But “give up a bit on security” doesnt preserve privacy that’s the whole thing.
Also them being hypocritical for suggesting pixels isn’t really true, its the only unlockable device where you can relock the bootloader afterwards which is necessary for the asbolute maximum security of the OS. *and also has secure element, among other important requirements for security.
Motorola will change this.
I personally don’t cut corners when it comes to security and I don’t think anyone should honestly.
But “give up a bit on security” doesnt preserve privacy that’s the whole thing.
I gotta disagree with this. GrapheneOS has bought into the crappy smart phone threat model, but the most obvious way to preserve my privacy is to give me complete control over my device and let me tailor it as I see fit. This means root. GrapheneOS doesn’t allow root access and that’s horrible for privacy.
I once again cannot disagree more strongly. This is the BS that has been pushed by the mobile phone world. It couldn’t be more wrong. Well designed root access to your own device would dramatically increase its security for those who chose to use it.
Here are a few things you simply cannot do on a phone and would be considered terrible in any other context:
Control system, root level services running on your device. The idea that you can’t do this is a security nightmare. It is the single most basic security tenant I can think of that is grossly violated. You have no control over your device’s attack surface
Control privileged non-root applications
Control network traffic. You have no low level control over your device’s firewall without root. You want egress rules? Sorry.
Linux namespaces. You literally are banned from accessing the single greatest Linux security feature since UIDs and GIDs. Network namespace isolation? You can’t do it. UID remapping? Nah. Mount namespaces? Nope.
SELinux policy. Android relies heavily on SELinux and you have no control over it at all.
Device handling. There was a great root exploit a long time ago with just a plugged in USB that would have never existed on devices that sanely disabled automounting.
There is so much more. I can’t even imagine calling a device I had no root access to “secure” in a personal threat model. Business? Sure. Personal? God no. Not even close.
It’s not the only device you can relock the bootloader. I am typing from a Fairphone using e/os with a bootloader I locked after installing it.
I don’t cut corners on my morals, so will never give money to google. Even indirectly by buying second hand and making their phones more attractive to buy.
If your threat model is a state actor breaking through your phone’s TPM then sure, but for most people escaping the google ecosystem is by far the biggest need in terms of privacy/security
Note: IDK exactly what graphene needs hardware wise, don’t quote me. Point is, there’s such a thing as “good enough”
But “give up a bit on security” doesnt preserve privacy that’s the whole thing.
Also them being hypocritical for suggesting pixels isn’t really true, its the only unlockable device where you can relock the bootloader afterwards which is necessary for the asbolute maximum security of the OS. *and also has secure element, among other important requirements for security.
Motorola will change this.
I personally don’t cut corners when it comes to security and I don’t think anyone should honestly.
I gotta disagree with this. GrapheneOS has bought into the crappy smart phone threat model, but the most obvious way to preserve my privacy is to give me complete control over my device and let me tailor it as I see fit. This means root. GrapheneOS doesn’t allow root access and that’s horrible for privacy.
Sent from my GrapheneOS phone
Root access is tricky because it can be less secure overall but I guess this is dependent on your use case.
I think you can still do it but you have to edit the rom beforehand so yeah not out of the box.
I once again cannot disagree more strongly. This is the BS that has been pushed by the mobile phone world. It couldn’t be more wrong. Well designed root access to your own device would dramatically increase its security for those who chose to use it.
Here are a few things you simply cannot do on a phone and would be considered terrible in any other context:
There is so much more. I can’t even imagine calling a device I had no root access to “secure” in a personal threat model. Business? Sure. Personal? God no. Not even close.
This is in addition to the privacy benefits.
It’s not the only device you can relock the bootloader. I am typing from a Fairphone using e/os with a bootloader I locked after installing it.
I don’t cut corners on my morals, so will never give money to google. Even indirectly by buying second hand and making their phones more attractive to buy.
Ah I see that they have decided to support it now with the fairphone 4 which is awesome. Before that you had to use google test keys to do it.
It still lacks a secure element which is pretty important for security and privacy. It also lags behind on security updates.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44375865
That’s a good discussion about it.
I respect not giving money to google though but I can’t cut corners on security even if it means I have to go into the belly of the beast myself.
I’ll be very relieved when the Motorola GOS phone drops
If your threat model is a state actor breaking through your phone’s TPM then sure, but for most people escaping the google ecosystem is by far the biggest need in terms of privacy/security
Note: IDK exactly what graphene needs hardware wise, don’t quote me. Point is, there’s such a thing as “good enough”