4 ms·

It's absolutely insane that phones have online accounts deeply integrated into the OS. You need to give Apple your phone number to download any apps on iOS. Fo

It's absolutely insane that phones have online accounts deeply integrated into the OS. You need to give Apple your phone number to download any apps on iOS. For example: Say anyone that downloaded IceBlock commited crime, Apple could give the govt everyone who downloaded its phone number, the govt could get the realtime location of everyone based on their phone number from the carrier. And that's not even mentioning the other problem that nobody can download IceBlock anymore[1]. It's so refreshing for my phone not to ask for any identifying information when I set it up. GrapheneOS is a better software experience than iOS anyway[2]. Phones have great potential to be the most private and secure computers, cell services not withdrawing. And iPhones are one of the most private and secure devices. But, Apple uses that to restrict its users freedom and it makes Apple's users can easily be controlled by any government. GrapheneOS delivers that dream. [1] https://www.iceblock.app/ https://www.iceblock.app/ [2] once you install good apps. This is coming from a lifelong iOS user. Not prejudiced against Apple, I use a Mac (without an account) and their Advanced Data Protection is great (when I had an account).

monksy 3mo ago
I agree with that.. additionaly, I'm finding it to be insane that organizations are trying to force you to have a "audited" phone to interact with them. (I.e. events, businesses, etc)
- andai 3mo ago
  What is that? I don't seem to be finding anything relevant on Google.
  - andwur 3mo ago
    Likely referring to Android's Play Integrity/hardware attestation API (good explainer from GrapheneOS [1]) that is practically used to restrict what devices/brands/Android builds an app will allow itself to be run on. [1] https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
  - monksy 3mo ago
    We're running into situations where the usage of smart phones and apps are becoming mandatory for using services. For example: The UK has a digital ID requirement which is required for you to be employed in the UK. Additionally the EU digital identity services have a hardware/software attestitation that is required to run their apps. (Many of those which 3rd party software can't run). Another example of this is the Australian eTA - (Everyone has to have a visa to visit Australia.. but the real only way to get a visa* is you have to get an electronic travel authorization which only works via an App) https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... Apps that ban graphene-os being used: myGov (Australian government app) gov.br (Brazilian government app) Ticketcorner Authy Chyrpe Dating TextNow mada Pay (Saudi NFC payment app) McDonald's (International app used for many but not all countries not including the US) Dott My SEAT (Connectivity for SEAT cars) SwissID Volkswagen BKK Faber-Castell & Partner TK-Doc TK-Ident TK-App (Blocks access to TK-Safe, TK-GesundheitsMessenger, fingerprint login) IO (Italian government app which uses it to gate access to the digital wallet feature) PosteID (Italian postal service’s app used to access the national digital identity system "SPID") Singpass
    - anonzzzies 3mo ago
      GrapheneOS and others should have lobbyists or rather lawyers and lawmakers to fight for using secure systems to mandatory be allowed for these. Sure, there must be some type of OS guarantee, but that should not be exclusive to Google and Apple. And indeed browsers with otp/authn devices (not one per service but yubi/thetis type of thing as those can be made sovereign for a large part); when an OS is not allowed, the browser and app should be mandatory allowed with such a device as that is, actually, more secure than the original device as it is an external encryption and encryption key source the hacker cannot reach.
      - Cider9986 3mo ago
        Us users might be effective as well. Hopefully anti-trust law catches up and bans play integrity. They are probably going to spend their money improving features and experience to get more users. There's threads on the forum dedicated to sending emails to Volkswagen to get them to support Grapheneos and it may be working.
- LoganDark 3mo ago
  I miss the days when iOS jailbreaks allowed you to completely circumvent basically all DRM because the trust in Apple was so high that you could just assume a device is secure. Contrast that with Android, which has always had invasive attestation mechanisms because of widespread mistrust in OEMs. On iOS, sometimes you had individual apps trying to check for jailbreak but that was it
  - realusername 3mo ago
    Apps trying to check for jailbreak is still a thing on iOS and as you would expect, it's jank and can trigger on stock iOS if you are unluky
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  Remote attestation is not just insane, it's the technology that will end free computing as we know it today. What good is free software if using it marks our devices as untrusted and gets us banned from every service out there? Gets us ostracized from digital society? Because we "tampered" with the device? We should be able to run whatever software we want and they should be none the wiser. Instead, we are part of the threat model now. Our devices are now cryptographically attesting that they are corporate owned and that we are under corporate control. It's so disgusting. The future we're heading towards is terrifying. Everything the word hacker ever stood for will be destroyed if this keeps up.
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    It can be used for security and used privately [1] but I entirely agree with you, Google's use of it is anti-competitive and terrible. [1] attestation.app
    - preisschild 3mo ago
      Yeah same as TPM and Secureboot. They can improve your own personal security (and thereby privacy) drastically, but it has to be controlled by the user.
    - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      It's all about who owns the keys and who trusts those keys. If you don't have the keys to "your" computer, then you don't own that computer, you're just renting it from the corporation. And even if our own keys could be used, who's going to trust those attestations? Nobody. They will trust Google's keys, Microsoft's keys, Apple's keys. Not ours.
      - teravor 3mo ago
        the intent is that no one owns those keys, your silicon should be the only entity in "possession" of those keys. but no one uses blind signatures for attestation so it can be used to fingerprint your device's serial. they do try to make it hard. but generally you should assume that if whoever you are attesting to colludes with google they will obtain your HWID - and if it's google you are attesting to you should assume they have your HWID. GOS uses a proxy for attestation, but it does absolutely nothing for this threat model. PS: DRM is even worse, there is no intermediary and the APIs are open to all apps. you probably need to be a well resourced intel agency to make use of it as you need to source a valid DRM license server certificate. technically, actual license servers are in violation of their agreements with google, apple, etc if they use the license request for fingerprinting. but they do retain the ability to blacklist silicon (invalidate pirate devices from pirated media watermarks).
- daniela-vera 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- preisschild 3mo ago
  > that organizations are trying to force you to have a "audited" phone to interact with them. (I.e. events, businesses, etc) Even worse, GOVERNMENTS do that. EU Governments basically forcing you to give Google (via the Google Mobile Services rootkit) or Apple (and via the cloud act also the Trump Admin) access to your entire phone (including all of your saved personal data) to use the govt eID system...
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Use the old-school ID system.
- roysting 3mo ago
  > organizations are trying to force If it were only that and we actually had “free market capitalism” and “competition” you could simply choose, but leering and steering these “organizations” is the treasonous and inherently illegitimate government, which is increasingly indistinguishable from private corporations, mostly because it’s the same pool of people, which are reflexively moving us all towards a common focal point of a form of tyranny similar to hereditary oligarchy and/or serfdom.
NeutralWanted 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  >I work at Google, and yes. We use a monorepo for absolutely everything you can think of. But good luck getting that code off a corp device without being caught https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46440276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46440276 Hmm, I hope you don't work on AOSP!
  - NeutralWanted 3mo ago
    I do, actually, why?
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      Because you're promoting pro surveillance state rhetoric that I'd rather not have influencing the mobile operating system I use.
      - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
        Businesses in America have an obligation to comply with law enforcement, and ultimately, follow the law themselves. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but using an App that actively encourages people to interfere with investigations done by ANY law enforcement agency is not OK. What's next? You want a app that helps other criminals evade police after committing a crime? No shit an App like that is going to be taken down.
- Anvoker 3mo ago
  And why not? Law enforcement does not represent supreme justice and good. There are higher moral principles out there. Respect for law enforcement in the absence of justice is a disaster for society. All it does is give cover for bad actors.
  - 3mo ago
pjerem 3mo ago
I’m on the edge of migrating from my iPhone to a Pixel with GrapheneOS. But there is ONE feature I love on iOS and it’s the Live Photos. I feel like it’s an amazing way to keep family memories. Do you know if it exists on GrapheneOS?
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  Yes, I have it and I use Google camera and Google photos. Not sure if default camera and gallery have it.
- aucisson_masque 3mo ago
  Only in Google camera, which is usable on grapheneos: You get a live shot feature, it ain't exactly the same tho, look into that. I run pixelos and the amount of stuff I miss from iphone is staggering, the difference between pixelos/grapheneos isn't as big as the difference between iphone/pixel.
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    Hmm, don't really miss anything from iOS besides tap the top screen to go to top of page. Also Apple Notes is great. No back button on iOS is madness and also the Android rotate screen integration is way better than iOS.
    - k4rli 3mo ago
      Obsidian might be even greater for notes. Looks beautiful, and it's super immersive on OLED especially. Worth trying for sure. Tap to scroll might be possible to get also. Haven't felt need for it when it takes a few regular scrolls anyway.
      - Cider9986 3mo ago
        Thanks for the rec, I'll try it it. I like the open nature with markdown but when I tried on Mac it was a bit confusing.
    - 3mo ago
ablob 3mo ago
Don't phones have identifiers outside of phone number anyway? I feel like you have to trust the hardware/os vendor anyway. So if you don't trust apple to not misbehave, maybe not getting an iphone is better than chasing the whole phone-number idea.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  Your comment isn't super clear to me, let me know if I misunderstood anything. Yes there are still identifiers when using cellular data service, but they aren't connected to your phone number that you give out. Phone number gets a determined threat actor real time location, which is what I explained. Threat actor gets location from any carrier identifier. Cellular was built in a terrible way for privacy and security. Android doesn't let apps see hardware identifiers if that's related. Yes you're correct about having to trust Apple, but my point is that the way Apple is collecting all this extra info allows them to be compelled to hand it over. It's not about trusting Apple, it's about them following the law, which they will do.
tonyhart7 3mo ago
well you cant blame apple for that since Government can literally force your company to doing shit like this
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  I blame them for collecting the phone numbers. They can already make sure you're running an apple account on real hardware. If they didn't collect phone numbers, they couldn't give them away, that's how all good privacy respecting companies like Signal operate.
surcap526 3mo ago
[dead]
izacus 3mo ago
I mean... your sentiment is in the right place, but Android phones (non-GrapheneOS) can be used without Google account just fine. Yes, you need to use F-Droid & Co. to get apps (just like on Graphene), but otherwise they're functional and many people are actually using them like that.
matltc 3mo ago
Curious to hear: how much effort did it take to migrate to GrapheneOS? I own a pixel, grabbed it in anticipation of unlocking, but the effort it seems it would take from reading GrapheneOS docs has stopped me from committing to it on my daily driver. Would you please provide a quick time estimate and any snags you hit?
- hellojesus 3mo ago
  It took me about an hour. I sat down, read the docs, installed it via the web installer, then spent the next 45 min deciding how I wanted to segment separate profiles for play services. Nowadays it seems a lot easier because there seems to be a separate profile isolater you can run in the main profile, which I would choose if I was installing today. The only hiccup I've had is that sometimes group messages don't send correctly and send individual messages to everyone, but I think that's because I'm on a secondary profile, and it only happens when the phone is receiving a bunch of messages all at once while I try to send to the same group. But I deny network access to my installed swype keyboard, so it may have something to do with that too. I've been running this for years, since the Pixel 7 came out, which I'm still using. I love it. I can confidently go through customs knowing that if they yank my phone during some weird checkpoint and try to celbrite it, I'm as secure as can be.
  - matltc 3mo ago
    Thanks for the info! Might take the dive.
- Itoldmyselfso 3mo ago
  Time estimate depends heavily on the apps you use (data migration in them) and maybe some features that don't easily work out-of-the-box in GOS like Google's find my device, where you'd ideally migrate to use foss alternatives like FMD[1]. For the easiest setup by far just install the sandboxed Google Play Store and get your apps from there. In general the more additional security features you enable, the more issues you may face, so I'd recommend leaving everything to GOS default, like leaving Sensors permission ON by default. There are a few gotchas that may not be mentioned in GOS official documentation or elsewhere such as BT tracker devices not being supported for the most part, requiring workarounds. There are also few apps that don't currently support GOS [2][3], so be sure to check them out beforehand. 1: https://gitlab.com/fmd-foss/fmd-android https://gitlab.com/fmd-foss/fmd-android 2: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide#apps-banning-grapheneos https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... 3: https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compatibility-with-grapheneos/ https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago
"Phones have great potential to be the most private and secure computers." How would that be achieved We could assume that a user could make their own computer "private and secure" But if a third party, e.g., Apple, Inc., Google, LLC, GrapheneOS Foundation, etc., has RCE, e.g., "auto-updates", then how can the computer be "private and secure" against that third party and any party that they "work with", voluntarily or not, e.g., a business partner, a government, but also others that might target these third parties, such as an attacker who isn't interested in their bug bounty programs, etc. To achieve "private and secure", would the user need to remove the RCE capability of the third party (parties) What about data collection and surveillance by the third party (the user would have to review the source code and compile the OS themselves to be sure about data collection and surveillance) If there is data collection and surveillance, then how could the user be sure that the data collected and surveillance capability held by the third party is "private and secure" from that third party (e.g., Apple, Google, etc.), any third parties that work with them, and others who might target these third parties Assuming the user even knows the identities of all these third parties, what if their operations are secretive and non-transparent What if they have a history of dishonesty What if they make no promises to the user that could be enforced and instead they just assume "trust" Perhaps each user might have a different concept of "private and secure"
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago
  https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/04/apple-expands-darksword-patches-to-ios-18-7-7 https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/04/apple-expands...
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

monksy 3mo ago

I agree with that.. additionaly, I'm finding it to be insane that organizations are trying to force you to have a "audited" phone to interact with them. (I.e. events, businesses, etc)

andai 3mo ago
What is that? I don't seem to be finding anything relevant on Google.
- andwur 3mo ago
  Likely referring to Android's Play Integrity/hardware attestation API (good explainer from GrapheneOS [1]) that is practically used to restrict what devices/brands/Android builds an app will allow itself to be run on. [1] https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
- monksy 3mo ago
  We're running into situations where the usage of smart phones and apps are becoming mandatory for using services. For example: The UK has a digital ID requirement which is required for you to be employed in the UK. Additionally the EU digital identity services have a hardware/software attestitation that is required to run their apps. (Many of those which 3rd party software can't run). Another example of this is the Australian eTA - (Everyone has to have a visa to visit Australia.. but the real only way to get a visa* is you have to get an electronic travel authorization which only works via an App) https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... Apps that ban graphene-os being used: myGov (Australian government app) gov.br (Brazilian government app) Ticketcorner Authy Chyrpe Dating TextNow mada Pay (Saudi NFC payment app) McDonald's (International app used for many but not all countries not including the US) Dott My SEAT (Connectivity for SEAT cars) SwissID Volkswagen BKK Faber-Castell & Partner TK-Doc TK-Ident TK-App (Blocks access to TK-Safe, TK-GesundheitsMessenger, fingerprint login) IO (Italian government app which uses it to gate access to the digital wallet feature) PosteID (Italian postal service’s app used to access the national digital identity system "SPID") Singpass
  - anonzzzies 3mo ago
    GrapheneOS and others should have lobbyists or rather lawyers and lawmakers to fight for using secure systems to mandatory be allowed for these. Sure, there must be some type of OS guarantee, but that should not be exclusive to Google and Apple. And indeed browsers with otp/authn devices (not one per service but yubi/thetis type of thing as those can be made sovereign for a large part); when an OS is not allowed, the browser and app should be mandatory allowed with such a device as that is, actually, more secure than the original device as it is an external encryption and encryption key source the hacker cannot reach.
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      Us users might be effective as well. Hopefully anti-trust law catches up and bans play integrity. They are probably going to spend their money improving features and experience to get more users. There's threads on the forum dedicated to sending emails to Volkswagen to get them to support Grapheneos and it may be working.
LoganDark 3mo ago
I miss the days when iOS jailbreaks allowed you to completely circumvent basically all DRM because the trust in Apple was so high that you could just assume a device is secure. Contrast that with Android, which has always had invasive attestation mechanisms because of widespread mistrust in OEMs. On iOS, sometimes you had individual apps trying to check for jailbreak but that was it
- realusername 3mo ago
  Apps trying to check for jailbreak is still a thing on iOS and as you would expect, it's jank and can trigger on stock iOS if you are unluky
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
Remote attestation is not just insane, it's the technology that will end free computing as we know it today. What good is free software if using it marks our devices as untrusted and gets us banned from every service out there? Gets us ostracized from digital society? Because we "tampered" with the device? We should be able to run whatever software we want and they should be none the wiser. Instead, we are part of the threat model now. Our devices are now cryptographically attesting that they are corporate owned and that we are under corporate control. It's so disgusting. The future we're heading towards is terrifying. Everything the word hacker ever stood for will be destroyed if this keeps up.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  It can be used for security and used privately [1] but I entirely agree with you, Google's use of it is anti-competitive and terrible. [1] attestation.app
  - preisschild 3mo ago
    Yeah same as TPM and Secureboot. They can improve your own personal security (and thereby privacy) drastically, but it has to be controlled by the user.
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    It's all about who owns the keys and who trusts those keys. If you don't have the keys to "your" computer, then you don't own that computer, you're just renting it from the corporation. And even if our own keys could be used, who's going to trust those attestations? Nobody. They will trust Google's keys, Microsoft's keys, Apple's keys. Not ours.
    - teravor 3mo ago
      the intent is that no one owns those keys, your silicon should be the only entity in "possession" of those keys. but no one uses blind signatures for attestation so it can be used to fingerprint your device's serial. they do try to make it hard. but generally you should assume that if whoever you are attesting to colludes with google they will obtain your HWID - and if it's google you are attesting to you should assume they have your HWID. GOS uses a proxy for attestation, but it does absolutely nothing for this threat model. PS: DRM is even worse, there is no intermediary and the APIs are open to all apps. you probably need to be a well resourced intel agency to make use of it as you need to source a valid DRM license server certificate. technically, actual license servers are in violation of their agreements with google, apple, etc if they use the license request for fingerprinting. but they do retain the ability to blacklist silicon (invalidate pirate devices from pirated media watermarks).
daniela-vera 3mo ago
[flagged]
preisschild 3mo ago
> that organizations are trying to force you to have a "audited" phone to interact with them. (I.e. events, businesses, etc) Even worse, GOVERNMENTS do that. EU Governments basically forcing you to give Google (via the Google Mobile Services rootkit) or Apple (and via the cloud act also the Trump Admin) access to your entire phone (including all of your saved personal data) to use the govt eID system...
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Use the old-school ID system.
roysting 3mo ago
> organizations are trying to force If it were only that and we actually had “free market capitalism” and “competition” you could simply choose, but leering and steering these “organizations” is the treasonous and inherently illegitimate government, which is increasingly indistinguishable from private corporations, mostly because it’s the same pool of people, which are reflexively moving us all towards a common focal point of a form of tyranny similar to hereditary oligarchy and/or serfdom.

NeutralWanted 3mo ago

[flagged]

Cider9986 3mo ago
>I work at Google, and yes. We use a monorepo for absolutely everything you can think of. But good luck getting that code off a corp device without being caught https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46440276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46440276 Hmm, I hope you don't work on AOSP!
- NeutralWanted 3mo ago
  I do, actually, why?
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    Because you're promoting pro surveillance state rhetoric that I'd rather not have influencing the mobile operating system I use.
    - NeutralWanted 2mo ago
      Businesses in America have an obligation to comply with law enforcement, and ultimately, follow the law themselves. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but using an App that actively encourages people to interfere with investigations done by ANY law enforcement agency is not OK. What's next? You want a app that helps other criminals evade police after committing a crime? No shit an App like that is going to be taken down.
Anvoker 3mo ago
And why not? Law enforcement does not represent supreme justice and good. There are higher moral principles out there. Respect for law enforcement in the absence of justice is a disaster for society. All it does is give cover for bad actors.
- 3mo ago

pjerem 3mo ago

I’m on the edge of migrating from my iPhone to a Pixel with GrapheneOS. But there is ONE feature I love on iOS and it’s the Live Photos. I feel like it’s an amazing way to keep family memories. Do you know if it exists on GrapheneOS?

Cider9986 3mo ago
Yes, I have it and I use Google camera and Google photos. Not sure if default camera and gallery have it.
aucisson_masque 3mo ago
Only in Google camera, which is usable on grapheneos: You get a live shot feature, it ain't exactly the same tho, look into that. I run pixelos and the amount of stuff I miss from iphone is staggering, the difference between pixelos/grapheneos isn't as big as the difference between iphone/pixel.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  Hmm, don't really miss anything from iOS besides tap the top screen to go to top of page. Also Apple Notes is great. No back button on iOS is madness and also the Android rotate screen integration is way better than iOS.
  - k4rli 3mo ago
    Obsidian might be even greater for notes. Looks beautiful, and it's super immersive on OLED especially. Worth trying for sure. Tap to scroll might be possible to get also. Haven't felt need for it when it takes a few regular scrolls anyway.
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      Thanks for the rec, I'll try it it. I like the open nature with markdown but when I tried on Mac it was a bit confusing.
  - 3mo ago

ablob 3mo ago

Don't phones have identifiers outside of phone number anyway? I feel like you have to trust the hardware/os vendor anyway. So if you don't trust apple to not misbehave, maybe not getting an iphone is better than chasing the whole phone-number idea.

Cider9986 3mo ago
Your comment isn't super clear to me, let me know if I misunderstood anything. Yes there are still identifiers when using cellular data service, but they aren't connected to your phone number that you give out. Phone number gets a determined threat actor real time location, which is what I explained. Threat actor gets location from any carrier identifier. Cellular was built in a terrible way for privacy and security. Android doesn't let apps see hardware identifiers if that's related. Yes you're correct about having to trust Apple, but my point is that the way Apple is collecting all this extra info allows them to be compelled to hand it over. It's not about trusting Apple, it's about them following the law, which they will do.

tonyhart7 3mo ago

well you cant blame apple for that since Government can literally force your company to doing shit like this

Cider9986 3mo ago
I blame them for collecting the phone numbers. They can already make sure you're running an apple account on real hardware. If they didn't collect phone numbers, they couldn't give them away, that's how all good privacy respecting companies like Signal operate.

surcap526 3mo ago

[dead]

izacus 3mo ago

I mean... your sentiment is in the right place, but Android phones (non-GrapheneOS) can be used without Google account just fine. Yes, you need to use F-Droid & Co. to get apps (just like on Graphene), but otherwise they're functional and many people are actually using them like that.

matltc 3mo ago

Curious to hear: how much effort did it take to migrate to GrapheneOS? I own a pixel, grabbed it in anticipation of unlocking, but the effort it seems it would take from reading GrapheneOS docs has stopped me from committing to it on my daily driver. Would you please provide a quick time estimate and any snags you hit?

hellojesus 3mo ago
It took me about an hour. I sat down, read the docs, installed it via the web installer, then spent the next 45 min deciding how I wanted to segment separate profiles for play services. Nowadays it seems a lot easier because there seems to be a separate profile isolater you can run in the main profile, which I would choose if I was installing today. The only hiccup I've had is that sometimes group messages don't send correctly and send individual messages to everyone, but I think that's because I'm on a secondary profile, and it only happens when the phone is receiving a bunch of messages all at once while I try to send to the same group. But I deny network access to my installed swype keyboard, so it may have something to do with that too. I've been running this for years, since the Pixel 7 came out, which I'm still using. I love it. I can confidently go through customs knowing that if they yank my phone during some weird checkpoint and try to celbrite it, I'm as secure as can be.
- matltc 3mo ago
  Thanks for the info! Might take the dive.
Itoldmyselfso 3mo ago
Time estimate depends heavily on the apps you use (data migration in them) and maybe some features that don't easily work out-of-the-box in GOS like Google's find my device, where you'd ideally migrate to use foss alternatives like FMD[1]. For the easiest setup by far just install the sandboxed Google Play Store and get your apps from there. In general the more additional security features you enable, the more issues you may face, so I'd recommend leaving everything to GOS default, like leaving Sensors permission ON by default. There are a few gotchas that may not be mentioned in GOS official documentation or elsewhere such as BT tracker devices not being supported for the most part, requiring workarounds. There are also few apps that don't currently support GOS [2][3], so be sure to check them out beforehand. 1: https://gitlab.com/fmd-foss/fmd-android https://gitlab.com/fmd-foss/fmd-android 2: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide#apps-banning-grapheneos https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... 3: https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compatibility-with-grapheneos/ https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago

"Phones have great potential to be the most private and secure computers." How would that be achieved We could assume that a user could make their own computer "private and secure" But if a third party, e.g., Apple, Inc., Google, LLC, GrapheneOS Foundation, etc., has RCE, e.g., "auto-updates", then how can the computer be "private and secure" against that third party and any party that they "work with", voluntarily or not, e.g., a business partner, a government, but also others that might target these third parties, such as an attacker who isn't interested in their bug bounty programs, etc. To achieve "private and secure", would the user need to remove the RCE capability of the third party (parties) What about data collection and surveillance by the third party (the user would have to review the source code and compile the OS themselves to be sure about data collection and surveillance) If there is data collection and surveillance, then how could the user be sure that the data collected and surveillance capability held by the third party is "private and secure" from that third party (e.g., Apple, Google, etc.), any third parties that work with them, and others who might target these third parties Assuming the user even knows the identities of all these third parties, what if their operations are secretive and non-transparent What if they have a history of dishonesty What if they make no promises to the user that could be enforced and instead they just assume "trust" Perhaps each user might have a different concept of "private and secure"

1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/04/apple-expands-darksword-patches-to-ios-18-7-7 https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/04/apple-expands...
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]