skorp01

7 ms·

1.
by skorp01 4d ago
Minimum Target SDK is the opposite of user hostile. Privacy and security changes are added to the SDK consistently. Apps that fail to comply with that SDK are much more of a privacy risk. Feel free to look at the AOSP SDK changes for each m
2.
by skorp01 12d ago
This is not an apt analogy. A couple of the tenets of computing security are: - Defense in depth - Principle of least privilege It is a foundational reality that software (especially in unsafe languages) will invariably have vulnerabilities
3.
by skorp01 12d ago
This is largely untrue. You would be missing out on: - Minimum Target SDK Enforcement Blocks installation of apps that target ancient versions of Android and legacy APIs. - Restricted settings for sideloaded apps - Null-Cipher rejection and
4.
by skorp01 3mo ago
Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. Privacy violations do not solely exist as telemetry or data offered up by the platform to some other party. The protection is achieved through security. The
5.
by skorp01 3mo ago
I have bad news; Do you know who is a major contributor to the Linux kernel? (It's Google)
6.
by skorp01 3mo ago
This is a personal anecdote and you are making up an absurd conclusion. No one said things would collapse. Security can be evaluated objectively, and the better the security, leads to fewer instances of exploitation. I'm certain the ac
7.
by skorp01 3mo ago
You have the ability to do what you want on your device. Root access in AOSP is just used as a hacky shortcut to achieving specific functionality. To do it properly while maintaining the security model would be to build it into the OS itsel
8.
by skorp01 10mo ago
That absolutely is not the point of the project and completely misses out on the many general privacy improvements that GrapheneOS makes, as well as the huge privacy improvement offered by running Play Services in the untrusted and unprivil