7 ms·

"[GrapheneOS] lost most interest in that hardware due to the poor way privacy, security, updates and marketing based on these things has been handled." https:/

"[GrapheneOS] lost most interest in that hardware due to the poor way privacy, security, updates and marketing based on these things has been handled." https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/28825-is-there-any-chance-or-interest-in-working-together-with-fairphone/3 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/28825-is-there-any-chance-o...

gruez 1mo ago
Here's a post with more specific allegations: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
NoboruWataya 1mo ago
I'm sure their concerns are valid but just because GrapheneOS don't consider the Fairphone to meet their standards for security doesn't mean it is not worth considering for other people who may have different priorities. Fairphones have certain advantages over Pixels such as better repairability and more ethically sourced labour/components. IMO it's good to see the Fairphone do well (and I hope GrapheneOS's partnership with Motorola also goes well).
- stymaar 1mo ago
  Unfortunately it looks like it's not just a issue of missing hardware security features: > Their partnership with Murena along with promoting it themselves with misleading marketing means no possibility of working with us. I want to like GrapheneOS, but the pettiness of its leadership is a real problem for the long term prospect of the project.
  - hokumguru 1mo ago
    Is it pettiness or just sticking to their morals? Murena, as they mentioned, forwards data to OpenAI which is against pretty much everything Graphene stands for.
    - krunck 1mo ago
      > Murena, as they mentioned, forwards data to OpenAI which is against pretty much everything Graphene stands for. How? In what way? Source?
      - Telaneo 1mo ago
        https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using-open-ai/70509 https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using...
        stymaar 1mo ago
        June 2025 Someone else shared the up to date info about this feature: https://doc.e.foundation/os/apps/voice-to-text https://doc.e.foundation/os/apps/voice-to-text > The earlier Voice to Text was a Premium-only, online feature: it streamed your speech to a third-party AI transcription service through an anonymising proxy, so it required a Murena Workspace Premium subscription and an internet connection. > The new Voice to Text is free, offline and on-device
        grapheneos 1mo ago
        /e/ has other privacy invasive services which are enabled by default. It gives highly privileged access to Google services which are always active and has user tracking in their update client. /e/ and Murena repeatedly claiming privacy/security hardened devices mainly benefit criminals and falsely claiming they're mainly used by criminals shows what they believe: https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie... https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 /e/ lacks many crucial standard privacy/security patches and protections: https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603
    - oever 1mo ago
      [flagged]
  - Telaneo 1mo ago
    That does not seem like pettiness to me. That seems like a very good reason to not work with someone.
    - NetMageSCW 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Telaneo 1mo ago
        I'm not sure how you can read my comment to imply that.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      - grapheneos 1mo ago
        Fairphones continue to have awful updates, privacy and security. /e/ sending user speech data to OpenAI without consent for years never had anything to do with why Fairphones don't meet our requirements. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354807
  - Cider9986 1mo ago
    >I want to like GrapheneOS, but the pettiness of its leadership is a real problem I used to feel a bit similarly. But I've since realized they are one of the very few software projects that actually make sensible privacy and security choices.
    - dnautics 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - grapheneos 1mo ago
        The privacy and security deficiencies of CalyxOS have nothing to do with compromises for usability. GrapheneOS provides much better usability including through having far broader app compatibility. CalyxOS drastically reduces privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. It recently went a whole year without privacy and security patches. They're currently months behind on providing current Pixel driver and firmware updates. It has never been a privacy or security hardened OS but rather the direct opposite.
        dnautics 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        grapheneos 1mo ago
        An operating system going a year without providing privacy and security patches is much worse than many options on that basis alone. It's currently months behind on updates. It's hardly the only other option available.
  - HybridStatAnim8 1mo ago
    Refusing to work with organizations or individuals that are detrimental to privacy and security is not petty. Murena does not provide private or secure products and has positioned itself to be against what GrapheneOS provides. A partnership with a company opposed to GrapheneOS and spreading misinformation about it would not be beneficial, and it is not petty to make the smart choice for the benefit of privacy and security.
  - m4xp 1mo ago
    As someone that swapped from fairphone 5 to a pixel9a with graphene. I have to side with graphene. Fairphone is a cool concept, but its a expensive phone, early on i had problem with the speakers and mic. Security updates are extremely slow, support is extremely slow. Their missions is to make a fair phone, but is it fair if you are then forced to buy more ewaste because your phone breaks? Look at pixel software support, its really good, and eu made batteries replacement mandatory.
- drnick1 1mo ago
  The Graphene devs can be a bit obsessive about security, but with a starting price above $600, I think the average user is probably better off with a Pixel 10a bought on sale closer to $300. The stock Fairphone OS seems to include Google services, which is kind of surprising and at odds with the focus on user control and all that.
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    Fairphones don't provide bare minimum privacy and security. Expecting that is not being obsessive. The flaws are increasingly glaring and easier than ever to exploit thanks to advances in AI models. People should care about this and should get a device with reasonable privacy and security such as an iPhone instead. Fairphone 5 and earlier having an end-of-life Linux kernel with the Fairphone 6 coming up next is a disaster. Many months of delays for standard Android userspace patches from when they can first be shipped and years of delays for the full patches is also a major problem. An increasingly small portion of the patches is backported to older releases and they have months of delays for those. Fairphones are also missing crucial industry standard hardware security features. People have come to expect their device will provide strong encryption with a random 6 digit PIN rather than a very strong passphrase but that's not the case with a Fairphone. More information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354623
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  Fairphones have atrocious updates, privacy and security. They lag many months and even years behind on providing crucial standard privacy and security patches. They've failed to respond to the discovery of severe security issues including multiple of their devices using publicly available private keys for signing. Fairphone lags months behind on providing Android Security Bulletin patches which are themselves delayed by months compared to when OEMs are first provided and allowed to ship the patches. They lag a year or more behind on major OS updates and count this as additional support time compared to other OEMs. For example, a final major OS update being delayed for 3 years is marketed as providing 3 more years of support compared to shipping it on time. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel branch and the same fate awaits the Fairphone 6. Pixels move to newer kernel branches and are currently moving to 6.12 and then on to 6.18. Other OEMs are also beginning to use newer kernels and move to new branches. Linux LTS branches are only going to have 2 years of support going forward. Fairphones are designed and assembled by an ODM. Fairphone has very limited involvement in engineering the devices. The working conditions and supply chain are also largely up to T2Mobile rather than Fairphone. Whether either of those are better than Pixels or especially iPhones should be demonstrated with evidence. There's extremely little information available on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of the assembly and supply chain for Fairphones. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS without Google Mobile Services with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. /e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed highly private and secure devices mainly benefit criminals and pedophiles along with peddling other authoritarian talking points. They've falsely claimed GrapheneOS devices are mainly used by criminals and aren't useful to regular people. https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie... https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 Despite the marketing, /e/ has very poor privacy and security. /e/ has their own invasive services with tracking, gives highly privileged access to default enabled Google services and doesn't keep up with basic updates. It greatly rolls back privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/co... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
dnautics 1mo ago
i dont get it, they are comparing eOS to graphene, not talking about the hardware. this would be like grapheneOS not using pixel because the stock android that ships with it does not respect privacy. am i missing something?
- gruez 1mo ago
  You still need to rely on the OEM to properly configure the bootloader, not leak the keys, and provide updated vendor blobs.
  - dnautics 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - gruez 1mo ago
      > I guess, my attack model for my personal phones doesn't really account for "my phone got stolen", I'm far more worried about impersonation and remote phone hijacking than needing to be safe from confiscation from feds. Even if you only care about "remote phone hijacking", not being able to provide timely vendor blob/drivers/kernel means you're wide open for EoP exploits. As for why they take such a hard line on physical security, well it's their project and they can have whatever high standards they want, especially if they want to project an image of being an absolute secure phone. The code's all open source so it's not too hard to port to another device, especially nowadays with AI.
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      Fairphone lags many months behind on Android privacy/security patches. They also end up with an end-of-life Linux kernel without the vast majority of the most important patches which is the case for the Fairphone 5 and earlier. It's not far away for the Fairphone 6. Moving to new Linux kernel branches is an expectation by Google and the upstream Linux kernel for OEMs but Fairphone isn't doing it. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. That's why those are relevant. Fairphones without /e/ still lack reasonable privacy and security, but they're a lot worse with it. /e/ and Murena have very poor privacy and security for their products combined with very inaccurate marketing. They've repeatedly portrayed private and secure devices as mainly benefiting and being used by criminals and pedophiles. Those are their own explicit choices of words. They've claimed this dozens of times about GrapheneOS including alongside France's national agencies making these inaccurate claims. More information with sources: https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603
my123 1mo ago
One thing in the story is that the SPU - the secure enclave on Qualcomm chips that is separate from just running on TrustZone on the main processor - is only available on Snapdragon 8 and X tier products. It's market segmented away from 7 series and below.
- microtonal 1mo ago
  Also, I think Qualcomm has only started supporting MTE on Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5. Older and cheaper SoCs do not support it yet. Outside that, I think only Google Tensor, recent Exynos generations, and Apple A-series support MTE (though IIRC Apple has an improved extension of it).
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 has at support for MTE. It doesn't yet support running the whole kernel and userspace with it in practice as GrapheneOS requires but we're going to be working on it with Motorola and Qualcomm.
protimewaster 1mo ago
Fairphone also had the publicly available test key flagged as trusted by the boot loader at one point, which probably discourages projects like GOS, since it makes it harder to trust the hardware to not be a weak link in security.
grapheneos 1mo ago
Fairphones lack the updates and hardware-based security features expected by GrapheneOS. They're missing hardware security features needed to provide strong encryption for the vast majority of users not using a very strong passphrase. They're similarly missing hardware-based protections heavily used in GrapheneOS to protect from exploitation including remote attacks. Fairphones have atrocious updates, privacy and security. They lag many months and even years behind on providing crucial standard privacy and security patches. They've failed to respond to the discovery of severe security issues including multiple of their devices using publicly available private keys for signing. Fairphone lags months behind on providing Android Security Bulletin patches which are themselves delayed by months compared to when OEMs are first provided and allowed to ship the patches. They lag a year or more behind on major OS updates and count this as additional support time compared to other OEMs. For example, a final major OS update being delayed for 3 years is marketed as providing 3 more years of support compared to shipping it on time. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel branch and the same fate awaits the Fairphone 6. Pixels move to newer kernel branches and are currently moving to 6.12 and then on to 6.18. Other OEMs are also beginning to use newer kernels and move to new branches. Linux LTS branches are only going to have 2 years of support going forward. Fairphones are designed and assembled by an ODM. Fairphone has very limited involvement in engineering the devices. The working conditions and supply chain are also largely up to T2Mobile rather than Fairphone. Whether either of those are better than Pixels or especially iPhones should be demonstrated with evidence. There's extremely little information available on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of the assembly and supply chain for Fairphones. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS without Google Mobile Services with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. /e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed highly private and secure devices mainly benefit criminals and pedophiles along with peddling other authoritarian talking points. They've falsely claimed GrapheneOS devices are mainly used by criminals and aren't useful to regular people. Fairphone has chosen to stand with this company included when contacted by the media about criticism. https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.ht... Despite the marketing, /e/ has very poor privacy and security. /e/ has their own invasive services with tracking, gives highly privileged access to default enabled Google services and doesn't keep up with basic updates. It greatly rolls back privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/co... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...

gruez 1mo ago

Here's a post with more specific allegations: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...

NoboruWataya 1mo ago

I'm sure their concerns are valid but just because GrapheneOS don't consider the Fairphone to meet their standards for security doesn't mean it is not worth considering for other people who may have different priorities. Fairphones have certain advantages over Pixels such as better repairability and more ethically sourced labour/components. IMO it's good to see the Fairphone do well (and I hope GrapheneOS's partnership with Motorola also goes well).

stymaar 1mo ago
Unfortunately it looks like it's not just a issue of missing hardware security features: > Their partnership with Murena along with promoting it themselves with misleading marketing means no possibility of working with us. I want to like GrapheneOS, but the pettiness of its leadership is a real problem for the long term prospect of the project.
- hokumguru 1mo ago
  Is it pettiness or just sticking to their morals? Murena, as they mentioned, forwards data to OpenAI which is against pretty much everything Graphene stands for.
  - krunck 1mo ago
    > Murena, as they mentioned, forwards data to OpenAI which is against pretty much everything Graphene stands for. How? In what way? Source?
    - Telaneo 1mo ago
      https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using-open-ai/70509 https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using...
      - stymaar 1mo ago
        June 2025 Someone else shared the up to date info about this feature: https://doc.e.foundation/os/apps/voice-to-text https://doc.e.foundation/os/apps/voice-to-text > The earlier Voice to Text was a Premium-only, online feature: it streamed your speech to a third-party AI transcription service through an anonymising proxy, so it required a Murena Workspace Premium subscription and an internet connection. > The new Voice to Text is free, offline and on-device
        grapheneos 1mo ago
        /e/ has other privacy invasive services which are enabled by default. It gives highly privileged access to Google services which are always active and has user tracking in their update client. /e/ and Murena repeatedly claiming privacy/security hardened devices mainly benefit criminals and falsely claiming they're mainly used by criminals shows what they believe: https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie... https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 /e/ lacks many crucial standard privacy/security patches and protections: https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603
  - oever 1mo ago
    [flagged]
- Telaneo 1mo ago
  That does not seem like pettiness to me. That seems like a very good reason to not work with someone.
  - NetMageSCW 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Telaneo 1mo ago
      I'm not sure how you can read my comment to imply that.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      Fairphones continue to have awful updates, privacy and security. /e/ sending user speech data to OpenAI without consent for years never had anything to do with why Fairphones don't meet our requirements. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354807
- Cider9986 1mo ago
  >I want to like GrapheneOS, but the pettiness of its leadership is a real problem I used to feel a bit similarly. But I've since realized they are one of the very few software projects that actually make sensible privacy and security choices.
  - dnautics 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      The privacy and security deficiencies of CalyxOS have nothing to do with compromises for usability. GrapheneOS provides much better usability including through having far broader app compatibility. CalyxOS drastically reduces privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. It recently went a whole year without privacy and security patches. They're currently months behind on providing current Pixel driver and firmware updates. It has never been a privacy or security hardened OS but rather the direct opposite.
      - dnautics 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        grapheneos 1mo ago
        An operating system going a year without providing privacy and security patches is much worse than many options on that basis alone. It's currently months behind on updates. It's hardly the only other option available.
- HybridStatAnim8 1mo ago
  Refusing to work with organizations or individuals that are detrimental to privacy and security is not petty. Murena does not provide private or secure products and has positioned itself to be against what GrapheneOS provides. A partnership with a company opposed to GrapheneOS and spreading misinformation about it would not be beneficial, and it is not petty to make the smart choice for the benefit of privacy and security.
- m4xp 1mo ago
  As someone that swapped from fairphone 5 to a pixel9a with graphene. I have to side with graphene. Fairphone is a cool concept, but its a expensive phone, early on i had problem with the speakers and mic. Security updates are extremely slow, support is extremely slow. Their missions is to make a fair phone, but is it fair if you are then forced to buy more ewaste because your phone breaks? Look at pixel software support, its really good, and eu made batteries replacement mandatory.
drnick1 1mo ago
The Graphene devs can be a bit obsessive about security, but with a starting price above $600, I think the average user is probably better off with a Pixel 10a bought on sale closer to $300. The stock Fairphone OS seems to include Google services, which is kind of surprising and at odds with the focus on user control and all that.
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  Fairphones don't provide bare minimum privacy and security. Expecting that is not being obsessive. The flaws are increasingly glaring and easier than ever to exploit thanks to advances in AI models. People should care about this and should get a device with reasonable privacy and security such as an iPhone instead. Fairphone 5 and earlier having an end-of-life Linux kernel with the Fairphone 6 coming up next is a disaster. Many months of delays for standard Android userspace patches from when they can first be shipped and years of delays for the full patches is also a major problem. An increasingly small portion of the patches is backported to older releases and they have months of delays for those. Fairphones are also missing crucial industry standard hardware security features. People have come to expect their device will provide strong encryption with a random 6 digit PIN rather than a very strong passphrase but that's not the case with a Fairphone. More information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49354623
grapheneos 1mo ago
Fairphones have atrocious updates, privacy and security. They lag many months and even years behind on providing crucial standard privacy and security patches. They've failed to respond to the discovery of severe security issues including multiple of their devices using publicly available private keys for signing. Fairphone lags months behind on providing Android Security Bulletin patches which are themselves delayed by months compared to when OEMs are first provided and allowed to ship the patches. They lag a year or more behind on major OS updates and count this as additional support time compared to other OEMs. For example, a final major OS update being delayed for 3 years is marketed as providing 3 more years of support compared to shipping it on time. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel branch and the same fate awaits the Fairphone 6. Pixels move to newer kernel branches and are currently moving to 6.12 and then on to 6.18. Other OEMs are also beginning to use newer kernels and move to new branches. Linux LTS branches are only going to have 2 years of support going forward. Fairphones are designed and assembled by an ODM. Fairphone has very limited involvement in engineering the devices. The working conditions and supply chain are also largely up to T2Mobile rather than Fairphone. Whether either of those are better than Pixels or especially iPhones should be demonstrated with evidence. There's extremely little information available on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of the assembly and supply chain for Fairphones. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS without Google Mobile Services with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. /e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed highly private and secure devices mainly benefit criminals and pedophiles along with peddling other authoritarian talking points. They've falsely claimed GrapheneOS devices are mainly used by criminals and aren't useful to regular people. https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie... https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 Despite the marketing, /e/ has very poor privacy and security. /e/ has their own invasive services with tracking, gives highly privileged access to default enabled Google services and doesn't keep up with basic updates. It greatly rolls back privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/co... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...

dnautics 1mo ago

i dont get it, they are comparing eOS to graphene, not talking about the hardware. this would be like grapheneOS not using pixel because the stock android that ships with it does not respect privacy. am i missing something?

gruez 1mo ago
You still need to rely on the OEM to properly configure the bootloader, not leak the keys, and provide updated vendor blobs.
- dnautics 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gruez 1mo ago
    > I guess, my attack model for my personal phones doesn't really account for "my phone got stolen", I'm far more worried about impersonation and remote phone hijacking than needing to be safe from confiscation from feds. Even if you only care about "remote phone hijacking", not being able to provide timely vendor blob/drivers/kernel means you're wide open for EoP exploits. As for why they take such a hard line on physical security, well it's their project and they can have whatever high standards they want, especially if they want to project an image of being an absolute secure phone. The code's all open source so it's not too hard to port to another device, especially nowadays with AI.
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    Fairphone lags many months behind on Android privacy/security patches. They also end up with an end-of-life Linux kernel without the vast majority of the most important patches which is the case for the Fairphone 5 and earlier. It's not far away for the Fairphone 6. Moving to new Linux kernel branches is an expectation by Google and the upstream Linux kernel for OEMs but Fairphone isn't doing it. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. That's why those are relevant. Fairphones without /e/ still lack reasonable privacy and security, but they're a lot worse with it. /e/ and Murena have very poor privacy and security for their products combined with very inaccurate marketing. They've repeatedly portrayed private and secure devices as mainly benefiting and being used by criminals and pedophiles. Those are their own explicit choices of words. They've claimed this dozens of times about GrapheneOS including alongside France's national agencies making these inaccurate claims. More information with sources: https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081837057433915603

my123 1mo ago

One thing in the story is that the SPU - the secure enclave on Qualcomm chips that is separate from just running on TrustZone on the main processor - is only available on Snapdragon 8 and X tier products. It's market segmented away from 7 series and below.

microtonal 1mo ago
Also, I think Qualcomm has only started supporting MTE on Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5. Older and cheaper SoCs do not support it yet. Outside that, I think only Google Tensor, recent Exynos generations, and Apple A-series support MTE (though IIRC Apple has an improved extension of it).
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 has at support for MTE. It doesn't yet support running the whole kernel and userspace with it in practice as GrapheneOS requires but we're going to be working on it with Motorola and Qualcomm.

protimewaster 1mo ago

Fairphone also had the publicly available test key flagged as trusted by the boot loader at one point, which probably discourages projects like GOS, since it makes it harder to trust the hardware to not be a weak link in security.

grapheneos 1mo ago

Fairphones lack the updates and hardware-based security features expected by GrapheneOS. They're missing hardware security features needed to provide strong encryption for the vast majority of users not using a very strong passphrase. They're similarly missing hardware-based protections heavily used in GrapheneOS to protect from exploitation including remote attacks. Fairphones have atrocious updates, privacy and security. They lag many months and even years behind on providing crucial standard privacy and security patches. They've failed to respond to the discovery of severe security issues including multiple of their devices using publicly available private keys for signing. Fairphone lags months behind on providing Android Security Bulletin patches which are themselves delayed by months compared to when OEMs are first provided and allowed to ship the patches. They lag a year or more behind on major OS updates and count this as additional support time compared to other OEMs. For example, a final major OS update being delayed for 3 years is marketed as providing 3 more years of support compared to shipping it on time. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel branch and the same fate awaits the Fairphone 6. Pixels move to newer kernel branches and are currently moving to 6.12 and then on to 6.18. Other OEMs are also beginning to use newer kernels and move to new branches. Linux LTS branches are only going to have 2 years of support going forward. Fairphones are designed and assembled by an ODM. Fairphone has very limited involvement in engineering the devices. The working conditions and supply chain are also largely up to T2Mobile rather than Fairphone. Whether either of those are better than Pixels or especially iPhones should be demonstrated with evidence. There's extremely little information available on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of the assembly and supply chain for Fairphones. Fairphone replaced their own open source OS without Google Mobile Services with /e/ as part of a close partnership with Murena. /e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed highly private and secure devices mainly benefit criminals and pedophiles along with peddling other authoritarian talking points. They've falsely claimed GrapheneOS devices are mainly used by criminals and aren't useful to regular people. Fairphone has chosen to stand with this company included when contacted by the media about criticism. https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142 https://clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.html https://clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-interview.ht... Despite the marketing, /e/ has very poor privacy and security. /e/ has their own invasive services with tracking, gives highly privileged access to default enabled Google services and doesn't keep up with basic updates. It greatly rolls back privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/co... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...