4 ms·

The hardware doesn't support the relevant security features GrapheneOS requires. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-de

by Telaneo 3mo ago

The hardware doesn't support the relevant security features GrapheneOS requires. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

NooneAtAll3 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Telaneo 3mo ago
  Fairphone hasn't talked about GrapheneOS at all, instead opting to be in bed with Murena and /e/os, so I doubt they've even bothered to read the list of hardware requirements. They didn't bother with the Fairphone 6, which was released barely a year ago.
  - warrantisall 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      >GrapheneOS smearing Fairphone as not secure in 3..2..1.. GrapheneOS would love to support more devices, that "smearing" is explaining that a company doesn't make secure devices, which is completely correct criticism. Fairphone for various reasons is not able to or willing to achieve the hardware requirements. It's not easy to create some of the worlds most secure devices.
    - microtonal 3mo ago
      Fairphone 6 does not fulfill the hardware requirements (secure enclave, MTE, etc.), nor software requirements (monthly firmware updates, etc.). So there is nothing that GrapheneOS can do at this point. The ball is in Fairphone's court if they want this, but Fairphone seems more interested to cooperate with /e/OS, whose CEO proclaims security hardening is for pedophiles and spies (thereby fueling the narratives that support chat control and such nonsense). One of the underlying reasons is probably that the Fairphone hardware and software is developed/maintained by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), so the question is if Fairphone even has the know-how to make such a phone. Heck, they have failed to fix bugs that have been plaguing people for months (e.g. regular dropping of all connections when using IPv6 on certain routers). Motorola is going to make devices that fulfill the requirements and GrapheneOS is cooperating with them.
      - stymaar 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        bornfreddy 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        microtonal 3mo ago
        You conveniently picked a different quote. From the horse's mouth: "Par contre, on a pas une approche "sécurité durcie", on développe pas un téléphone pour les pédo(bip) pour qu'ils puissent échapper à la justice." "However, we do not have a "hardened security" approach, we are not developing a phone for pedophiles so that they can escape justice." Also see: https://infosec.exchange/@Xtreix/116356764298456420 https://infosec.exchange/@Xtreix/116356764298456420
        UnreachableCode 3mo ago
        It's pretty insulting to be called a pedophile for wanting privacy from bad actors.
        stymaar 3mo ago
        The “only for pedo and spies” quote is still wrong no matter how you twist it, as illustrated above.
        microtonal 3mo ago
        I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's end it here. People can look up the source material and make their own judgment.
        stymaar 3mo ago
        When someone says “features that are clearly valuable for executives and others” you can't claim he said it's “just for pedo and spies”, even he also said it'd also be useful for pedo and spies. That's just plain bad faith.
    - Telaneo 3mo ago
      They've given concrete reasons to not work with them. If Fairphone made devices that fulfilled the requirements, then there wouldn't be any issue.
- svpk 3mo ago
  That's a pretty concrete list so it's unclear to me what you mean. They're also going to support some of the upcoming Motorola phones so it's not just pixels. I think the short answer of what they'd need to do in a practical way is to release a phone that uses one of the latest Qualcomm processors (those have the required hardware security features), make sure they have at least 5 years of driver support and commit to keeping the phone up to date, allow for relocking the bootloater (they might already do that). And I think that's basically it, the Graphene project would be able to take things from there. Realistically given that they tend to source older/weaker processors for reasons related to their goals it's unlikely they would source a processor with the required security features for their next model, but that's just a guess.
  - grapheneos 3mo ago
    We say 5 years in the requirements but we want 7 and are starting to expect it. Pixels have provided 7 years since the Pixel 8. Qualcomm provides 8 years of support for new platforms and non-Pixel OEMs are using it to begin claiming to provide 7 years of support. However, we need the updates delivered on time and not becoming less frequent over time. For example, Samsung moving to quarterly updates for older devices isn't what we expect.
- surcap526 3mo ago
  [dead]

by Telaneo 3mo ago

The hardware doesn't support the relevant security features GrapheneOS requires. https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

NooneAtAll3 3mo ago

[flagged]

Telaneo 3mo ago
Fairphone hasn't talked about GrapheneOS at all, instead opting to be in bed with Murena and /e/os, so I doubt they've even bothered to read the list of hardware requirements. They didn't bother with the Fairphone 6, which was released barely a year ago.
- warrantisall 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    >GrapheneOS smearing Fairphone as not secure in 3..2..1.. GrapheneOS would love to support more devices, that "smearing" is explaining that a company doesn't make secure devices, which is completely correct criticism. Fairphone for various reasons is not able to or willing to achieve the hardware requirements. It's not easy to create some of the worlds most secure devices.
  - microtonal 3mo ago
    Fairphone 6 does not fulfill the hardware requirements (secure enclave, MTE, etc.), nor software requirements (monthly firmware updates, etc.). So there is nothing that GrapheneOS can do at this point. The ball is in Fairphone's court if they want this, but Fairphone seems more interested to cooperate with /e/OS, whose CEO proclaims security hardening is for pedophiles and spies (thereby fueling the narratives that support chat control and such nonsense). One of the underlying reasons is probably that the Fairphone hardware and software is developed/maintained by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), so the question is if Fairphone even has the know-how to make such a phone. Heck, they have failed to fix bugs that have been plaguing people for months (e.g. regular dropping of all connections when using IPv6 on certain routers). Motorola is going to make devices that fulfill the requirements and GrapheneOS is cooperating with them.
    - stymaar 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - bornfreddy 3mo ago
        [flagged]
      - microtonal 3mo ago
        You conveniently picked a different quote. From the horse's mouth: "Par contre, on a pas une approche "sécurité durcie", on développe pas un téléphone pour les pédo(bip) pour qu'ils puissent échapper à la justice." "However, we do not have a "hardened security" approach, we are not developing a phone for pedophiles so that they can escape justice." Also see: https://infosec.exchange/@Xtreix/116356764298456420 https://infosec.exchange/@Xtreix/116356764298456420
        UnreachableCode 3mo ago
        It's pretty insulting to be called a pedophile for wanting privacy from bad actors.
        stymaar 3mo ago
        The “only for pedo and spies” quote is still wrong no matter how you twist it, as illustrated above.
        microtonal 3mo ago
        I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's end it here. People can look up the source material and make their own judgment.
        stymaar 3mo ago
        When someone says “features that are clearly valuable for executives and others” you can't claim he said it's “just for pedo and spies”, even he also said it'd also be useful for pedo and spies. That's just plain bad faith.
  - Telaneo 3mo ago
    They've given concrete reasons to not work with them. If Fairphone made devices that fulfilled the requirements, then there wouldn't be any issue.
svpk 3mo ago
That's a pretty concrete list so it's unclear to me what you mean. They're also going to support some of the upcoming Motorola phones so it's not just pixels. I think the short answer of what they'd need to do in a practical way is to release a phone that uses one of the latest Qualcomm processors (those have the required hardware security features), make sure they have at least 5 years of driver support and commit to keeping the phone up to date, allow for relocking the bootloater (they might already do that). And I think that's basically it, the Graphene project would be able to take things from there. Realistically given that they tend to source older/weaker processors for reasons related to their goals it's unlikely they would source a processor with the required security features for their next model, but that's just a guess.
- grapheneos 3mo ago
  We say 5 years in the requirements but we want 7 and are starting to expect it. Pixels have provided 7 years since the Pixel 8. Qualcomm provides 8 years of support for new platforms and non-Pixel OEMs are using it to begin claiming to provide 7 years of support. However, we need the updates delivered on time and not becoming less frequent over time. For example, Samsung moving to quarterly updates for older devices isn't what we expect.
surcap526 3mo ago
[dead]