I am a long term GrapheneOS user and would like to talk about it. r/privacy on the redditland blocks custom OS discussions which I think is very bad for user privacy, and I hope this post will be useful to anyone who are in the hunt for better privacy.
Nowadays smartphones are a much bigger threats to our privacy and Desktop systems, and unfortunately manufacturers has designed them to be locked down devices with no user freedom. You can't just "install Linux" on most smartphones and it is horrible. And most preloaded systems spy on us like crazy. That was why I specifically bought a pixel and loaded GOS onto it.
According to https://grapheneos.org/features , they start from base AOSP's latest version, imptoves upon it's security and significantly hardens it. There's hardened_malloc to.prevent against exploitation, disabling lots of debugging features, disabling USB-c data, hardening the Linux kernel and system apps etc. They even block accessing the hardware identifiers of the phone so that apps cannot detect whqt phone you're using. That means with Tor and zero permissions given, apps are anonymous.
Compatibility with apps are best in Custom ROMs but there are still that can't work, especially if they enforce device integrity. Very few apps usually enforce that tho. Also their community isn't the friendliest but you can get help. Just don't try and engage too much or have too many debates.
Anyone else here use GrapheneOS, or any other privacy ROMs? What is your experience? Do you disagree on any point? Let's have a discussion!
I post someone's comment on a controversial topic about google and GOS. I saved it because that's exactly how I feel.
Look - I know, I know. I get it. Google allows you to unlock the bootloader while maintaining the phone's unique and excellent hardware security features. The argument makes sense. It is compelling. Other manufacturers do not give you this freedom. I am not arguing about that. I have a Pixel phone running GrapheneOS myself.
However... It is just so very obviously ironic that one needs to trust Google's hardware and purchase a Google product to de-google their life through GrapheneOS. I think that it is a perfectly valid position for someone to raise their eyebrows, laugh, and remain skeptical of the concept either because they do not want to support Google at all, or because they simply will not trust Google's hardware.
The reason why I think that this is "controversial" is because I have seen multiple instances of someone pointing out the irony, followed by someone getting defensive about it and making use of the technical security arguments in an attempt to patch up the irony.
https://mander.xyz/comment/15084264
I think buying a Pixel phone second hand solves this issue and reduces a little e-waste at the same time.
This. I never buy a Pixel new.
Yeah it's ironic but what is the alternative? At least we CAN remove Google's known spyware from the device, and there's no evidence of firmware level spying. If you get Samsung, or some chinese crap, you can't remove Google period, and you might get spied by the manufacturer as a cherry on top. There is no way to have a perfect solution, well unless Samsung starts to provide Custom ROM support or something.
I'm using a Fairphone with /e/os. No Google at all.
Not hardened though. I was heavily considering fairphone but over the back and forth between them discussing with Graphene developers, their hardware is not secure enough yet for graphene to be made for the fairphones. If and when fairphones are on graphene then I will definitely buy them.
Also, even though I commend their phone, the accessories for earbuds and headphones certainly bring up some questions as to their intentions.
It's because Graphene is not a custom ROM. /e/os is. Graphene is just an OS on top of the ROM, and Fairphone doesn't update their ROM often enough.
This is a complete non-issue though if you use a custom ROM like LineageOS or /e/os.
No. The issue is with hardware secure elements in how cryptographically intensive workloads are done
https://www.androidauthority.com/titan-m2-google-3261547/
Unfortunately the fairphone falls quite behind in this and relies on software salt and hash that can be exploited.
Buying a used pixel and installing Graphene OS is absolutely a more secure platform than any AOSP based open source bootloader unlocked ROM.
This was not given as reason by the devs why graphene is not on Fairphone. The delayed security updates were.
It's a holistic statement that doesn't factor into this.
If your objective is to punish Google, or to have nothing to do with Google. I completely agree with you using a pixel phone just doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't do it
If your objective is to have the most security possible... Then you should install graphene on a Pixel phone.
This is exactly why I don't have graphene os, the irony of having to support google is too much for me call me paranoid but i also dont trust them with the hardware piece either lol. I've been running lineage os without gapps and its honestly great, updates and patches are every few weeks, super stable and awesome.
I assume you're using it with bootloader unlocked. The issue is somehow some malware injects your phone and roots it, it can just install itself as a system service and just live there and you'll never know. The security feature that protects against it is disabled once bootloader is unlocked.
Also I've heard that LineageOS has not all security updates present since some firmware updates needs to be provided by the specific manufacturer. For Pixel, Google provides it and GOS uses it.
Yes, a lot of people in this thread should look up the difference between a hardware based secure element and a salted hash.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_element
I don't have any answer for the point where you would not trust Google even for the hardware (even though I don't think there is any risk on the current devices)
But concerning the "don't want to support Google" an easier answer is to buy a second-hand Pixel
The point of not trusting Google hardware is that there is no way to know what hidden function is in there. De-lidding and reversing isn't practical at current integration density. So, no, I don't trust the hardware to not contain remoteable backdoors. But it's a pretty high threat level.
With the lack of any other viable option, I struggle to see the point of the arguement.