• Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    those benefits rely on the Pixel’s hardware

    Doesn’t GrapheneOS have a lot of benefits besides the 3 pixel-requiring hardening features which are removed in Graphite (and the 3 others which are disabled by default but can be re-enabled on some devices)?

    I’m not disputing that those hardening features are worthwhile! Pixels with Graphene are obviously much more difficult to exploit than phones without those features.

    But there are billions of non-Pixel phones in the world which aren’t about to be thrown away, and the vast majority of phone users absolutely cannot afford a Pixel. GraphiteOS (if it actually works?) seems to me like it is probably a major improvement over the other options available for them.

    • statelesz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think it’s a lot more than just 3 features removed. AFAIK the whole hardware attestation is based on the Titan chip and you don’t have to trust the devices hardware, because you can cryptographically prove that the software is unchanged. It’s not only about the Auditor app, but the whole integrity of the OS, the boot process and firmware is secured by the Pixel’s hardware or more specific the Titan chip.

      And the billions of devices can not be saved by a GrapheneOS fork because they’re mostly missing crucial firmware and generally get no updates anymore. That’s why GrapheneOS is only supporting recent devices and especially Pixel devices because they receive up to 7 years updates.

      I’m all into getting people a more secure OS but I fear that a GrapheneOS fork is perceived as a secure OS when it’s actually not. The most important security features are still recent (firmware) updates and hardware attestation, verified boot etc.