@ItsThatDeafGuy @GrapheneOS Yeah. Goog-ish Pixels only. They do explain: don't have the people or resources to work out multiple forms of hardware. Which is a giant shame, but not really their fault.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from quixote@mastodon.nz
@quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
We already support every device meeting our hardware security and other requirements listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. There isn't another device we could support yet.
We'll be adding support for the 9th generation Pixels shortly after they're available and the code is published, which should be in under a week. They're available for preorder now.
We're fully capable of supporting more devices, but we won't support devices where we can't provide reasonable security.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy Quite high requirements !
Old phones losing out... which is a huge loss in recycling and retro-market installs... Smart phone still around from 10 years ago so still re-installable so I'd always be thinking about that as additional retro-economy or retro-justice for what was google only back then.
(I'm new to #GrapheneOS so correct me please if assumptions wrong or impossible for cut down version as we see of #retro Windows etc running on mini USB stick or systems with 32mb/64mb of ram!)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freeschool@qoto.org
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
It doesn't make sense for a hardened OS to support highly insecure devices without basic firmware updates and security features. The purpose of GrapheneOS is not supporting old insecure devices but rather providing people with great privacy and secure. Even non-Pixel, non-iPhone, non-Galaxy devices from 3 years ago mostly lack ongoing security updates and you do not solve that switching to an alternate OS. Those devices were also not secure on day one...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
Ok great reply and agree....
And at the same time I don't buy into it (...if it's really possible to have something better) on a lot of level listed below. You might have same counter points:
❌ The whole idea that "new" is better I don't buy into or that "support" is somehow better... YES maybe was true but now "they know" or are doing the bad work increasingly by design themselves more often in more thigns... and faster than we patch... so maybe still a case for it but by design means at hardware / legislation or other levels we simply cannot reach easily or change. So at some point, let's say Window 11 style "they thought of that" and it's either turn on or off mostly as ultimatum. I admit this is a bit of a theoretical thing but just as insecure as trusting ANYTHING "NEW" from GOOGLE in it's newest PIXEL etc - just seems crazy to trust that to start. Wouldn't be surprise one day literally finding some really unknown stuff in "new" more than "insecure / patched / limited" old - 5 years Old might be best of 2 bad things... New is like "I'm sure they are going to add more bells and whistles leaking at hardware level"
❌ "Security updates" I'm not sure of these phrases and wonder if it's dogma sometimes - why because developers MIGHT just say that without being able to say why - for example why on Android 4 their app was secure but not Android 6 only (or any number...). Developers force the latest for same app essentially because ??? well maybe they were told or think numbers means it's better (probably some minor things) but the fact they don't know for their app is basically the flaw in mentality.
Similar to do whatever update on Windows / Google / Microsoft /
or even you without saying "this flaw / back door" why for old phone is worrying / lacking skill and just feeds "latest is greatest mentality" (...or so it seems I'm not accusing you).
Seems no developer could tell me why their app couldn't work 1 version less yesterday when they restrict it few day later and since my old phone couldn't go up 1 version for example).
1 developer actually downgraded requirement so I know it's possible and fair play to that. I know it may not apply to this OS but it's a pretty popular mentality I think even at the top is tempting to roll with and 100's of people complain for upgrading even good things as it breaks or is unneeded for them.
☑️ "Nothing is secure" made by them I accept, which is why I look to old stuff (with new OS or work arounds) because you can't change the hardware remotely but the new is / will be just too clever, try as you might
❌ and $500 dollar new phones and whole funding of that is terrible economy I think and self-defeating (price maybe wrong so any new price probably is same).
I should say I was thinking of an old Galaxy phone when I was excited to try this OS because I've found few models actually perfect / sturdy and like "Nokia" back in the day with removable battery, extremely low power and basic features / barely HD / less bloat-encouraging etc).
😃 Just saying "Google Pixel" and security makes me smile every time! Doesn't that occur to you too as paradox or simply not to encourage buying / funding them to the same things for future ? ❓
Thanks overall...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freeschool@qoto.org
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
If you want to use old devices with serious known vulnerabilities which aren't patched and therefore which are easily exploited by apps or remote attackers, that's your prerogative. The purpose of GrapheneOS is providing people with a high level of privacy and security. It's not possible to have a reasonably secure OS without secure hardware and firmware underneath including updates. GrapheneOS heavily uses hardware security features for security too.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
We define clear hardware requirements in https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Which parts of this list do you think shouldn't be on list?
The currently launching device generation (Pixel 9) and the previous one have 7 years of support from launch. The prior 2 generations had 5 years of support from launch. This means lots of cheap used devices are available with years of remaining support.
If you're fine with a highly insecure device, GrapheneOS isn't aimed at you.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
Only the latest stable release of Android receives full privacy and security patches. Android 12, 13 and 14 receive backports of High and Critical severity patches.
Separately from those, a major portion of the overall required security patches are for firmware and drivers, requiring ongoing support for those.
If you aren't on a device that's receiving these patches then you don't even have the bare minimum basics needed for decent privacy and security.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy
Nearly every aftermarket Android OS including LineageOS massively rolls back security compared to the Android Open Source Project by disabling parts of the security model and shipping patches much later. They also mislead users into believing they're getting all these patches on end-of-life devices when they're not actually providing them. Better off simply using an iPhone that's still getting the latest OS updates than one of these OSes on any device.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy Ok that's getting nearer in some way how another aftermarket OS people is doing things like sending insecure phones on shipping or updating it only later (but if not intercepted and updating the OS as one of the first things then seems to get the best versions as the method - though not ideal / would need double checking)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freeschool@qoto.org
@freeschool @quixote @ItsThatDeafGuy No, that's not how it works.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini