When comparing against something like a Pixel running GrapheneOS, it's honestly a bit more puzzling to me. Granted, I'm definitely not the audience for this, but with G_OS you can do most things that a regular phone can do, without taking several minutes to install Firefox.
As much as I love privacy (going as far as having a semi-random username), this phone is a bit puzzling. I hope someone can throw more light on this.
I'm not familiar with GrapheneOS but I assume it follows the usual model when repurposing Android devices of taking various closed source blobs (i.e. drivers etc) and rebuilding the open source bits around them? If so, this approach usually locks you into a Linux kernel version to remain compatible with the blobs which limits you on kernel features and fixes as well as who knows what exposure the blobs have to offer, which also will likely never get updates.
Sticking to an LTS kernel branch for the lifetime of the device isn't due to anything closed source. GrapheneOS only supports devices with proper security support for all the firmware, drivers, etc. and again there are no closed source kernel drivers. We can support pretty much any mobile device with alternate OS support since any serious one will have AOSP support. Most devices have lackluster security and don't meet our requirements. We're working with a hardware vendor to get a non-Pixel phone actually meeting reasonable security requirements.
Librem 5 has a bunch of components where they are not shipping updates. You have things very much backwards on that front. The Librem 5 does not come close to meeting the security requirements to run GrapheneOS. It has a bunch of poorly secured and insecurely configured legacy hardware often without proper updates available, components that are not properly isolated via IOMMU, no secure element or all the stuff that comes along with that (HSM keystore with a nice API used by apps, Weaver to make disk encryption work for users without a high entropy passphrase like 7 diceware words, insider attack resistance, working attestation not depending on hard-wiring hashes and a lot more) and many other things. The OS they use has a near total lack of any systemic overall privacy/security work or privacy/security model and only falls further and further behind. The most exciting feature for securing devices right now is hardware memory tagging support in ARMv9, but there are years and years of tons of important privacy/security work done in a systemic way across hardware/firmware/software which are missing there before worrying about stuff like that.
Marketing something as private/secure and spreading tons of misinformation and outright lies about the mainstream options doesn't make it secure or more secure than those. It's actually pretty funny that they mislead people about the isolation of hardware components like the cellular baseband in other devices when the vast majority of mainstream phones (iPhone, Pixel, Qualcomm SoC devices, Exynos SoC devices) have it done quite well when they don't. Strange that they get away with these games of misrepresenting things, hiding the fact that they still have entirely proprietary hardware and near entirely proprietary firmware for the SoC and other hardware components, etc. Hiding proprietary stuff doesn't make it go away. Not updating it doesn't make it go away and simply ensures a highly insecure device.
Purism's marketing material is outright deceptive, e.g. they insist that in competing phones the baseband blob has access to system memory, which is a lie. The reality is that the baseband blob in the Librem 5 (which is every bit a giant blob as that in the competition) has access to the USB port of the AP and there is no filtering implemented yet, so the attack surface it is exposed to is every USB driver in the Linux kernel, which is much worse than systems with embedded basebands and proper memory firewalling where the baseband has no more inherent access, but is exposed to a smaller attack surface. That means that you are more vulnerable to giant blobs doing evil things with a Librem 5 than with, say, an Android phone running a free OS build.
Then there's the whole hilarious situation with the RAM initialization blob where Purism went and hid it behind two layers of CPUs (not execution, just handling it), because somehow doing that - which provides absolutely no benefit to the user, it's just a waste of engineering time - made it possible to certify the phone under the FSF's utterly broken and nonsensical "Respects your Freedom" program, even though precisely zero freedom was gained by doing this, since it still running the same blob on the same final CPU with the same access. All the while while reducing security, since the blob is then made no longer part of the normal OS image and is not validated with it, so it could be backdoored as part of a supply chain attack and you would be none the wiser.
The whole thing just stinks the more you look into it, and it is completely evident that the folks behind Purism are a mix of deliberately deceiving people and just clueless about security and modern embedded platforms.
Our perspective is that this has been made immensely harder by the dozens of 'secure' phone companies providing something far worse than iPhones and Pixels. Most of those aren't presented as being 'open hardware' that's not at all open hardware, but they do share a lot in common. A few of them were so bad that they were actually law enforcement stings from the beginning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM) or turned into them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat) which is amusing.
We'd happily target iPhones but Pixels are the only smartphones providing proper alternate OS support. On Pixels we get to have full verified boot covering all the OS images with downgrade protection, very nicely designed hardware attestation, all the hardware keystore capabilities, the disk encryption key derivation throttling feature with insider attack resistance, A/B updates for the firmware/OS, etc. This is the stuff we expect other vendors to provide us with in order to support their phones. Vendors using a flagship Qualcomm SoC, including the alternate OS verified boot / attestation support and doing a good job with security work themselves come close, but we need more than that. There's a fair bit missing without vendors caring enough to go above and beyond with security and alternate OS support.
When we look at the Librem 5, what we see is rolling back privacy/security massively on the hardware, firmware and software levels with no possible way we could support it. We were actually in contact with them at one point but it became clear that they had zero interest in anything more than an empty partnership where out name would be used for marketing without us being able to use the device at all. That was back before lots of the security improvements in the Android smartphone world where Pixels caught up and even surpassed iPhone security in most areas.
Our expectations used to be far lower, and they get higher as devices like iPhones/Pixels get better. For example, Weaver showed up with the Pixel 2, as did the related secure element insider attack resistance where the main owner user has to authenticate for firmware updates to be applied. Before then, the SEP was way ahead in this area, and continued to be ahead in a lot of others until the Titan M. Weaver provides always enabled aggressive throttling for disk encryption key derivation attempts, with full support for the separate per-user encryption keys. It quickly throttles up to 1 day per attempt after 140 failed attempts. We take it for granted that we get all this stuff including the hardware keystore with physical confirmation support, etc. We expect these features from other vendors. It's not a lot to ask that they implement a feature like Weaver which was introduced with the Pixel 2 via open source AOSP code for the OS integration and open source secure element applets for an off-the-shelf Java smartcard secure element. That got obsoleted by the Titan M, which is actually well on the way to becoming open source with OpenTitan and the Pixel 6 shipping a RISC-V implementation of it based on that. It would be great for that to be fully open sourced and usable by other vendors. That's the kind of thing which is exciting in this area. Pixel 6 using Trusty OS for TrustZone isn't that compelling since TrustZone is terrible and largely obsolete beyond being the component responsible for talking to the actual secure element via authenticated encryption. They're also on the path to getting rid of it now that there's proper virtualization support, which is where the nonsense like Widevine is moving to be properly unprivileged/isolated unlike the mess of TrustZone.
It would be great if other vendors actually cared more and tried to actually compete with iPhone and Pixel security. We found a vendor that's willing to put in the effort, and we're optimistic about that. We're more than happy to work with others. The main thing we need to do is point them at what they need to implemented and the existing open source AOSP code for the OS side of it, etc. We have a lot of experience with this including reporting a bunch of firmware vulnerabilities / bugs in Pixels. There are so many things which could be done better but it starts with any other vendor catching up to where iPhones / Pixels where years ago.
> It's also the only phone with a FLOSS OpenPGP card .
It has no such thing (there is no open source secure element available aside from OpenTitan, although Trezor is working on one too) and it isn't an alternative to a proper secure element used by apps via the standard AOSP hardware keystore API (StrongBox keystore) and integrated into the rest of the hardware/firmware/OS for verified boot, attestation, throttling disk encryption key derivation attempts, insider attack resistance (only allowing signed firmware updates after owner account authentication) and the other features that are provided.