this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
48 points (98.0% liked)

Privacy

3155 readers
175 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm considering the switch to GrapheneOS, so I watched this interview with one of the members of the GrapheneOS team, and honestly, I feel it was a great general introduction to it and touched on common features and misconceptions.

For those who don't know, it's one of the most secure and private mobile operating systems out there. Some things that I took away:

  1. They touched upon MAC randomization. I researched a bit on my own about what the need for it is. Apparently, it's standard practice to randomize MAC addresses when scanning WiFi connections. However, GrapheneOS (and Pixel firmware) are even better at this, as they make sure they don't leak any other identifiers when doing so. They also allow you to get a new random MAC for every connection that you make (not sure whether this is very useful, as this can cause problems). On a related note, even when WiFi/Bluetooth are "off," stock Android can still scan in the background to improve location accuracy (by matching visible networks/devices against Google's database). So basically, even with WiFi/Bluetooth off, Google still knows where you are. In GrapheneOS, this option is off by default.

  2. They have their own reverse proxies that they use to talk to Google on your behalf when needed.

  3. Apparently, in the USA you can be compelled to provide a fingerprint or Face ID. Courts have ruled this doesn't violate the 5th Amendment because it's physical, not testimonial. BUT you cannot be compelled to provide a password/PIN. That's considered testimonial evidence, protected by the 5th Amendment. GrapheneOS has a two-factor system where, after using your fingerprint, you still need to enter a PIN, so it helps with this. They also have a BFU state after reboot, which is the safest and requires you to enter your full passphrase.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] korendian@lemmy.zip 31 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

As soon as I can run it on hardware not made by Google, I'm in.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 14 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The weird irony of android is that google's devices have given you more control over the hardware than other OEMs for a really long time. If you wanted to buy a phone and then immediately put a custom ROM or alternative OS on it, you'd usually have an easier time with Pixels than anything else.

[–] chasteinsect@programming.dev 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah they touched on this in the interview. Basically:

  • Pixels allow unlocking the bootloader (most phones don't)
  • Pixels support alternate operating systems at the firmware level
  • Pixels get long-term security updates
  • The hardware meets GrapheneOS's security requirements

In one part they mention Pixels Titan M2 chip, for example, which throttles how many unlock attempts you can make.

That being said they were critical of Google's recent actions. Now Google gives OEM partners (Samsung, etc.) 4 months to implement security updates before publishing to AOSP. Prob one of the reasons why they wanted to seek an OEM partnership as they now get updates instantly with the caveat that for those 4 months they can't publish the source code publicly untill Google releases it to AOSP. So they release 2 builds for every update (One with the embargoed security patches (binary/compiled version) and one with only public AOSP code (open source version that lags behind).

Also they had problems supporting Pixel 10 as Google removed device trees and didn't push Android 16 QPR1 to AOSP until months after the Pixel release.

[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

🤣🤣🤣🤣 not allowed by law.... Fck USA
If that were only 1%, all of the hardware from Pixel would be open source hardware with open source drivers, etc.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

They're working on that, I think they said next year or 2027 the OEM they're working with will be up to snuff. Currently only pixels support their hardware requirements for security reasons until then it seems. I also hate google, but a graphened pixel is still the best option in the meantime. I can't wait for their new phones either though!

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Next year is when they'll release the OEM models, as far as I'm aware.

[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

For closed hardware with closedsource driver... Same bullshit

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I think the hardware will be open, because their source code is open. Why not their OEM?

[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

If that were even remotely the case, you'd have pixel clones .... You simply cannot trust the hardware involved in the American system at all. The past has shown us that often enough. Oh yes, and the cryptophones used by criminals, who also pay five-figure sums... They would build on that... But Google hardware is not trustworthy per se. The same goes for grapheneOS...

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 16 points 13 hours ago

This is the thing right here

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I can see some reasons to not want to get Google hardware, but I can I ask you to explain your reason (in case you have some good reason I didn't think of).

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today -5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Google hardware might have backdoored firmware, some say.

[–] dentacle@bookwyr.me 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

No need to go down the conspiracy road, I just don't want to give money to that evil company. As soon as Graphene runs on Fairphone I'm switching from e/OS.

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

As far as I'm aware, they don't have Fairphone support for reasons they already explain. Despite the baggage of the Pixel hardware, it's the best hardware security wise, which is why the devs chose it (McCay firstly before someone else took over while that troll continued to be on the board).

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 4 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, Fairphone doesn't have a huge focus on security architecture, so a lot of GrapheneOS security features would not just be severely crippled, but would simply not be available at all.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Pretty impressive to have an OS that's "almost impossible to crack" with backdoored firmware.

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They probably must've known, and disabled some of the nonsense. At least, that's how I see it.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Must've... If only GOS was open source and the devs were incredibly outspoken about privacy, we could verify this speculation through their statements (or lack thereof). Alas...

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

The thing is that GOS is open-source: https://github.com/GrapheneOS

And more proof: https://grapheneos.org/source

Fun fact: It turns out they're from Canada.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip -1 points 8 hours ago

Oh sure, and next you're gonna tell me the devs are outspoken about privacy??

I guess since you've found the source, can you find the patch titled "Google Firmware Secret Backdoor Patch"?

[–] LytiaNP@lemmy.today 2 points 12 hours ago
[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

SS7 (thats already enough) .... oh and you cant trust hardware by google or now specific qualcom... Not possible by law.. Fake security..