4 ms·

I just wish Graphene had better support for non-Google hardware.

armadyl 8d ago
More like OEMs need to take security more seriously and add in the capable hardware and commit to firmware updates long term.
- dessimus 8d ago
  Unless there is a real market advantage to it, they won't. Consumers prove over and over again they are willing to trade security to save a few dollars. Furthermore, why commit to providing hardware and software support for a device to last 5+ years, when ~25% of Americans report damaging their device each year[0]. Most of a device's population will have been replaced in 3 years. [0]: https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/322486.htm https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/32248...
  - armadyl 8d ago
    Yeah unfortunately this is the case. Privacy and security in general are things most average consumers don’t necessarily care for, and especially don’t care for when it provides inconveniences. Even in more tech enthusiast crowds you see this reflected most obviously in people wanting to use Firefox over any Chromium variant of a browser. Not to mention to reach GOS’ requirements the cost of the phone would have to significantly increase which I imagine only hurts Android phones even more for no real gain since GOS users are minuscule overall. And the long term support is definitely not the norm yeah. It’s pretty much just Apple and Google doing it for their own devices. Motorola will be a newcomer to this concept with GOS. But we can only wait and see if they actually stick to it, given their track record prior to the collaboration. Google probably got away with it cause they made the chips and security chips themselves. I read something like Tensor costing $70 vs. a Qualcomm chip with MTE costing $250. But even with of all this, it wouldn’t make sense for GOS to spend it’s limited resources developing for a less secure platform when appropriate target devices exist (they mentioned something to this effect a few days ago on reddit too): https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1wifsiq/comment/paac5gz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1wifsiq/comment...
vkaku 8d ago
Those Razr phone updates need to start landing sooner ....
subscribed 8d ago
They can't due to the shortcomings of the hardware (why develop a hardened os to the grossly insecure hardware) or the vendor (no/slow updates, etc). Anyone is free to fork, add the desired hardware support and flash. (that's aside of some Moto flagships in 2027)
- tcfhgj 8d ago
  they can, but don't want to
  - subscribed 7d ago
    OK, I'm confused, explain how they can deliver comparable security on a hardware that does not offer the same capabilities, from a vendor who doesn't provide patches. You say they can. How?
    - tredre3 7d ago
      The hardware capability that GrapheneOS loves to use as a shield to deny support for other devices is the ability to use custom AVB keys. Without custom keys you can't relock the bootloader after installing a custom OS on most phones. The consequences of having an unlocked bootloader are that you are susceptible to an evil maid attack. This is a real threat, but the reality is that the average person is more likely to be hacked/spied on from the software side, which Graphene would protect you from as effectively as it does on Pixel.
      - subscribed 7d ago
        So you're saying that being unable to prove the provenance of the image (whether it's original or not), becoming immediately exposed to downgrade attack, to someone injecting malware to /sys and you being unable to detect it.... That's not a big deal? :) Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
        7d ago

More like OEMs need to take security more seriously and add in the capable hardware and commit to firmware updates long term.

dessimus 8d ago
Unless there is a real market advantage to it, they won't. Consumers prove over and over again they are willing to trade security to save a few dollars. Furthermore, why commit to providing hardware and software support for a device to last 5+ years, when ~25% of Americans report damaging their device each year[0]. Most of a device's population will have been replaced in 3 years. [0]: https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/322486.htm https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/32248...
- armadyl 8d ago
  Yeah unfortunately this is the case. Privacy and security in general are things most average consumers don’t necessarily care for, and especially don’t care for when it provides inconveniences. Even in more tech enthusiast crowds you see this reflected most obviously in people wanting to use Firefox over any Chromium variant of a browser. Not to mention to reach GOS’ requirements the cost of the phone would have to significantly increase which I imagine only hurts Android phones even more for no real gain since GOS users are minuscule overall. And the long term support is definitely not the norm yeah. It’s pretty much just Apple and Google doing it for their own devices. Motorola will be a newcomer to this concept with GOS. But we can only wait and see if they actually stick to it, given their track record prior to the collaboration. Google probably got away with it cause they made the chips and security chips themselves. I read something like Tensor costing $70 vs. a Qualcomm chip with MTE costing $250. But even with of all this, it wouldn’t make sense for GOS to spend it’s limited resources developing for a less secure platform when appropriate target devices exist (they mentioned something to this effect a few days ago on reddit too): https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1wifsiq/comment/paac5gz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1wifsiq/comment...

vkaku 8d ago

Those Razr phone updates need to start landing sooner ....

subscribed 8d ago

They can't due to the shortcomings of the hardware (why develop a hardened os to the grossly insecure hardware) or the vendor (no/slow updates, etc). Anyone is free to fork, add the desired hardware support and flash. (that's aside of some Moto flagships in 2027)

tcfhgj 8d ago
they can, but don't want to
- subscribed 7d ago
  OK, I'm confused, explain how they can deliver comparable security on a hardware that does not offer the same capabilities, from a vendor who doesn't provide patches. You say they can. How?
  - tredre3 7d ago
    The hardware capability that GrapheneOS loves to use as a shield to deny support for other devices is the ability to use custom AVB keys. Without custom keys you can't relock the bootloader after installing a custom OS on most phones. The consequences of having an unlocked bootloader are that you are susceptible to an evil maid attack. This is a real threat, but the reality is that the average person is more likely to be hacked/spied on from the software side, which Graphene would protect you from as effectively as it does on Pixel.
    - subscribed 7d ago
      So you're saying that being unable to prove the provenance of the image (whether it's original or not), becoming immediately exposed to downgrade attack, to someone injecting malware to /sys and you being unable to detect it.... That's not a big deal? :) Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
      - 7d ago