zlacker

>>pabs3+(OP)
I use grapheneOS, it's the reason I bought a pixel but not for nefarious reasons but rather I don't like how much control Google has (it's ironic I had to buy a google phone) on android phones even from other manufacturers and the targeted marketing and information that I would be giving out. I also don't like that Android implimented the feature where you couldn't access the Android>Data folder for 'security reasons' and have to plug it into a computer to access any of those sub folders, it's my phone let me do what I want with it. Graphene lets me access any of those folders without issue

>>MurkyL+9e
the fact that they refuse to consider other phones ie fairphone or nothing phones that have the bootloader relockable is the reason that i do not use graphene.

it seems like a great os but i am not giving google money to get away from google.

>>nicman+Xi
Fairphone is dangerously insecure. Nothing phone is not much better.

It's not only the design of the hardware, but also patches for vulnerabilities and delivering updates for several years.

You're suggesting it's ideological (which is completely untrue), while the fact is: pixels are at the very moment the only Android hardware secure enough to even care about hardening: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

(there's little sense in securing the OS if the hardware doesn't allow disconnecting the USB or there is no secure element throttling PIN attempts, right?)

>>subscr+yP
what are you talking about? are you talking about the kernel or the vendor?

if so they ought to be replaced anyways for a secure phone. please tell me graphene is not rawdogging Alphabet's compiled stuff.

if you are talking about firmware blobs then ok but still weird as the blobs are the same per soc

E: if you are talking about tpm and other stuff, eh. they are closed source anyways and i, as a user, cannot actually validate them

>>nicman+Ma2
> what are you talking about? are you talking about the kernel or the vendor?

Yes. See my response to the sibling comment (I don't want to pollute the discussion with sending twice the same)

> please tell me graphene is not rawdogging Alphabet's compiled stuff

What do you mean? Patching and compiling AOSP tree like every OEM does is "rawdogging Alphabet's compiled stuff" now? Or allowing users to run unprivileged/sandboxed Google services in the isolated user profile they choose?

> if so they ought to be replaced anyways for a secure phone. please tell me graphene is not rawdogging Alphabet's compiled stuff.

Say you don't know what GOS does without saying that out loud.

> if you are talking about tpm and other stuff, eh. they are closed source anyways and i, as a user, cannot actually validate them

Yeah, closed source BUT they exist so for example there's actual, physical throttling of the PIN, Weaver token is stored in the safe place, and we can have downgrading protection support, etc