Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.
 |
|---|
| Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay) |
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
-6 points (40.6% liked)
Cybersecurity
8214 readers
21 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@maltfield Here we go again, another nothing-burger that doesn't surprise me at all. I love the project, but Daniel just seems insufferable from his comments in that thread, and other, older, comments.
With all respect to him and the project, but if something as simple, as miniscule, very little drama-worthy such as a thread asking for a simple gesture feature causes him to "lose an hour of [his] work" and to make him worry about more attacks on the project, it just indicates bigger problems than just a simple focus loss due to some small issue that gained virtually ZERO interactions besides a total of four people, including Daniel and the community mod.
I get GOS has been harassed by other projects, but even mentioning a 'competing' ROM such as /e/OS or CalyxOS counts as bad behaviour and inciting harassment and this and that, it's obviously not a good look.
He was behaving like that back in the Copperhead days. He stole work he didn't understand from Spender and publically harassed him to the point where Spender/GRsecurity pulled the plug on their public kernel patches. Huge loss for the Linux community.
This is a blatant and complete fabrication that you are spreading. The project is on good terms with Spender and you have no evidence to support what you are claiming.
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.
Thanks for elaborating. Is Spender still nuts?