zlacker

>>moelf+(OP)
Is there a GrapheneOS image for use with Android Emulator? I want to test an app on it but got no physical Pixel device.

>>neodyp+Cf
Many apps won't work in the Android emulator. Banking apps, etc. will detect it and ban it. Far more apps will ban the emulator than will ban GrapheneOS. We aren't aware of an app which would work in the Android emulator with a standard emulator image containing Google Play but wouldn't work with GrapheneOS. Nearly all Android apps work on GrapheneOS. It's nearly entirely just the subset which ban using any non-stock OS with the Play Integrity API which can't be used. We convinced a few banking apps to start allowing GrapheneOS via hardware attestation but the pace of banking apps integrating the Play Integrity API is unfortunately quite a bit faster than the pace we're convincing apps to support it after they do that.

You can build it for the emulator. It's straightforward to do, but it requires a lot of disk space and it will take around 40-60 minutes on a high end desktop CPU like a Ryzen 9950X. We don't publish official releases for the emulator at the moment because it's not intended for production use and isn't really a good experience to use. We could start doing it, but it'd add some extra work and we'd be concerned about people misinterpreting what it's meant to provide. Emulator builds don't have the regular security model intact or OS updates, etc.

>>strcat+ch
Thanks for the reply, yeah, my interest was to test compatibility when we add support for Play Integrity to our app.

>>neodyp+Bh
What problem do you think Play Integrity solve other than keeping the user's under Google's walled garden? Play Integrity is a fake marketing term for DRM fromGoogle . It does not guarantee security of the device in any way. My 6~ year old and unpatched Android 10 passes Play Integrity and can run banking apps. That explains everything about Play Integrity. I don't use apps from developers who think they know better than their users.

>>Algebr+Qw
>What problem do you think Play Integrity solve other than keeping the user's under Google's walled garden?

It ensures requests to your backend are vaguely from actual devices, rather than a bunch of emulators. There's many reasons why developers might want this. It significantly raises the bar for credential stuffing attacks, for instance.

>>gruez+C11
Yes, developers are of course going to opt for APIs that allow them to be as lazy as possible, forego proper backend security, and reduce costs. But is allowing developers to be lazy worth the cost of destroying user freedom? If so, maybe we should work on bringing back the Web Environment Integrity API. That would really help out web developers and would make web apps a lot more secure. Nobody uses Linux on the desktop anyways besides weird nerds so it wouldn't have any real impact.

Can't wait until we finally kill hacker culture for good. Everyone and everything will be fully secured. It's going to be beautiful. The nerds can cry about it all day long, but they're powerless to stop it.