4 ms·

I think it's more of a marketing claim from less secure systems that "privacy is not security, and GrapheneOS focuses on security while we focus on privacy". G

by palata 9mo ago

I think it's more of a marketing claim from less secure systems that "privacy is not security, and GrapheneOS focuses on security while we focus on privacy". GrapheneOS does care about both, quite obviously. And GrapheneOS tends to say that if your security is bad, then it is affecting your privacy too. Whereas others say "sure, we break the Android security model by unlocking the bootloader and signing our system with the Google test keys, but your apps will contact Google through microG instead of the Play Services, so it's more private". Which is worth what it is worth...

ForHackernews 9mo ago
This is only my opinion, but GrapheneOS's approach to privacy seems obtuse to me. They will claim that an unlocked bootloader is a risk, but then turn around and recommend you install proprietary apps GApps in their sandbox. The sandbox doesn't matter if all the private data is in the same sandbox! Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1200/ https://xkcd.com/1200/
- gf000 9mo ago
  They recommend you install google play services if you need it. Privacy is in no small part a user-decision - no matter how secure your device is if you just scroll Facebook all day.
- palata 9mo ago
  Feels like you don't know what "the sandbox" is. It's not "their" sandbox, it's from AOSP. When you run an app on Android, it runs in a sandbox. Meaning that your social media app cannot access the files of your banking app by default. They are "sandboxed". On a normal Android, the Play Services are installed as a system app. It is privileged app that has "system" access. A system app is not sandboxed. GrapheneOS allows you to install the Play Services and the Play Store as "sandboxed" apps in that they run unprivileged, just like WhatsApp or TikTok or your banking app. So running the proprietary Google apps in the sandbox is obviously more private than running them as system apps, wouldn't you say?
  - ForHackernews 9mo ago
    If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". I agree there's some marginal benefit that sandboxed GApps need to prompt the user for permissions (rather than having privileged system level access) but at the end of the day, Google Maps will get GPS perms and Google will know everywhere your phone goes.
    - palata 9mo ago
      > If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". Sure, but that's the same if you run TikTok with microG (which will relay your data to the Google servers just like the Play Services) or in waydroid on a Mobile Linux. But you can't blame the system for what the apps are allowed to do by the user. Take your Google Maps example: if the user wants to run Google Maps, obviously they will be sharing data with Google. It's very weird to blame the system for that. What the sandbox brings is that for users who want to run the Play Services (because they want to run TikTok, knowing that it will share data with some servers, including but not limited to the Google servers through the Play Services), then at least the Play Services are not root on their OS. So then instead of running microG, you can run the Play Services and have the same kind of benefits. Now if you don't want your apps to contact Google, then by all means, don't install the Play Services! But don't install microG either! And don't install Google Maps! It's all about trade-offs, it's not an all or nothing situation. Sandboxed Play Services is better than privileged Play Services.
      - ForHackernews 9mo ago
        I agree it's about trade-offs. I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. You're of course correct that we can't blame the system for choices made by users, but I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps: https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
- tranq_cassowary 9mo ago
  > recommend you install proprietary apps GApps in their sandbox They don't recommend you to do that. They tell people that if people want to install apps, Google Play Store is a secure and easy way to get apps. They inform people about this because some have the misconception that using the Play Store defeats the whole purpose of GOS (which it doesn't) or that the Play Store is highly problematic (it's better than most alternatives). But, the user itself is free to decide what they do. If you look at project members of GrapheneOS, some say they use Play, some say they don't. > The sandbox doesn't matter if all the private data is in the same sandbox! That's not how sandboxing works. The sandbox is around the app. Each app is in the sandbox. On GrapheneOS even the componenents of Google Play (Play Store, Play Services and on older installs Play Services Framework) are sandboxed. On Android OSes that bundle Google Mobile Services (GMS), Play gets an exception and is a priviliged app. On GrapheneOS they are regular apps. They are each put in their own sandbox. The access of each is controlled by their own set of fine-grained run-time permissions. With all due respect, you fundamentally misunderstand how sandboxing works, even on Android in general. I recommend reading this to understand sandboxing in the AOSP: https://source.android.com/docs/security/app-sandbox https://source.android.com/docs/security/app-sandbox . On GrapheneOS the sandbox is hardened a bit, but that's not the most significant feature of the OS at all, and Play is forced to run sandboxed if users choose to install it.
Aachen 9mo ago
> I think it's more of a marketing claim from less secure systems that "privacy is not security I'm not sure Cyanogenmod had a marketing team that convinced me of anything when I first installed their rom in 2013 and explored my phone's capabilities with root. Accessing the sensor devices, inspecting what the different apps do, what the OS is doing, installing Xprivacy to provide fake data to tracking apps... none of that is possible on GrapheneOS, you can only use the Android APIs, same as on stock Am I brainwashed by marketing?!
- palata 9mo ago
  I am not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that 1. If you care about privacy, you should care about security. If your email server is compromised and your emails leak in the public internet, then they are not private anymore. 2. GrapheneOS does care about both security and privacy. > explored my phone's capabilities with root. Accessing the sensor devices, inspecting what the different apps do, what the OS is doing, installing Xprivacy to provide fake data to tracking apps... none of that is possible on GrapheneOS I think you're talking about something like "freedom", here. GrapheneOS doesn't claim to give you the freedom to do whatever you want. In fact, part of the Android security model is to limit your freedom. Which is not to say that you should not want the freedom to have root access on your phone. But if that's what you want, GrapheneOS is probably not it.
  - Aachen 9mo ago
    My phone isn't my email server though? It's not exposed to the public internet. It connects outwards but you can't simply connect inwards to the IMAP client You can invert your logic as well: Why care about security without privacy? If your apps are leaking everything to the internet, what's there to keep secure. One could argue this is the essential dependency, not the other way around, since security depends on the threat model but, without privacy, there's no more secrets > I think you're talking about something like "freedom", here In part, as well as a means to an end, yes. (GrapheneOS uses this as well, since without the freedom to bring your own OS, they couldn't run on Google's devices. I would think we all enjoy having the freedom to do what we want with our own hardware.) Note also the part where it says "provide fake data to tracking apps": that's privacy which GOS doesn't offer but a user root device / any desktop OS would

by palata 9mo ago

ForHackernews 9mo ago

This is only my opinion, but GrapheneOS's approach to privacy seems obtuse to me. They will claim that an unlocked bootloader is a risk, but then turn around and recommend you install proprietary apps GApps in their sandbox. The sandbox doesn't matter if all the private data is in the same sandbox! Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1200/ https://xkcd.com/1200/

gf000 9mo ago
They recommend you install google play services if you need it. Privacy is in no small part a user-decision - no matter how secure your device is if you just scroll Facebook all day.
palata 9mo ago
Feels like you don't know what "the sandbox" is. It's not "their" sandbox, it's from AOSP. When you run an app on Android, it runs in a sandbox. Meaning that your social media app cannot access the files of your banking app by default. They are "sandboxed". On a normal Android, the Play Services are installed as a system app. It is privileged app that has "system" access. A system app is not sandboxed. GrapheneOS allows you to install the Play Services and the Play Store as "sandboxed" apps in that they run unprivileged, just like WhatsApp or TikTok or your banking app. So running the proprietary Google apps in the sandbox is obviously more private than running them as system apps, wouldn't you say?
- ForHackernews 9mo ago
  If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". I agree there's some marginal benefit that sandboxed GApps need to prompt the user for permissions (rather than having privileged system level access) but at the end of the day, Google Maps will get GPS perms and Google will know everywhere your phone goes.
  - palata 9mo ago
    > If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". Sure, but that's the same if you run TikTok with microG (which will relay your data to the Google servers just like the Play Services) or in waydroid on a Mobile Linux. But you can't blame the system for what the apps are allowed to do by the user. Take your Google Maps example: if the user wants to run Google Maps, obviously they will be sharing data with Google. It's very weird to blame the system for that. What the sandbox brings is that for users who want to run the Play Services (because they want to run TikTok, knowing that it will share data with some servers, including but not limited to the Google servers through the Play Services), then at least the Play Services are not root on their OS. So then instead of running microG, you can run the Play Services and have the same kind of benefits. Now if you don't want your apps to contact Google, then by all means, don't install the Play Services! But don't install microG either! And don't install Google Maps! It's all about trade-offs, it's not an all or nothing situation. Sandboxed Play Services is better than privileged Play Services.
    - ForHackernews 9mo ago
      I agree it's about trade-offs. I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. You're of course correct that we can't blame the system for choices made by users, but I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps: https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
tranq_cassowary 9mo ago
> recommend you install proprietary apps GApps in their sandbox They don't recommend you to do that. They tell people that if people want to install apps, Google Play Store is a secure and easy way to get apps. They inform people about this because some have the misconception that using the Play Store defeats the whole purpose of GOS (which it doesn't) or that the Play Store is highly problematic (it's better than most alternatives). But, the user itself is free to decide what they do. If you look at project members of GrapheneOS, some say they use Play, some say they don't. > The sandbox doesn't matter if all the private data is in the same sandbox! That's not how sandboxing works. The sandbox is around the app. Each app is in the sandbox. On GrapheneOS even the componenents of Google Play (Play Store, Play Services and on older installs Play Services Framework) are sandboxed. On Android OSes that bundle Google Mobile Services (GMS), Play gets an exception and is a priviliged app. On GrapheneOS they are regular apps. They are each put in their own sandbox. The access of each is controlled by their own set of fine-grained run-time permissions. With all due respect, you fundamentally misunderstand how sandboxing works, even on Android in general. I recommend reading this to understand sandboxing in the AOSP: https://source.android.com/docs/security/app-sandbox https://source.android.com/docs/security/app-sandbox . On GrapheneOS the sandbox is hardened a bit, but that's not the most significant feature of the OS at all, and Play is forced to run sandboxed if users choose to install it.

Aachen 9mo ago

> I think it's more of a marketing claim from less secure systems that "privacy is not security I'm not sure Cyanogenmod had a marketing team that convinced me of anything when I first installed their rom in 2013 and explored my phone's capabilities with root. Accessing the sensor devices, inspecting what the different apps do, what the OS is doing, installing Xprivacy to provide fake data to tracking apps... none of that is possible on GrapheneOS, you can only use the Android APIs, same as on stock Am I brainwashed by marketing?!

palata 9mo ago
I am not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that 1. If you care about privacy, you should care about security. If your email server is compromised and your emails leak in the public internet, then they are not private anymore. 2. GrapheneOS does care about both security and privacy. > explored my phone's capabilities with root. Accessing the sensor devices, inspecting what the different apps do, what the OS is doing, installing Xprivacy to provide fake data to tracking apps... none of that is possible on GrapheneOS I think you're talking about something like "freedom", here. GrapheneOS doesn't claim to give you the freedom to do whatever you want. In fact, part of the Android security model is to limit your freedom. Which is not to say that you should not want the freedom to have root access on your phone. But if that's what you want, GrapheneOS is probably not it.
- Aachen 9mo ago
  My phone isn't my email server though? It's not exposed to the public internet. It connects outwards but you can't simply connect inwards to the IMAP client You can invert your logic as well: Why care about security without privacy? If your apps are leaking everything to the internet, what's there to keep secure. One could argue this is the essential dependency, not the other way around, since security depends on the threat model but, without privacy, there's no more secrets > I think you're talking about something like "freedom", here In part, as well as a means to an end, yes. (GrapheneOS uses this as well, since without the freedom to bring your own OS, they couldn't run on Google's devices. I would think we all enjoy having the freedom to do what we want with our own hardware.) Note also the part where it says "provide fake data to tracking apps": that's privacy which GOS doesn't offer but a user root device / any desktop OS would