this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
4 points (55.6% liked)

Privacy

2366 readers
180 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
danielintempesta@programming.dev
4
GrapheneOS: Another contributor attacked & banned by Daniel Micay (tech.michaelaltfield.net)
submitted 1 week ago by maltfield@monero.town to c/privacy@programming.dev
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.

Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay
Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Yeah strcat has been an ass since the Copperhead days. He's set back Linux security at least a decade by pissing off Spender of GRsecurity to the point of making him remove the public patches (not that I think Spender was right to do that, but I understand why it happened after what Mackay did).

The dude is toxic.

[–] Skorp@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That information you posted about Spender and GRsecurity is false. That isn't why the patches were removed. The project is in good standing and contact with Spender.

Also, your comment about crashing and burning the Copperhead project is blatantly false as well. The other business partner attempted a hostile takeover that was rebuffed.

This blog post that they have posted across the fediverse, and multiple other platforms is a near complete fabrication of the timeline and what actually occurred. Anyone who has gone to GitHub to look at it has found that maltfield's claims are baseless and they are acting inappropriate childish and unacceptable manner.

You are just saying things without a shred of proof and no one is asking for any. So here I am: Please provide proof of all of these claims.

[–] bombadil@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You are just saying things without a shred of proof

Likewise.

Please provide proof of all of these claims.

[–] Skorp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

Here is the information about Spender and GRsecurity copied from my other post:

It was after GRsecurity became private that they had an issue with people making upstream security contributions, particularly upstreaming anything from the GRsecurity patches. They had disagreements about that, and then moved past it and are on good terms now.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Micay has anything to do with them making things private.

https://grsecurity.net/announce https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10126319

It was Wind River, owned by Intel, which was the main offender for upstreaming the patches. Micay was the one who introduced GRsecurity in Arch Linux and did all the integration it had for PaX exceptions and the start of RBAC support (systemd was an issue at the time). It was afterwards once it became private that it was awkward because they didn't want people upstreaming or maintaining ports of their work but at the time Micay was maintaining GRsecurity in Arch Linux and GrapheneOS (then called CopperheadOS) was using the PaX subset for kernel hardening, so there were existing uses of it to try to keep going in some way.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hello Daniel. Why do you keep creating alts and then calling everything fake news with no proof besides "google it yourself"?

[–] Skorp@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hi, I'm a community member which can easily be verified, not Micay. Feel free to visit the chatrooms and look for my name.

This blog post is verifiably false. All it takes is looking at the actual GitHub repos to see it. This person wasn't "banned from GrapheneOS". They were blocked on the repo because they were repeatedly pinging the developers and acting in an immature way because they didn't get the feature request fulfilled.

It was posted across as many socials as they could to stir up drama and harassment towards the project. It's completely transparent.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Claims (yours or otherwise) without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[–] tranquil_cassowary@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Cool, so this means we can dismiss your claim that we are all alts of Daniel?

I'll try to help you with following the instructions from Skorp to verify that the article is completely false (the evidence):

Where are the GrapheneOS contributions? Nowhere.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're drinking the strcat Koolaid. There was no take over. His business partner was mearly looking at avenues of monetization and dipshit blew a fuse.

[–] tranquil_cassowary@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago

Copperhead OS was supposed to be independent of the Copperhead company. They were not in the right to just take over the infrastructure and claim ownership or copyright of the code.

load more comments (15 replies)