cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15995282
Real unfortunate news for GrapheneOS users as Revolut has decided to ban the use of ‘non-google’ approved OSes. This is currently being posted about and updated by GrahpeneOS over at Bluesky for those who want to follow it more closely.
Edit: had to change the title, originally it said Uber too but I cannot find back to the source of ether that’s true or not…
Too bad it only runs on Google’s phones…
It’s only officially supported on google phones because sadly those are the only ones that are not modified to fuck which makes installing and supporting other OS’es way too much work.
Giving google money once for a device is not a problem from a privacy or security standpoint.
That’s correct, but not the reason grapheneOS chooses only pixel phones. It’s the level of hardware security features.
Also unlockable and presumably has well working builds. It’s not just graphene, but just about every Android project it there that’s best supported on pixels. Other manufacturers have a crazy variety of locking schemes and required tools. Each one is a nightmare to support.
For GrapheneOS, it’s primarily that it’s re-lockable. That’s why other unlockable phones aren’t supported.
The GrapheneOS install process sets new OS signing keys so you can lock the phone again and get full verified boot. However, most manufacturers haven’t implemented this feature.
What do you get, app/feature wise for verified boot vs. Play integrity app? Does it increase the amount of apps that work on it?
No, Play Integrity intentionally checks if it’s a Google-approved key. Android itself has an API to check verified boot and gives info on the signing key - most devs just want to know verified boot is working.
I feel Play Integrity has a short life ahead of if competition authorities realise how exactly it works. “Anti-competitive” is the first thing policy-minded folks think when I explain the API to them.
Wish they’d at least support Fairphone.
If Graphene reached out to them I bet Fairphone would even actively work with them to make it an official OS option.
Fairphone would need to substantially modify their hardware to make that work
Right? Have to pay google for the privilege
Your options are:
Apple phone
Bloated android phone like Samsung etc.
Chinese android phone (xiami etc)
Google phone with Android
Google phone with graphene. This still looks like the best of those options.
Or no phone? I guess people are hardcore enough that will be the option.
Edit: I stand corrected.
Fairphone? Swiftphone? eOS? Linuxphone? PostmarketOS etc?
All of these are insecure as hell. Linux phones especially https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
Fairphone also really fucked up: They signed their own OS with the publicly available (!) AOSP test signing keys. These guys really don’t know that they’re doing, and I would trust their hardware or software whatsoever. And no, installing a custom ROM doesn’t solve this. Considering how bad their security practices are, we genuinely have to assume that there are security issues with the device firmware as well.
/e/OS is based on the already insecure LineageOS, and it weakens the security further, so it’s not a good option either.
None of the options you mentioned can be compared to GrapheneOS. It’s currently the best option if you value your privacy and security. You don’t have to give Google money either, since you can just buy a used device, which is also cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Google also makes repairing their devices pretty easy for consumers and even works with iFixit. Here’s a Mastodon post I recently saw about that: https://social.linux.pizza/@midtsveen/113630773097519792
You can always buy a second hand one
Someone installing graphene os for security shouldn’t be trusting random second/third/etc hand hardware lol
There is absolutely no problem with that. The phone is wiped and encrypted when you flash graphene, and it does an integrity check every time it boots.
Hypothetically the hardware could have been modified, but that would take some insane level of a determined attacker to be fabricating modified pixels just to sell them on the used market.
Yes, this would only be a concern for targeted attacks by state actors, in which case not even buying new would be safe.
Thinking about it, in such a scenario buying used may even be safer