6 ms·

I use Aurora on GOS. I get that they say sandboxed Play is more secure than Aurora, but I prefer it for its lack of toxicity and absence of shitty dark patterns

by troyvit 1mo ago

I use Aurora on GOS. I get that they say sandboxed Play is more secure than Aurora, but I prefer it for its lack of toxicity and absence of shitty dark patterns. I think the increased popularity of GOS is going to draw in more users like me who picked it for reasons adjacent to Graphene's original purpose, and I hope it's not too annoying for their community.

DaSHacka 1mo ago
I actually think there's already a lot of us in the 'community' as-is. I personally describe it as 'Valuing Privacy/Freedom over Security'. One pretty clear example of this is how they don't recommend using FireFox Mobile and F-Droid, both of which I use regardless because I'm not willing to put up with worse privacy/usability tradeoffs in the name of (imo 'hyper-')security. I think it's fine the mission of the project isn't directly aligned with some of us, though I can tell we often get on the core contributor's nerves lol
- megagpt5 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ysnp 1mo ago
    I have mentioned F-Droid many times in the official Matrix before they moved to Discord and not been banned. You might be misunderstanding what actually happened or have not asked the moderators why someone was banned.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    No one has been banned from our chat rooms for mentioning F-Droid. That's a completely fabricated claim easily disproven with a search. There are a massive number of discussions about it where people often disagree about it. GrapheneOS has official chat rooms on Matrix and Discord to provide people with multiple options. We also have semi-official Telegram and SimpleX groups.
- titularcomment 1mo ago
  FYI, there are ungoogled chromium builds for Android. Firefox Mobile really is a lackluster browser unfortunately both from a usability and security standpoint (e.g. IonStack worked on Fennec)
  - Semaphor 1mo ago
    I really like the Firefox usability. For what I do it works great. It has uBo and a bunch of other extensions, and if course it can sync with desktop.
  - tpm 1mo ago
    I'm using Firefox mobile for many years exclusively (since chrome forced some stupid feature on me, I think it was tab groups which I hated and couldn't turn off. And of course no ubo). Could be a bit faster probably? Otherwise don't see any issues.
  - aaravchen 1mo ago
    I would actually argue the exact opposite. All of the Chromium-based forks are a usability disaster. I have to use grid view only to see my tabs? It took them most of a decade to finally get the relatively common place bottom bar, and it still arbitrarily decides to ignore your setting if it thinks your screen is "too big"? It's just failure after failure. I absolutely dread when some shitty site I'm forced to use refuses to load in anything but chrome and I have to open up Vanadium for the first time in forever.
    - Markoff 1mo ago
      pretty sure Cromite allows more options than just grid view which I hate, I usually use List, though I recently switched back to Firefox, already even forgot the reason
- unrented7977 1mo ago
  This is the exact reason I quit using Graphene. It felt exactly like selling out control of my device to the Graphene devs in the same way a stock phone is controlled by Google. Far, far too "opinionated" for my taste. I frankly do not need the hyper paranoid security features like a hardened memory allocator or disabled root. I would rather be able to use my device the way I want, even if that's notionally "less secure". I really wish there were another option. Lineage is too far in the opposite direction and feels like ad-blocked stock. Google still owns my phone, there's just a more pleasant coat of paint on it.
  - throawayonthe 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  - seany 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  - tentacleuno 1mo ago
    > I frankly do not need the hyper paranoid security features like a hardened memory allocator I get the part about disabled root - you're choosing to sacrifice freedom for security - though I don't understand why you wouldn't want a hardened memory allocator. It provides additional security over the stock OS for very little cost (slightly more resource consumption), in an era where we absolutely need as much security as we can get; what are you losing by gaining this?
- Borealid 1mo ago
  They're both security, just security "against" different things. Graphene frequently fails to clearly describe the threat model when calling something "more secure". For example, let's say hypothetically I want to be secure against the threat of Google pushing a targeted update to my phone that runs malicious code. Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat. But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services". Similarly, if you want privacy you might secure your device by locking the bootloader with your own keys - not a third-party vendor's keys. Saying that's "insecure" is extremely misleading: it just puts you in charge of security, instead of abdicating to someone else. I wish there were something like GrapheneOS that let you choose, yourself, who to trust instead of requiring you trust an OS vendor implicitly.
  - exceptione 1mo ago
    > Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat I would say that any auto-update mechanism is a threat, so in both cases you would disable auto-updates.
    - lucb1e 1mo ago
      The point is that you might know the people behind microG or trust them for any other reason, but not the people at Google
      - exceptione 1mo ago
        Fair point.
  - microtonal 1mo ago
    But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services". It is. microG runs Google DroidGuard blobs in a privileged process (to pass Play Integrity Basic). Reminder for those who forgot about DroidGuard: it's an obfuscated binary blob delivered to you by Google on each request that uses a special VM with constantly changing registers, etc. to avoid analysis. On GrapheneOS that crap runs in a sandbox.
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  GrapheneOS is a privacy project and solely works on security to protect privacy. The reason for our recommendations related to those areas is privacy.
flexagoon 1mo ago
> I hope it's not too annoying for their community There's plenty of people like that in the GOS community (the forum and the Matrix). Everyone generally understands that different people have different threat models and may want to do things that aren't the most secure. Otherwise everyone would be using GOS in airplane mode with disabled cameras and only paying for things with Monero. The core dev team is obviously a bit more security absolutist, but even they usually dont mind
- lucb1e 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ysnp 1mo ago
    >Citation needed. grapheneos themselves sure doesn't understand this The GrapheneOS team understand full well that in cases where the Play Store does not allow installing an app on your device due to device or georestrictive rules you may have no choice. I have seen them mention this and acknowledge it first hand. What they do not want is for people to become satisfied with subpar solutions instead of striving for bare minimum privacy/security standards. They want a Play Store alternative front end to at least be able to guarantee you are receiving the right app you want instead of being a substitution attack risk. I don't think that is unreasonable. >The official website has an install guide for google's background services, saying it's fine because it's in their security model. The context is that before sandboxed-play-services were introduced people were sourcing APKs in unsafe/via unverified routes and having all sorts of problems with app compatibility because since GrapheneOS is a privacy project that do not accept sending copious amounts of data to one party with a mediocre privacy policy they included no Google services at all. sandboxed-play-services is a specific solution to the problem of apps being dependent on Google Mobile Services for functionality, and in that sense it is entirely optional. It was the best way for them to provide compatibility without destroying the privacy of their platform by introducing a privileged Google binary that can glean and abuse your production environment. It's reduced to the same level as any other app the user might choose to install themselves (which GrapheneOS want absolutely no say over as a user freedom protecting project). GrapheneOS do not bundle any Google services in their official installation. They do not endorse Google's data collection and service practices. They do not believe Google tracking is fine in anyway, and the evidence is here: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm What they have done is provide a workaround for people who have no alternative, while making sure it does not violate the device owners device in a special way compared to any other app they might install.
einpoklum 1mo ago
> I get that they say sandboxed Play is more secure than Aurora I don't see the word "privacy" in that sentence though.

by troyvit 1mo ago

DaSHacka 1mo ago

I actually think there's already a lot of us in the 'community' as-is. I personally describe it as 'Valuing Privacy/Freedom over Security'. One pretty clear example of this is how they don't recommend using FireFox Mobile and F-Droid, both of which I use regardless because I'm not willing to put up with worse privacy/usability tradeoffs in the name of (imo 'hyper-')security. I think it's fine the mission of the project isn't directly aligned with some of us, though I can tell we often get on the core contributor's nerves lol

megagpt5 1mo ago
[flagged]
- ysnp 1mo ago
  I have mentioned F-Droid many times in the official Matrix before they moved to Discord and not been banned. You might be misunderstanding what actually happened or have not asked the moderators why someone was banned.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  No one has been banned from our chat rooms for mentioning F-Droid. That's a completely fabricated claim easily disproven with a search. There are a massive number of discussions about it where people often disagree about it. GrapheneOS has official chat rooms on Matrix and Discord to provide people with multiple options. We also have semi-official Telegram and SimpleX groups.
titularcomment 1mo ago
FYI, there are ungoogled chromium builds for Android. Firefox Mobile really is a lackluster browser unfortunately both from a usability and security standpoint (e.g. IonStack worked on Fennec)
- Semaphor 1mo ago
  I really like the Firefox usability. For what I do it works great. It has uBo and a bunch of other extensions, and if course it can sync with desktop.
- tpm 1mo ago
  I'm using Firefox mobile for many years exclusively (since chrome forced some stupid feature on me, I think it was tab groups which I hated and couldn't turn off. And of course no ubo). Could be a bit faster probably? Otherwise don't see any issues.
- aaravchen 1mo ago
  I would actually argue the exact opposite. All of the Chromium-based forks are a usability disaster. I have to use grid view only to see my tabs? It took them most of a decade to finally get the relatively common place bottom bar, and it still arbitrarily decides to ignore your setting if it thinks your screen is "too big"? It's just failure after failure. I absolutely dread when some shitty site I'm forced to use refuses to load in anything but chrome and I have to open up Vanadium for the first time in forever.
  - Markoff 1mo ago
    pretty sure Cromite allows more options than just grid view which I hate, I usually use List, though I recently switched back to Firefox, already even forgot the reason
unrented7977 1mo ago
This is the exact reason I quit using Graphene. It felt exactly like selling out control of my device to the Graphene devs in the same way a stock phone is controlled by Google. Far, far too "opinionated" for my taste. I frankly do not need the hyper paranoid security features like a hardened memory allocator or disabled root. I would rather be able to use my device the way I want, even if that's notionally "less secure". I really wish there were another option. Lineage is too far in the opposite direction and feels like ad-blocked stock. Google still owns my phone, there's just a more pleasant coat of paint on it.
- throawayonthe 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- seany 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- tentacleuno 1mo ago
  > I frankly do not need the hyper paranoid security features like a hardened memory allocator I get the part about disabled root - you're choosing to sacrifice freedom for security - though I don't understand why you wouldn't want a hardened memory allocator. It provides additional security over the stock OS for very little cost (slightly more resource consumption), in an era where we absolutely need as much security as we can get; what are you losing by gaining this?
Borealid 1mo ago
They're both security, just security "against" different things. Graphene frequently fails to clearly describe the threat model when calling something "more secure". For example, let's say hypothetically I want to be secure against the threat of Google pushing a targeted update to my phone that runs malicious code. Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat. But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services". Similarly, if you want privacy you might secure your device by locking the bootloader with your own keys - not a third-party vendor's keys. Saying that's "insecure" is extremely misleading: it just puts you in charge of security, instead of abdicating to someone else. I wish there were something like GrapheneOS that let you choose, yourself, who to trust instead of requiring you trust an OS vendor implicitly.
- exceptione 1mo ago
  > Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat I would say that any auto-update mechanism is a threat, so in both cases you would disable auto-updates.
  - lucb1e 1mo ago
    The point is that you might know the people behind microG or trust them for any other reason, but not the people at Google
    - exceptione 1mo ago
      Fair point.
- microtonal 1mo ago
  But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services". It is. microG runs Google DroidGuard blobs in a privileged process (to pass Play Integrity Basic). Reminder for those who forgot about DroidGuard: it's an obfuscated binary blob delivered to you by Google on each request that uses a special VM with constantly changing registers, etc. to avoid analysis. On GrapheneOS that crap runs in a sandbox.
grapheneos 1mo ago
GrapheneOS is a privacy project and solely works on security to protect privacy. The reason for our recommendations related to those areas is privacy.

flexagoon 1mo ago

> I hope it's not too annoying for their community There's plenty of people like that in the GOS community (the forum and the Matrix). Everyone generally understands that different people have different threat models and may want to do things that aren't the most secure. Otherwise everyone would be using GOS in airplane mode with disabled cameras and only paying for things with Monero. The core dev team is obviously a bit more security absolutist, but even they usually dont mind

lucb1e 1mo ago
[flagged]
- ysnp 1mo ago
  >Citation needed. grapheneos themselves sure doesn't understand this The GrapheneOS team understand full well that in cases where the Play Store does not allow installing an app on your device due to device or georestrictive rules you may have no choice. I have seen them mention this and acknowledge it first hand. What they do not want is for people to become satisfied with subpar solutions instead of striving for bare minimum privacy/security standards. They want a Play Store alternative front end to at least be able to guarantee you are receiving the right app you want instead of being a substitution attack risk. I don't think that is unreasonable. >The official website has an install guide for google's background services, saying it's fine because it's in their security model. The context is that before sandboxed-play-services were introduced people were sourcing APKs in unsafe/via unverified routes and having all sorts of problems with app compatibility because since GrapheneOS is a privacy project that do not accept sending copious amounts of data to one party with a mediocre privacy policy they included no Google services at all. sandboxed-play-services is a specific solution to the problem of apps being dependent on Google Mobile Services for functionality, and in that sense it is entirely optional. It was the best way for them to provide compatibility without destroying the privacy of their platform by introducing a privileged Google binary that can glean and abuse your production environment. It's reduced to the same level as any other app the user might choose to install themselves (which GrapheneOS want absolutely no say over as a user freedom protecting project). GrapheneOS do not bundle any Google services in their official installation. They do not endorse Google's data collection and service practices. They do not believe Google tracking is fine in anyway, and the evidence is here: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm What they have done is provide a workaround for people who have no alternative, while making sure it does not violate the device owners device in a special way compared to any other app they might install.

einpoklum 1mo ago

> I get that they say sandboxed Play is more secure than Aurora I don't see the word "privacy" in that sentence though.