16 ms·

GrapheneOS is the only Android OS providing full security patches

793 points by akyuu 10mo ago

emsign 10mo ago
Is this supposed to be a joke? The best security of GrapheneOS is useless to people who don't own Don't-be-evil-hardware.
- tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
  It is sadly not a joke. Its sad that OEMs outside Google and Apple currently dont make hardware and firmware with reasonable security.
komali2 10mo ago
> may i ask how you obtain the source? Are you registered as an OEM at Google? Same question, how does Graphene get patches?
- AlgebraFox 10mo ago
  Yes. They've parterned with an OEM. In fact, they are making an official GOS phone with that OEM.
  - styanax 10mo ago
    Here's the discussion forum post going over it: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
  - throawayonthe 10mo ago
    afaict it's more like "making sure <OEM>'s next flagship supports graphene"
- subscribed 10mo ago
  They have partnership an OEM who provides them with sources. Currently they're only permitted to release binaries of the patches due to the embargo, this is why these patches are in the parallel stream/optional (so people unhappy with being unable to see the sources won't have them shoved down their throats). I don't have URLs at hand at the moment but all these questions have been asked many times and explained extensively on their discussion forum. I, for one, feel safe. I was patched since late October (IIRC) for the vulnerabilities that Android-related outlets were warning about in early December. It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android is. And how Google and the big companies pretend old devices (these running Android 11, 12, 13, not updated for several years) are safe and secure. While all it takes is the user stumbling upon one malicious we page or getting a WhatsApp message they won't even see.
  - yaro330 10mo ago
    > It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
    - thegeekpirate 10mo ago
      > Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6 Pixel 8 https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel
      - kernal 10mo ago
        Pixel 8 updates end in 2030. Or did you think the 7 years of updates didn't apply to it?
        thegeekpirate 10mo ago
        I replied to a poster who said the seven years of updates began with the Pixel 6 with "Pixel 8" and a link which showed when support expires on these devices, because... it began with the Pixel 8, not 6.
walterbell 10mo ago
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership > GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
- axelthegerman 10mo ago
  Oh that's one of the best news in the smartphone world in a long time. It's impossible to escape the Apple/Google duopoly but at least GrapheneOS makes the most out of Android regarding privacy. I still wish we could get some kind of low resource, stable and mature Android clone instead of Google needlessly increasing complexity but this will over time break app compatibility (Google will make sure of it) Edit: I do think Pixel devices used to be one of the best but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
  - Kuraj 10mo ago
    You might also be interested in Jolla Phone https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368
    - Klonoar 10mo ago
      If you're stateside and want a shipping Linux phone today, [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com http://furilabs.com) is another option. Graphene is in a class of its own compared to both of these though and there's frankly no reason to bother unless you're trying to improve those ecosystems.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - embedding-shape 10mo ago
nanomonkey 10mo ago
As a LineageOS user, I'd be interested in the disparity between GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
- worldsavior 10mo ago
  https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
  - uneekname 10mo ago
    This is a great resource! Thanks
  - the_biot 10mo ago
    That comparison shows "Deblobbed? Yes" for GrapheneOS. That implies they've replaced (most of) the blobs for wifi, bluetooth, 5g chips etc. Is that actually true? It's such a big deal, and I see little to no work being done on this front. Anyone have any idea what GrapheneOS actually deblobbed?
    - fmajid 10mo ago
      They can because they essentially support Google chipsets, which are not blobby like MediaTek or Qualcomm because Google for all its faults is still relatively open (except their recent change in release schedules is why the Pixel 10 series still only has experimental GrapheneOS support).
      - vbezhenar 10mo ago
        Do you claim that there's a place where I can find datasheets for peripheral devices for Google Pixel? Like GPU, etc.
        fmajid 10mo ago
        No, but they used to publish the source code for the drivers as part of AOSP. Now they no longer publish the device trees. Check out GrapheneOS' other Mastodon posts for the gory details.
SubiculumCode 10mo ago
Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion, yet today, almost every phone has closed drivers, closed and locked bootloaders, and almost complete corporate control over our devices? Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
- idle_zealot 10mo ago
  > Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice? There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves. That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm. i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
  - fmajid 10mo ago
    Most ARM devices don't have UEFI or a standardized hardware abstraction layer as x86/x64 does, a prerequisite for having a choice of OSes.
    - vbezhenar 10mo ago
      I don't believe that's the true problem. Booting operating system is not a problem. There's no standardized hardware abstraction layer in PC either, every OS brings their own set of drivers. My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers. That wasn't the case back in the 90-s, when Linux matured. So we are at mercy of hardware manufacturers and they happened to not be interested in open upstreamed drivers.
jMyles 10mo ago
Obviously this situation can't go on. If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player. Presently (and I confess, my bias to seek non-state solutions may show here), it seems that a non-trivial part of the duopoly stems from regulatory capture insofar as the duopoly isn't merely software, but extends all the way to TSMC and Qualcomm, whose operations seem to be completely subject to state dictates, both economic/regulatory and of the darker surveillance/statecraft variety (and of those, presumably some are classified). I'm reminded of the server market 20ish years ago, where, although there were more than two players, the array of simple, flexible linux distros that are dominant today were somewhere between poorly documented and unavailable. I remember my university still running windows servers in ~2008 or so. What do we need to do to achieve the same evolution that the last 2-3 decades of server OS's have seen? Is there presently a mobile linux OS that's worth jumping on? Is there simple hardware to go with it?
- akyuu 10mo ago
  Take a look at Jolla and Sailfish OS. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://sailfishos.org https://sailfishos.org
  - nextos 10mo ago
    FWIW, Jolla just announced a new phone: https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder
    - aaravchen 10mo ago
      It was discussed here when it was announced. I believe it was determined the hardware is an ultra-low-budget Aliexpress design that normally retails for ~$100 that they had custom built with a mic cutoff switch added to it (probably the cause of a large portion of the hardware price increase). I dont remember the specifics, but even thr most optimistic were pretty sure it won't get hardware vendor support for even a full year based on the specific processor it contains.
y-c-o-m-b 10mo ago
Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. That's the biggest bottleneck for adoption it seems. I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), but not being able to use Graphene in the future hurts a bit for sure.
- gruez 10mo ago
  >Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. [...] I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), There are plenty of deals for pixels under $820: https://slickdeals.net/search?q=pixel&searcharea=deals&searchin=first&isUserSearch=1&sort=recent&searchtype=normal&filters%5Bforum%5D%5B%5D=0&filters%5Brating%5D%5B%5D=all&filters%5Bdate%5D%5B%5D=1095&page=1 https://slickdeals.net/search?q=pixel&searcharea=deals&searc...
- morserer 10mo ago
  Goodness, friend, where were you looking? A used 256GB Pixel 8 in good condition is $320. https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&color=&storage=256gb&modeln=&edition=&condition=&sort= https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&...
  - whitepoplar 10mo ago
    One caveat--you have to be certain that you get a Pixel with an unlocked bootloader. There are a lot of Pixels (mostly sold by Verizon) that are unlocked for use with any carrier, but whose bootloaders remain locked. If you have one of these ex-Verizon phones, there is no way as of now to unlock the bootloader.
    - morserer 10mo ago
      This is true, and important. Thanks for the reminder. The list linked above (and the price tag deduced from it) is restricted to unlocked phones only for this reason.
sgt 10mo ago
Samsung Androids are not safe? Big surprise there! /s
- jimjimwii 10mo ago
  Given what they choose to ship with their phones in some regions, id say that Samsung absolutely doesn't care about the security of their customers of they can get away with it.
mrbluecoat 10mo ago
GrapheneOS goes even further by allowing you to opt in to pre-embargo security releases, bypassing the vulnerable window between vendor disclosure and OEM patches. Awesome!
einpoklum 10mo ago
... maybe, but it also drops support pretty fast, and not supported on most phones :-(
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  It supports devices just as long as the OEM does, which for modern Pixels is now 7 years, which is more than what Apple advertises for the iPhone. Considering people upgrade phones every 2 or 3 years, this is over double the amount of time of support than one would use the phone for. I disagree the support is for a short period of time.
  - einpoklum 10mo ago
    An important motivation for a FOSS OS for phones is not having to buy a new phone just to have up-to-date software. Also, "people" who buy a Google-Pixel-level phone every two years are likely among the richer... let's say 10% of the world's population? Probably even less. The rest - don't do that.
    - ysnp 10mo ago
      Reducing waste is very important, but I think this is something you need to take up with the Android OEMs. GrapheneOS can't really do anything about the fact that Android OEMs stop supporting the device and allow vulnerabilities to go unaddressed. For context in this situation, GrapheneOS is also trying to provide a best-in-class privacy/security experience for people. There were other projects that are/were dedicated to supporting abandoned hardware. A connected world full of devices with excessively vulnerable hardware & software is also something GrapheneOS are desperate to avoid.
- CommanderData 10mo ago
  Pixel's design makes a good candidate for GrapheneOS or a secure OS in general. The baseband hardware is not integrated the same way like other phones are.
  - 10mo ago
immibis 10mo ago
You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.
- bnjms 10mo ago
  Does the Celebrite leak say out can break recent iOS?
  - udev4096 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ranger_danger 10mo ago
      Source:
      - immibis 10mo ago
        The source is Apple. They can access any phone if they want to. In this case, they didn't want to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
        ranger_danger 10mo ago
        I don't see anything written there that says Apple has a current capability to "access any phone" which I am assuming to mean personal info like SMS message contents... just a whole lot of reasoning why they haven't had that capability in years.
        udev4096 10mo ago
        [flagged]
- 10mo ago
raggi 10mo ago
Understaffed gift product wants 1 week cycles. OEMs want 2-4 month cycles. This is a perfect representation of the state of the software industry.
- luca020400 10mo ago
  I don't think that's a fair comparison. OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public. They have to pass xTS, the set of test suites required before getting certified by Google, possibly carrier certification, regulatory requirements and more depending on where the build will be released. There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system. I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
  - yaro330 10mo ago
    Yep. And GrapheneOS's changes to the kernels of devices they ship are laughably small, 20-30 commits at most. I don't think they even do any basic CVE checks on any of the source code. Fuzzing, actual security analysis - all those things are done by Google.
    - throawayonthe 10mo ago
      isn't that by design? for GKIs i mean
    - raggi 10mo ago
      Their contributions upstream go way back, I think someone could misread this comment that they've not contributed, and that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.
    - strcat 10mo ago
      GrapheneOS has made substantial upstream contributions to the Linux kernel and Pixel drivers including vulnerability reports. Many of our kernel changes are for the out-of-tree drivers needed for Pixels which are in a separate repository from the Generic Kernel Image code from the upstream Linux kernel. We make important downstream changes including enabling many more of the upstream security features and adding important protections not yet available there. We worked with multiple upstream Linux kernel developers to get many of the changes we used to have upstream and therefore no longer need them. We have major kernel security improvements in development including more security-focused integration of hardware memory tagging, but indefinitely maintaining those downstream is not the way we try to do things. We use much newer Generic Kernel Images than the stock Pixel OS as the base. Android 16 QPR2 was released this month and they finally shipped 6.1.145 from July 2025 for the Pixel 6 through Pixel 9 compared to us being on 6.1.158 which was the latest until yesterday (6.1.159) which will be incorporated soon. It's similar for our 6.6 and 6.12 branches compared to theirs. 6.6 is the current Pixel 10 and near future Pixel 6 through Pixel 9 branch. They only update the kernel revision every 3 months in quarterly/yearly releases so this is the smallest the delay gets right after a quarterly release. They'll still be on 6.1.145 until the next major release in March 2026 so the current delay of having the July 2025 kernel in December 2025 is not representative but rather is the small side of the delay. Shipping the newer LTS revisions is not easy due to frequent regressions both in the upstream code and to a much lesser extent in the out-of-tree drivers needed for Pixels which often need small changes to adapt them to the new LTS revisions. GrapheneOS does a lot of deep security analysis and has proposed firmware, kernel and userspace exploit protections adopted by Google. We helped them get a bunch of vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild blocked off as whole classes of vulnerabilities including perf events, reset attacks on fastboot mode and much more. GrapheneOS is focused on addressing classes of vulnerabilities rather than individual bugs. Google puts a decent amount of resources into finding and fixing individual bugs and that isn't our focus. We get the bug fixes from the upstream project many months earlier and the Pixel driver fixes from them other than cases we fix them early due to finding them with hardware memory tagging which they don't use for the kernel even in Advanced Protection mode (or most of the base OS processes either, while we always use it for both with a much better implementation in userspace). Most of our changes are in userspace where we don't try to collaborate with upstream developers as much as we do with the Linux kernel. Most of userspace is not developed as openly in a way we can properly collaborate.
nunobrito 10mo ago
[flagged]
- OsrsNeedsf2P 10mo ago
  > Lest alone to use a distro with opaque financing sources that fully endorses government developed/sponsored platforms such as Signal and Tor. So you're against Signal, Tor, and Graphene, and suggest to instead use.. Lineage? Don't get me wrong, I love Lineage, it was my first custom ROM, but this seems a little tinfoil
  - ysnp 10mo ago
    It's inaccurate that GrapheneOS fully endorses Signal and Tor. The GrapheneOS founder was blocked by Moxie (when they were still leading the project) for criticising their approach. They have also warned countless times about the limitations and weaknesses of Tor.
- aniviacat 10mo ago
  Hacker News Guidelines [1]: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nunobrito 10mo ago
    I won't be silent to the obvious honeypotting and mob tactics to silence people around here.
    - morserer 10mo ago
      Then don't be. Go email the mods.
    - 10mo ago
p0w3n3d 10mo ago
The problem with custom android ROM is that the kernel is built with proprietary drivers, and porting them to other custom android is really hard
- strcat 10mo ago
  GrapheneOS doesn't have any proprietary kernel drivers. There aren't any for the supported devices. Firmware and a subset of userspace driver libraries such as the Mali GPU driver library are what's proprietary.
lima 10mo ago
Great, so this means that the only way to get an Android release that's up-to-date on security patches is a binary-only distro - either Google Pixel, or the GrapheneOS preview channel. Just wonderful. Google should know better than this, shame on the other OEMs that forced this mess.
- morserer 10mo ago
  If it's any consolation, preview builds are reproducible at the point that the embargo ends. A bit better than the definition of binary that we're used to. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases/17 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
t1234s 10mo ago
I notice my battery life is much better switching to graphine from the stock google rom.
- drnick1 10mo ago
  Yes, but keep in mind individual apps like Signal need to run in the background at all times if you want to receive timely notifications on Graphene, because they cannot rely on the Google backend for that. If you have enough such apps, you may well find that battery life is shorter than on the stock OS.
  - 0xC0ncord 10mo ago
    This is true if you opt not to install Google Play Services.
    - drnick1 10mo ago
      Good point, I chose not to on my main "Owner" profile to be fully Google-free. I have the sandboxed Play Services on a separate profile I hardly ever use for testing purposes.
  - morserer 10mo ago
    https://unifiedpush.org/ https://unifiedpush.org/ fixes this for a number of apps. Self-hostable. Battery life is still better than stock in my case, and it's just as reliable as sandboxed Play. Highly recommend.
hobberhaven 10mo ago
So this is interesting, they release the patched binaries several months before anyone else does and several months before the source code of the patches is released? This implies that anyone can download GrapheneOS firmware images and use binary diffing techniques to find what are still 0-day vulnerabilities on every Android other than GrapheneOS. Useful! Thank you GrapheneOS developers.
- shaky-carrousel 10mo ago
  You can extend your thanks to Google, as what you said is also easily done with Google's own updates.
agentifysh 10mo ago
which pixel model is best for grephene? I strongly prefer long battery life. will other phones be supported? why only pixel?
- mac-attack 10mo ago
  https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices
- eks391 10mo ago
  The OS is not very relevant to the Pixel. Compare the Pixels you like that are new (GrapheneOS drops support as models become older flagships, I think for security reasons) and get that one. IIRC, currently only Pixel is allowed, because the bootloader can be opened without rooting the device. https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
  - morserer 10mo ago
    Unrelated to bootloader or rooting. Pixels are the only phones that adhere to the device requirements that are listed in the FAQ. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
lucyjojo 10mo ago
damn, an upgrade path from my pixel 5.
singpolyma3 10mo ago
The GrapheneOS obsession with picking a fight with everyone else is the most unfortunate part of the project.
- bubblethink 10mo ago
  “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
  - udev4096 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ItsHarper 10mo ago
      I think they're agreeing with you
- RGBCube 10mo ago
  That's actually one of the best parts.
  - timschumi 10mo ago
    Not for the ones on the receiving end.
    - strcat 10mo ago
      Being on the receiving end of valid, technical criticism in response to making misleading claims about GrapheneOS for falsely marketing products is their own choice. It's certainly a lot nicer than being on the GrapheneOS team heavily targeted by libel, bullying and harassment from those groups. Here's a recent example of the founder of /e/ and Murena linking to libelous harassment content on a conspiracy site, which links to a Kiwi Farms style character assassination video from someone friends with neo-nazis: https://archive.is/SWXPJ https://archive.is/SWXPJ https://archive.is/n4yTO https://archive.is/n4yTO Check out the site for yourself. The linked video is plainly filled with extraordinarily dishonest claims that are widely disproven. Copperhead is losing the legal battle very badly and should end up paying our years of legal expenses soon. Other groups attacking us can look forward to similar losses in court when our attention moves to them. Years of libel, bullying and harassment has consequences.
Sparkyte 10mo ago
AI can't work if the OS isn't secure... lol... I'm doomed.
chiph 10mo ago
I absolutely loved my Moto X with the walnut back. I switched to an iPhone when it stopped getting security patches. It was built back when Google owned Motorola, before they sold off everything but the patent suite. And was intended to be their flagship phone - which the Pixel later became. Looking at the GrapheneOS FAQ, it doesn't look like I have a prayer of installing it on such an old device as it doesn't have the needed security hardware. Is there a lightweight Android install available?
- AstroNutt 10mo ago
  I've rooted and installed a few custom ROM's on phones back on the day, nothing recent though. Here is a good place to get started with your Moto X. https://xdaforums.com/c/moto-x.2449/ https://xdaforums.com/c/moto-x.2449/
cappuccinooo 10mo ago
i like graphite its nice and blcack and conductive
CommanderData 10mo ago
Although I don't use it I will be supporting the project. I'm quite proud of what they've achieved so far.
dackdel 10mo ago
who is the android oem they are partnering with
- tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
  Not yet disclosed. We know its a top 10 Android OEM though that cares about security for their future devices!
rurban 10mo ago
For Google Pixel 6-9 phones only. https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
Jemm 10mo ago
There are millions if not billions of older devices. What we need is an OS that support those.
- tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
  That would become a meaningless effort security wise as time goes on. The drivers and firmware will become outdated. OS updates are necessary but not sufficient. I get the e-waste / enviromental argument, and I think its very warranted to criticize OEMs for not providing long support times in the past. Apple and Google do this well in recent years, luckily.
mayukh_cube 10mo ago
This is long needed! a lot of big tech giants, even some authorities are trying to convert mobile phones into a spying gadget.

793 points by akyuu 10mo ago

emsign 10mo ago

Is this supposed to be a joke? The best security of GrapheneOS is useless to people who don't own Don't-be-evil-hardware.

tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
It is sadly not a joke. Its sad that OEMs outside Google and Apple currently dont make hardware and firmware with reasonable security.

komali2 10mo ago

> may i ask how you obtain the source? Are you registered as an OEM at Google? Same question, how does Graphene get patches?

AlgebraFox 10mo ago
Yes. They've parterned with an OEM. In fact, they are making an official GOS phone with that OEM.
- styanax 10mo ago
  Here's the discussion forum post going over it: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
- throawayonthe 10mo ago
  afaict it's more like "making sure <OEM>'s next flagship supports graphene"
subscribed 10mo ago
They have partnership an OEM who provides them with sources. Currently they're only permitted to release binaries of the patches due to the embargo, this is why these patches are in the parallel stream/optional (so people unhappy with being unable to see the sources won't have them shoved down their throats). I don't have URLs at hand at the moment but all these questions have been asked many times and explained extensively on their discussion forum. I, for one, feel safe. I was patched since late October (IIRC) for the vulnerabilities that Android-related outlets were warning about in early December. It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android is. And how Google and the big companies pretend old devices (these running Android 11, 12, 13, not updated for several years) are safe and secure. While all it takes is the user stumbling upon one malicious we page or getting a WhatsApp message they won't even see.
- yaro330 10mo ago
  > It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
  - thegeekpirate 10mo ago
    > Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6 Pixel 8 https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel
    - kernal 10mo ago
      Pixel 8 updates end in 2030. Or did you think the 7 years of updates didn't apply to it?
      - thegeekpirate 10mo ago
        I replied to a poster who said the seven years of updates began with the Pixel 6 with "Pixel 8" and a link which showed when support expires on these devices, because... it began with the Pixel 8, not 6.

walterbell 10mo ago

https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership > GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.

axelthegerman 10mo ago
Oh that's one of the best news in the smartphone world in a long time. It's impossible to escape the Apple/Google duopoly but at least GrapheneOS makes the most out of Android regarding privacy. I still wish we could get some kind of low resource, stable and mature Android clone instead of Google needlessly increasing complexity but this will over time break app compatibility (Google will make sure of it) Edit: I do think Pixel devices used to be one of the best but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
- Kuraj 10mo ago
  You might also be interested in Jolla Phone https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368
  - Klonoar 10mo ago
    If you're stateside and want a shipping Linux phone today, [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com http://furilabs.com) is another option. Graphene is in a class of its own compared to both of these though and there's frankly no reason to bother unless you're trying to improve those ecosystems.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago

nanomonkey 10mo ago

As a LineageOS user, I'd be interested in the disparity between GrapheneOS and LineageOS.

worldsavior 10mo ago
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
- uneekname 10mo ago
  This is a great resource! Thanks
- the_biot 10mo ago
  That comparison shows "Deblobbed? Yes" for GrapheneOS. That implies they've replaced (most of) the blobs for wifi, bluetooth, 5g chips etc. Is that actually true? It's such a big deal, and I see little to no work being done on this front. Anyone have any idea what GrapheneOS actually deblobbed?
  - fmajid 10mo ago
    They can because they essentially support Google chipsets, which are not blobby like MediaTek or Qualcomm because Google for all its faults is still relatively open (except their recent change in release schedules is why the Pixel 10 series still only has experimental GrapheneOS support).
    - vbezhenar 10mo ago
      Do you claim that there's a place where I can find datasheets for peripheral devices for Google Pixel? Like GPU, etc.
      - fmajid 10mo ago
        No, but they used to publish the source code for the drivers as part of AOSP. Now they no longer publish the device trees. Check out GrapheneOS' other Mastodon posts for the gory details.

SubiculumCode 10mo ago

Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion, yet today, almost every phone has closed drivers, closed and locked bootloaders, and almost complete corporate control over our devices? Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?

idle_zealot 10mo ago
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice? There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves. That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm. i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
- fmajid 10mo ago
  Most ARM devices don't have UEFI or a standardized hardware abstraction layer as x86/x64 does, a prerequisite for having a choice of OSes.
  - vbezhenar 10mo ago
    I don't believe that's the true problem. Booting operating system is not a problem. There's no standardized hardware abstraction layer in PC either, every OS brings their own set of drivers. My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers. That wasn't the case back in the 90-s, when Linux matured. So we are at mercy of hardware manufacturers and they happened to not be interested in open upstreamed drivers.

jMyles 10mo ago

Obviously this situation can't go on. If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player. Presently (and I confess, my bias to seek non-state solutions may show here), it seems that a non-trivial part of the duopoly stems from regulatory capture insofar as the duopoly isn't merely software, but extends all the way to TSMC and Qualcomm, whose operations seem to be completely subject to state dictates, both economic/regulatory and of the darker surveillance/statecraft variety (and of those, presumably some are classified). I'm reminded of the server market 20ish years ago, where, although there were more than two players, the array of simple, flexible linux distros that are dominant today were somewhere between poorly documented and unavailable. I remember my university still running windows servers in ~2008 or so. What do we need to do to achieve the same evolution that the last 2-3 decades of server OS's have seen? Is there presently a mobile linux OS that's worth jumping on? Is there simple hardware to go with it?

akyuu 10mo ago
Take a look at Jolla and Sailfish OS. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368 https://sailfishos.org https://sailfishos.org
- nextos 10mo ago
  FWIW, Jolla just announced a new phone: https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder
  - aaravchen 10mo ago
    It was discussed here when it was announced. I believe it was determined the hardware is an ultra-low-budget Aliexpress design that normally retails for ~$100 that they had custom built with a mic cutoff switch added to it (probably the cause of a large portion of the hardware price increase). I dont remember the specifics, but even thr most optimistic were pretty sure it won't get hardware vendor support for even a full year based on the specific processor it contains.

y-c-o-m-b 10mo ago

Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. That's the biggest bottleneck for adoption it seems. I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), but not being able to use Graphene in the future hurts a bit for sure.

gruez 10mo ago
>Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. [...] I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), There are plenty of deals for pixels under $820: https://slickdeals.net/search?q=pixel&searcharea=deals&searchin=first&isUserSearch=1&sort=recent&searchtype=normal&filters%5Bforum%5D%5B%5D=0&filters%5Brating%5D%5B%5D=all&filters%5Bdate%5D%5B%5D=1095&page=1 https://slickdeals.net/search?q=pixel&searcharea=deals&searc...
morserer 10mo ago
Goodness, friend, where were you looking? A used 256GB Pixel 8 in good condition is $320. https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&color=&storage=256gb&modeln=&edition=&condition=&sort= https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&...
- whitepoplar 10mo ago
  One caveat--you have to be certain that you get a Pixel with an unlocked bootloader. There are a lot of Pixels (mostly sold by Verizon) that are unlocked for use with any carrier, but whose bootloaders remain locked. If you have one of these ex-Verizon phones, there is no way as of now to unlock the bootloader.
  - morserer 10mo ago
    This is true, and important. Thanks for the reminder. The list linked above (and the price tag deduced from it) is restricted to unlocked phones only for this reason.

sgt 10mo ago

Samsung Androids are not safe? Big surprise there! /s

jimjimwii 10mo ago
Given what they choose to ship with their phones in some regions, id say that Samsung absolutely doesn't care about the security of their customers of they can get away with it.

mrbluecoat 10mo ago

GrapheneOS goes even further by allowing you to opt in to pre-embargo security releases, bypassing the vulnerable window between vendor disclosure and OEM patches. Awesome!

einpoklum 10mo ago

... maybe, but it also drops support pretty fast, and not supported on most phones :-(

charcircuit 10mo ago
It supports devices just as long as the OEM does, which for modern Pixels is now 7 years, which is more than what Apple advertises for the iPhone. Considering people upgrade phones every 2 or 3 years, this is over double the amount of time of support than one would use the phone for. I disagree the support is for a short period of time.
- einpoklum 10mo ago
  An important motivation for a FOSS OS for phones is not having to buy a new phone just to have up-to-date software. Also, "people" who buy a Google-Pixel-level phone every two years are likely among the richer... let's say 10% of the world's population? Probably even less. The rest - don't do that.
  - ysnp 10mo ago
    Reducing waste is very important, but I think this is something you need to take up with the Android OEMs. GrapheneOS can't really do anything about the fact that Android OEMs stop supporting the device and allow vulnerabilities to go unaddressed. For context in this situation, GrapheneOS is also trying to provide a best-in-class privacy/security experience for people. There were other projects that are/were dedicated to supporting abandoned hardware. A connected world full of devices with excessively vulnerable hardware & software is also something GrapheneOS are desperate to avoid.
CommanderData 10mo ago
Pixel's design makes a good candidate for GrapheneOS or a secure OS in general. The baseband hardware is not integrated the same way like other phones are.
- 10mo ago

immibis 10mo ago

You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.

bnjms 10mo ago
Does the Celebrite leak say out can break recent iOS?
- udev4096 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ranger_danger 10mo ago
    Source:
    - immibis 10mo ago
      The source is Apple. They can access any phone if they want to. In this case, they didn't want to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
      - ranger_danger 10mo ago
        I don't see anything written there that says Apple has a current capability to "access any phone" which I am assuming to mean personal info like SMS message contents... just a whole lot of reasoning why they haven't had that capability in years.
        udev4096 10mo ago
        [flagged]
10mo ago

raggi 10mo ago

Understaffed gift product wants 1 week cycles. OEMs want 2-4 month cycles. This is a perfect representation of the state of the software industry.

luca020400 10mo ago
I don't think that's a fair comparison. OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public. They have to pass xTS, the set of test suites required before getting certified by Google, possibly carrier certification, regulatory requirements and more depending on where the build will be released. There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system. I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
- yaro330 10mo ago
  Yep. And GrapheneOS's changes to the kernels of devices they ship are laughably small, 20-30 commits at most. I don't think they even do any basic CVE checks on any of the source code. Fuzzing, actual security analysis - all those things are done by Google.
  - throawayonthe 10mo ago
    isn't that by design? for GKIs i mean
  - raggi 10mo ago
    Their contributions upstream go way back, I think someone could misread this comment that they've not contributed, and that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.
  - strcat 10mo ago
    GrapheneOS has made substantial upstream contributions to the Linux kernel and Pixel drivers including vulnerability reports. Many of our kernel changes are for the out-of-tree drivers needed for Pixels which are in a separate repository from the Generic Kernel Image code from the upstream Linux kernel. We make important downstream changes including enabling many more of the upstream security features and adding important protections not yet available there. We worked with multiple upstream Linux kernel developers to get many of the changes we used to have upstream and therefore no longer need them. We have major kernel security improvements in development including more security-focused integration of hardware memory tagging, but indefinitely maintaining those downstream is not the way we try to do things. We use much newer Generic Kernel Images than the stock Pixel OS as the base. Android 16 QPR2 was released this month and they finally shipped 6.1.145 from July 2025 for the Pixel 6 through Pixel 9 compared to us being on 6.1.158 which was the latest until yesterday (6.1.159) which will be incorporated soon. It's similar for our 6.6 and 6.12 branches compared to theirs. 6.6 is the current Pixel 10 and near future Pixel 6 through Pixel 9 branch. They only update the kernel revision every 3 months in quarterly/yearly releases so this is the smallest the delay gets right after a quarterly release. They'll still be on 6.1.145 until the next major release in March 2026 so the current delay of having the July 2025 kernel in December 2025 is not representative but rather is the small side of the delay. Shipping the newer LTS revisions is not easy due to frequent regressions both in the upstream code and to a much lesser extent in the out-of-tree drivers needed for Pixels which often need small changes to adapt them to the new LTS revisions. GrapheneOS does a lot of deep security analysis and has proposed firmware, kernel and userspace exploit protections adopted by Google. We helped them get a bunch of vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild blocked off as whole classes of vulnerabilities including perf events, reset attacks on fastboot mode and much more. GrapheneOS is focused on addressing classes of vulnerabilities rather than individual bugs. Google puts a decent amount of resources into finding and fixing individual bugs and that isn't our focus. We get the bug fixes from the upstream project many months earlier and the Pixel driver fixes from them other than cases we fix them early due to finding them with hardware memory tagging which they don't use for the kernel even in Advanced Protection mode (or most of the base OS processes either, while we always use it for both with a much better implementation in userspace). Most of our changes are in userspace where we don't try to collaborate with upstream developers as much as we do with the Linux kernel. Most of userspace is not developed as openly in a way we can properly collaborate.

nunobrito 10mo ago

[flagged]

OsrsNeedsf2P 10mo ago
> Lest alone to use a distro with opaque financing sources that fully endorses government developed/sponsored platforms such as Signal and Tor. So you're against Signal, Tor, and Graphene, and suggest to instead use.. Lineage? Don't get me wrong, I love Lineage, it was my first custom ROM, but this seems a little tinfoil
- ysnp 10mo ago
  It's inaccurate that GrapheneOS fully endorses Signal and Tor. The GrapheneOS founder was blocked by Moxie (when they were still leading the project) for criticising their approach. They have also warned countless times about the limitations and weaknesses of Tor.
aniviacat 10mo ago
Hacker News Guidelines [1]: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nunobrito 10mo ago
  I won't be silent to the obvious honeypotting and mob tactics to silence people around here.
  - morserer 10mo ago
    Then don't be. Go email the mods.
  - 10mo ago

p0w3n3d 10mo ago

The problem with custom android ROM is that the kernel is built with proprietary drivers, and porting them to other custom android is really hard

strcat 10mo ago
GrapheneOS doesn't have any proprietary kernel drivers. There aren't any for the supported devices. Firmware and a subset of userspace driver libraries such as the Mali GPU driver library are what's proprietary.

lima 10mo ago

Great, so this means that the only way to get an Android release that's up-to-date on security patches is a binary-only distro - either Google Pixel, or the GrapheneOS preview channel. Just wonderful. Google should know better than this, shame on the other OEMs that forced this mess.

morserer 10mo ago
If it's any consolation, preview builds are reproducible at the point that the embargo ends. A bit better than the definition of binary that we're used to. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases/17 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...

t1234s 10mo ago

I notice my battery life is much better switching to graphine from the stock google rom.

drnick1 10mo ago
Yes, but keep in mind individual apps like Signal need to run in the background at all times if you want to receive timely notifications on Graphene, because they cannot rely on the Google backend for that. If you have enough such apps, you may well find that battery life is shorter than on the stock OS.
- 0xC0ncord 10mo ago
  This is true if you opt not to install Google Play Services.
  - drnick1 10mo ago
    Good point, I chose not to on my main "Owner" profile to be fully Google-free. I have the sandboxed Play Services on a separate profile I hardly ever use for testing purposes.
- morserer 10mo ago
  https://unifiedpush.org/ https://unifiedpush.org/ fixes this for a number of apps. Self-hostable. Battery life is still better than stock in my case, and it's just as reliable as sandboxed Play. Highly recommend.

hobberhaven 10mo ago

So this is interesting, they release the patched binaries several months before anyone else does and several months before the source code of the patches is released? This implies that anyone can download GrapheneOS firmware images and use binary diffing techniques to find what are still 0-day vulnerabilities on every Android other than GrapheneOS. Useful! Thank you GrapheneOS developers.

shaky-carrousel 10mo ago
You can extend your thanks to Google, as what you said is also easily done with Google's own updates.

agentifysh 10mo ago

which pixel model is best for grephene? I strongly prefer long battery life. will other phones be supported? why only pixel?

mac-attack 10mo ago
https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices
eks391 10mo ago
The OS is not very relevant to the Pixel. Compare the Pixels you like that are new (GrapheneOS drops support as models become older flagships, I think for security reasons) and get that one. IIRC, currently only Pixel is allowed, because the bootloader can be opened without rooting the device. https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
- morserer 10mo ago
  Unrelated to bootloader or rooting. Pixels are the only phones that adhere to the device requirements that are listed in the FAQ. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

lucyjojo 10mo ago

damn, an upgrade path from my pixel 5.

singpolyma3 10mo ago

The GrapheneOS obsession with picking a fight with everyone else is the most unfortunate part of the project.

bubblethink 10mo ago
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
- udev4096 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ItsHarper 10mo ago
    I think they're agreeing with you
RGBCube 10mo ago
That's actually one of the best parts.
- timschumi 10mo ago
  Not for the ones on the receiving end.
  - strcat 10mo ago
    Being on the receiving end of valid, technical criticism in response to making misleading claims about GrapheneOS for falsely marketing products is their own choice. It's certainly a lot nicer than being on the GrapheneOS team heavily targeted by libel, bullying and harassment from those groups. Here's a recent example of the founder of /e/ and Murena linking to libelous harassment content on a conspiracy site, which links to a Kiwi Farms style character assassination video from someone friends with neo-nazis: https://archive.is/SWXPJ https://archive.is/SWXPJ https://archive.is/n4yTO https://archive.is/n4yTO Check out the site for yourself. The linked video is plainly filled with extraordinarily dishonest claims that are widely disproven. Copperhead is losing the legal battle very badly and should end up paying our years of legal expenses soon. Other groups attacking us can look forward to similar losses in court when our attention moves to them. Years of libel, bullying and harassment has consequences.

Sparkyte 10mo ago

AI can't work if the OS isn't secure... lol... I'm doomed.

chiph 10mo ago

I absolutely loved my Moto X with the walnut back. I switched to an iPhone when it stopped getting security patches. It was built back when Google owned Motorola, before they sold off everything but the patent suite. And was intended to be their flagship phone - which the Pixel later became. Looking at the GrapheneOS FAQ, it doesn't look like I have a prayer of installing it on such an old device as it doesn't have the needed security hardware. Is there a lightweight Android install available?

AstroNutt 10mo ago
I've rooted and installed a few custom ROM's on phones back on the day, nothing recent though. Here is a good place to get started with your Moto X. https://xdaforums.com/c/moto-x.2449/ https://xdaforums.com/c/moto-x.2449/

cappuccinooo 10mo ago

i like graphite its nice and blcack and conductive

CommanderData 10mo ago

Although I don't use it I will be supporting the project. I'm quite proud of what they've achieved so far.

dackdel 10mo ago

who is the android oem they are partnering with

tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
Not yet disclosed. We know its a top 10 Android OEM though that cares about security for their future devices!

rurban 10mo ago

For Google Pixel 6-9 phones only. https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support

Jemm 10mo ago

There are millions if not billions of older devices. What we need is an OS that support those.

tranq_cassowary 10mo ago
That would become a meaningless effort security wise as time goes on. The drivers and firmware will become outdated. OS updates are necessary but not sufficient. I get the e-waste / enviromental argument, and I think its very warranted to criticize OEMs for not providing long support times in the past. Apple and Google do this well in recent years, luckily.

mayukh_cube 10mo ago

This is long needed! a lot of big tech giants, even some authorities are trying to convert mobile phones into a spying gadget.