| |
| ▲ | beeflet a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay, but the danger of vendor lockout is very great because gOS only supports one brand of phone. The justification for limiting support to pixels is that it has trusted computing features, but these are made unnecessary by having a long password. You could just have some disclaimer on the grapheneOS site that says something like "Works best with pixel phones" or have some long password requirement on non-pixel phones | | |
| ▲ | gf000 a day ago | parent [-] | | > but these are made unnecessary by having a long password. Yeah, that's completely how security works... | | |
| ▲ | beeflet 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is. The idea behind using a embedded trusted computing device in this fashion is that you can store a AFU encryption/decryption keys in the trusted computing device and lower-entropy password like a 4-digit pin or biometrics, with the trusted computing device preventing a brute force attack. But this is unnecessary if your encryption password has enough entropy in the first place, because it cannot be brute forced. This is the security model of most linux distros that use full disk encryption with LUKS. And android already lets you do this, it is just less convenient. I use grapheneOS with a high entropy BFU password and a low entropy biometric AFU fingerprint. My linux setup works in the same way. The BFU password is the only "real" password that secures you and encrypts your data. The AFU password is a just temporary screen lock that is vulnerable to side channel attacks because the decryption keys are still in memory. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bornfreddy a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Meh. Not all people have the strictest security (and privacy!) requirements. While it is admirable that GOS strives for perfection, I would be more than happy with a less secure, but repairable phone, such as Fairphone. So just give me that alarm system for my tent, please. It will do fine for my case. | | |
| ▲ | mbananasynergy a day ago | parent [-] | | We don't really strive for perfection. Pixels aren't really perfect and there are numerous suggestions we could make today for Pixels to drastically improve their hardware. Our requirements are in some way below what even Pixels provide today. Our requirements are not at all exotic or outlandish, the fact that most OEMs don't meet them says more about how far behind most OEMs are, rather than our standards being unrealistic. We've also been told that they're not unrealistic in practice from numerous OEMs who want to build a device that meets our requirements. It is also important to note for Pixels specifically that since the 8th gen Pixels, they receive 7 years of support. Additionally, they partner with iFixIt to provide official replacement parts for the duration of the device's life. I'd say that's pretty sustainable, especially when you consider that the Fairphone doesn't actually provide proper support for the amount of years they claim, since they have consistent delays in providing patches. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, fair enough, if we are looking at software side of "repairs" (updates). However I'm talking about hardware side of things - with Fairphone I can remove and replace the battery by myself (or even carry a spare if I choose to), while e.g. in the newest Pixel, 9a, the battery is glued in place. As for the requirements, I will take your word for it. And I do appreciate that you put the emphasis on security as it is often overlooked. I guess what I'm saying is that having control over my phone (as opposed to BigTech or apps having the control) is for me a much higher priority goal than just security by itself. Hardware reparability is (again, for me) a close second. Anyway, I hope you find a good partner for the phones, and I'm curious to see what you come up with! |
|
|
|
