Thanks

> These devices meet the stringent privacy and security standards and have substantial upstream and downstream hardening specific to the devices

It still seems strange. A big part of GrapheneOS is to provide a safeguard from Googles data hoarding, yet it works primarily on Google phones.

▲

rfoo 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It still seems strange. A big part of GrapheneOS is to provide a safeguard from Googles data hoarding, yet it works primarily on Google phones.

That's the most confusing part. IMO GrapheneOS is not mainly about "provide a safeguard from Googles data hoarding", instead this is more like a side quest.

GrapheneOS is about creating a mobile OS that is more secure against advanced threats [0] than anything else, including stock Pixel OS and iOS.

[0] Currently my rule of thumb is, anyone who can find and write exploits for new memory corruption bugs for the wanted attack surface, or who can buy such capability, qualifies as advanced threat. Hence Cellebrite qualifies as a borderline "advanced threat".

▲

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That doesn't seem odd to me. Google's data hoarding is done in software, not hardware. Remove Google's add-on software and you have a more or less blank slate to work with. I don't see why we'd expect any different.

	▲	zahllos 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is the answer. Google play services and related privileged components are the non-open source blob hoarding data, along with whatever backend services you use from Google. These components are part of the stock android image that comes on the device that's replaced entirely by GrapheneOS. Naturally if you continue to use Google services then the data hoarding continues.

▲

fdsfdsfdsaasd 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, a situation that Google is steadily fixing.

▲

warkdarrior 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Conspiracy theory time: GrapheneOS is a skunkworks project from Google, to sell more Pixel hardware.

	▲	subscribed 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Considering last years development and quite open Google hostility? No. GoS have provided a lot of patches upstream, Some of which were even applied. Despite that they wouldn't get early access to A16 just because. Access EVERY vendor promising to preinstall privileged Google services has. Allegedly Google security team was very happy about that idea, but got vetoed by management.