is a badly designed and dangerous feature. iPhones not having this is very good for users. We will not add back a major flaw in the OS security design. If this makes you uncomfortable somehow? OK? Maybe it's not an OS for you :)
    - chasil 1y ago
      That is hardly the only problem. The browser is astonishingly bad at dark mode. The launcher forces almost all icons to greyscale black and white and does not accept icon packs. I feel like I'm downgrading by my compulsion for Brave and Lawnchair, but some attention is lacking in aesthetics. (e/os has this problem to a lesser degree with the Bliss launcher.) There is no rooted ADB. Even if a giant OS TAINTED notification appears every five minutes if I ever turn it on, I want it. There are a few other annoyances that regulate Graphene to one of my experimental spares.
      - subscribed 1y ago
        Vanadium is pretty good but I agree there are problems I can circumvent only by using another one (Brave); I presume it's the strict tracking protection that breaks some sites. Not sure about your launcher problem, but you had to turn it on yourself? I don't experience anything like this on my phones. I miss Nova though; none of the other launchers I tried came near (last tried: uLauncher, Kvaesito, Olauncher, Lawnchar, Niagara. Need to try Square home perhaps). Lack of rooted adb is a good, conscious choice for the security focused OS. It's not about _you_, it's about the integrity of the OS. You demand access to adb root. Today Cellebrite cannot extract entire phone with one profile unlocked. I bet they'd be thrilled to hear about the new, beautiful target. If you really need that, you can build yourself debug image and have access to it. You want it, but that's incompatible with the security model. They give you ways to get it, of course, but without their stamp of OS integrity. To me safe defaults are a good choice.
tranq_cassowary 1y ago
Google Wallet works but tap-to-pay NFC payments don't because Google enforces strong Play Integrity for that portion. They only allow Google certified OSes to use it. It's a sad choice on their part, not GrapheneOS' fault or choice.
- LoganDark 1y ago
  Without Google Pay, Google Wallet is practically a glorified card number vault. Which can still be useful, just not at card terminals.
  - tranq_cassowary 1y ago
    True. This is an issue in America specifically. Where there is a Google Apple duopoly on tap-to-pay tech. Can be worked around though with smart watches like Garmin watch with Garmin Pay. In many other regions there are alternatives like Curve Pay or tap-to-pay functionalities in banking apps
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      Google Pay also works with a Pixel watch connected to a GrapheneOS phone, FWIW.
      - LilBytes 1y ago
        Oh is that right? That's cool. That might be enough to give Graphene another go, especially since Android Car is supported now. Thank you.
        dns_snek 1y ago
        Yeah, technically your phone isn't even involved. The watch manages all the cryptographic keys independently and you can add cards through the Google Wallet app or website.
        subscribed 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
wshttp 1y ago
[dead]

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.
  - LoganDark 1y ago
    > Graphene isn't made to cater to what everyone wants. I know! My entire point is Graphene wouldn't be a good choice for the stock OS on a mass-market phone. The Graphene devices will be great, but if Google were to replace their stock OS with Graphene there would be problems.
    - scheeseman486 1y ago
      Virtually every issue I have with GrapheneOS stems directly from the lack of Google Play Integrity causing app incompatibilities. There's some little bits of friction here and there like security mitigations causing app crashes, but when that happens the OS tells you exactly what happened, why, and how to prevent it in the future (there's toggles to disable specific mitigations on a per-app basis). If the OS was deployed widely, those crashes would likely disappear as patches get deployed by developers. It's very polished and completely usable as a daily driver.
    - subscribed 1y ago
      Okay, but who cares to be honest? :) If the general public prefers unsafe phones, they can chose literally any else brand. This is never going to be a mass market phone because of the tradeoffs that are perfectly fine for the intended recipients (eg people who believe a torch/calculator app REALLY doesn't need internet access, or that their Instagram REALLY doesn't need to have access to ALL the photos/videos.
  - tranq_cassowary 1y ago
    Fingerprint is present in GrapheneOS. Face unlock and pattern unlock are left out because insecure. Patterns unlock is insecure in design. You start at a certain point and the next points you can go to are very limited (not the same point again and you have to be able to reach it). This makes it hard to make a strong lock. Face unlock is insecure because lack of proper hardware for it on the supported phones. Fingerprint is secure. Coercion can be worked around via 2FA feature (fingerprint + pass/PIN).
tranq_cassowary 1y ago
The face unlock is deliberately left out. Non-EOL Pixel hardware, the only currently support phones, don't have the hardware to support secure face unlock. They lack the sensors. Face unlock on current Pixels is not secure and should be avoided, on stock OS as well.
chasil 1y ago
They removed pattern lock, which makes me uncomfortable. I don't care for touch/fingerprint (or face) because biometrics aren't protected in the fifth amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The only screen lock is PIN.
- subscribed 1y ago
  Straight from the horse's mouth: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16393-maybe-re-instate-pattern-unlock/14 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16393-maybe-re-instate-patt... > Pattern unlock is a badly designed lock method that's a major downgrade from the security of a PIN for multiple reasons. > Pattern lock is even more dangerous to people who are as you say more casual users. It is a badly designed and dangerous feature. iPhones not having this is very good for users. We will not add back a major flaw in the OS security design. If this makes you uncomfortable somehow? OK? Maybe it's not an OS for you :)
  - chasil 1y ago
    That is hardly the only problem. The browser is astonishingly bad at dark mode. The launcher forces almost all icons to greyscale black and white and does not accept icon packs. I feel like I'm downgrading by my compulsion for Brave and Lawnchair, but some attention is lacking in aesthetics. (e/os has this problem to a lesser degree with the Bliss launcher.) There is no rooted ADB. Even if a giant OS TAINTED notification appears every five minutes if I ever turn it on, I want it. There are a few other annoyances that regulate Graphene to one of my experimental spares.
    - subscribed 1y ago
      Vanadium is pretty good but I agree there are problems I can circumvent only by using another one (Brave); I presume it's the strict tracking protection that breaks some sites. Not sure about your launcher problem, but you had to turn it on yourself? I don't experience anything like this on my phones. I miss Nova though; none of the other launchers I tried came near (last tried: uLauncher, Kvaesito, Olauncher, Lawnchar, Niagara. Need to try Square home perhaps). Lack of rooted adb is a good, conscious choice for the security focused OS. It's not about _you_, it's about the integrity of the OS. You demand access to adb root. Today Cellebrite cannot extract entire phone with one profile unlocked. I bet they'd be thrilled to hear about the new, beautiful target. If you really need that, you can build yourself debug image and have access to it. You want it, but that's incompatible with the security model. They give you ways to get it, of course, but without their stamp of OS integrity. To me safe defaults are a good choice.

tranq_cassowary 1y ago

Google Wallet works but tap-to-pay NFC payments don't because Google enforces strong Play Integrity for that portion. They only allow Google certified OSes to use it. It's a sad choice on their part, not GrapheneOS' fault or choice.

LoganDark 1y ago
Without Google Pay, Google Wallet is practically a glorified card number vault. Which can still be useful, just not at card terminals.
- tranq_cassowary 1y ago
  True. This is an issue in America specifically. Where there is a Google Apple duopoly on tap-to-pay tech. Can be worked around though with smart watches like Garmin watch with Garmin Pay. In many other regions there are alternatives like Curve Pay or tap-to-pay functionalities in banking apps
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    Google Pay also works with a Pixel watch connected to a GrapheneOS phone, FWIW.
    - LilBytes 1y ago
      Oh is that right? That's cool. That might be enough to give Graphene another go, especially since Android Car is supported now. Thank you.
      - dns_snek 1y ago
        Yeah, technically your phone isn't even involved. The watch manages all the cryptographic keys independently and you can add cards through the Google Wallet app or website.
      - subscribed 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

wshttp 1y ago

[dead]