NitroPhone – Pixel 4a phone with GrapheneOS | Hacker News Reader

NitroPhone – Pixel 4a phone with GrapheneOS

nitrokey.com

137 pointslucideer127 comments

Well, while I like a lot of things about Graphene, at the moment there is at least one aspect of it which makes it somehow unusable (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/24)

Currently Graphene does not support Network Location Providers. So, apps won't be able to get location when you are indoors and location lookups would be slow.

Also there is some strange conflict between Graphene and Calyx, for some reason unknown to me Graphene guys consider Calyx as "malicious project" (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/632#is...). At the same time they use SeedVault which is developed by Calyx. I guess they need to add some notes on this into their FAQ.

So, while I think that Graphene has a lot of good properties (e.g. sandboxed Play Services are MUCH better than microg) and is somehow superior to Calyx, I won't recommend Graphene to a regular user who is privacy concerned but doesn't want to trade too much for privacy. For such people CalyxOS (probably a self-build) looks like a better option.

I can't tell if they are developers or not, but I have seen what I'll refer to as "evangelists" of GrapheneOS spread a lot of misinformation about LineageOS and Mainline Linux phones, then when ignore technical arguments and block people who raise those technical arguments.

After seeing it a few times, it really makes me uneasy to use GrapheneOS. Heck, I switched back to LineageOS because of this behavior.

In the Linux phone community, we all have our preferences (I use Mobian and am a Mobian Dev), but we are very cooperative and friendly to one another. For example, I go out of my way to make sure all of my projects work on other OSes/DEs, and I am just as welcome in the PostmarketOS developer community as I am in the Mobian community as I am in the Mobile Fedora community. I personally consider quite a few of the pmOS devs to be my friend, as well as the Fedora devs I work with.

I've been doing CyanogenMod for years, and since become a director at LineageOS.

I've never heard anything akin to " malicious organization/project that's involved in spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and harassing our developers" and if I were I'd have no problem with going around smacking some of my friends ( some I've known since ~2014 ) that work on the project.

Nowadays most of custom ROM developers are chill and there's really nothing like the old "wars", everyone is "friend" with other projects. The issues arise with these people that you called "evangelists", and I couldn't agree more. It seems like a cult. And it's always on these "super" security/privacy oriented projects.

> I've been doing CyanogenMod for years, and since become a director at LineageOS.

Thank you for all the work you have contributed to.

> I've never heard anything akin to " malicious organization/project that's involved in spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and harassing our developers" and if I were I'd have no problem with going around smacking some of my friends ( some I've known since ~2014 ) that work on the project.

That matches what I have seen with Mainline Linux devs. We all have our preferences, but we all have common goals in mind and want to help each other.

Indeed, everyone works in its own way. Most on this scene started because people had obscene support by some OEM, so just for personal interest. But after a while you see the whole community behind it and you don't have much of a choice to start sharing your work and goals with other people.

This is just one example (linked below) but I've seen a fair bit of this type of behaviour just specifixally from the project founder/leader. There does seem to be a lot of other more level-headed folk involved with the project too however so not sure how insurmountable the problem is.

https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/issues/...

GrapheneOS attacks on other projects is well documented. They have went to the extent of trying to get a Monero community member removed by harassing them [1]. Techlore has documented some of the more nefarious actions [2]. GrapheneOS is currently involved in a dispute with CalyxOS as well.

1 - https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/community-drama-and-mobile-...

2 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx7CZ-2Bajg

Two people just collected stuff said by others out of context does not make it documentation of anything.

It sure does -- and your throwaway status is suspect.

I have been a proponent of GrapheneOS, but seeing this on HN has made me uneasy:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28095033 (Log in to HN and enable "showdead" in your HN profile to see all comments)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28095108

At that time, I wasn't entirely sure what was going on, but I did some more research and found this:

- https://github.com/AOSPAlliance/README/commit/cbd2a95cba7c2a...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20210403012439/https://freenode....

This kind of behavior is limiting the success of GrapheneOS, and there needs to be a Linus-style intervention (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18000698) to get the project back on good terms with the rest of the Android ROM community.

I doubt that Micay gives a good goddamn about the rest of the Android "ROM" scene — the ones that can rarely allow a secure boot, these are the ones we're referencing, right?

That's fine, the project devs of GrapheneOS (I assume that's who Micay is?) can do what they please, but when your comments adds needless disparaging remarks, it outlines the exact point I made above. When I see this, I really don't want to be associated with such a community, nor would I recommend it to anyone else.

> disparaging remarks

Mentioning a project breaking the security model of the project they're kang'ing is disparaging?

Have a good day, there.

I don't see anything wrong there. But I thought Linus' behavior was fine as well. Perhaps I'm in the minority.

Or say (OpenBSD) Theo-style?

> I have been a proponent of GrapheneOS

It's common for CalyxOS folks to claim to be a proponent / user of GrapheneOS or member of our community in order to spread misinformation about it or act badly in order to make the project look bad. You saying that doesn't make it true. It has become quite extreme:

https://github.com/bromite/bromite/discussions/1186

> https://github.com/AOSPAlliance

AOSP Alliance is simply CalyxOS and they made a unilateral decision to kick us out of the organization after we brought up the misinformation and harassment they've engaged in towards GrapheneOS. They invented completely false claims and their highly dishonest and malicious behavior towards us including this incident where cdesai (lead developer of CalyxOS) churned out lies about and unilaterally kicked us out of a 'collaborative' project without consulting anyone else is a clear example of their behavior.

> This kind of behavior is limiting the success of GrapheneOS, and there needs to be a Linus-style intervention (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18000698) to get the project back on good terms with the rest of the Android ROM community.

That's what needs to happen with CalyxOS and their relentless, vicious attacks on GrapheneOS including here, and including you spreading them on their behalf. They've engaged in substantial bullying and harassment targeting me in particular and we have ample evidence of that including the screenshots / logs where the leader of the organization (Nick) engages in vicious bullying targeting me for my depression and attempting to gaslight me repeatedly over a period of months. He very explicitly pretended to be a friend, as did cdesai, on order to get in a position where they could cause more harm to us and myself in particular.

Since you're the founder and lead developer of GrapheneOS, your unfounded accusations against other HN users are tarnishing the credibility of the project. There is no justification for any of these attacks (from the links above) that you posted on HN:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28099846

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101158

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101118

(Log in to HN and enable "showdead" in your profile to view them.)

Branding people who disagree with you as "malicious" and "spreading misinformation", and accusing them of being affiliates of other projects, will earn GrapheneOS more opposition than support. I support just about any FOSS project, but I will never endorse the type of hostility that's being shown here.

Please reconsider the way you communicate publicly. HN and other forums are full of potential GrapheneOS users, and toning down the abrasiveness would only serve to improve the adoption of GrapheneOS.

Heh, so I figured it was some random followers, but strcat seems to actually be the founder:

https://github.com/thestinger

https://daniel.micay.dev/

Which is honestly surprised me.

Why is that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically 'engaging in bullying'? Do you not see the irony here?

Micay seems to be the productive nerd that got ripped off by the businessman.

Never had such an extremely solid android rom.

But Anuprita and a bunch of other manchildren trying to save from misinformation by flak-ing James (the business guy) lets them look bad.

Imo this is a case of asperger + frustration.

Sorry, I don't know who any of these people are, so it makes your comment very confusing.

> I can't tell if they are developers or not, but I have seen what I'll refer to as "evangelists" of GrapheneOS spread a lot of misinformation about LineageOS and Mainline Linux phones, then when ignore technical arguments and block people who raise those technical arguments.

This is completely untrue and is you trying to spin your regular persistent attacks on us into us doing something wrong. We aren't spreading any misinformation about LineageOS. AOSP can use mainline Linux kernels and traditional Linux distributions often use Android kernels so there's another an example of muddying the waters.

> After seeing it a few times, it really makes me uneasy to use GrapheneOS. Heck, I switched back to LineageOS because of this behavior.

It's you engaging in this behavior.

> In the Linux phone community, we all have our preferences (I use Mobian and am a Mobian Dev), but we are very cooperative and friendly to one another. For example, I go out of my way to make sure all of my projects work on other OSes/DEs, and I am just as welcome in the PostmarketOS developer community as I am in the Mobian community as I am in the Mobile Fedora community. I personally consider quite a few of the pmOS devs to be my friend, as well as the Fedora devs I work with.

You're acknowledging right here that you're a developer in those projects and here you are acting maliciously towards GrapheneOS with falsified claims about it. That's pretty unfortunate. It's pretty sad that you folks show up whenever it's mentioned to attack it. We'll be contacting those projects about your behavior here and elsewhere. We do not consider it to be those projects doing something wrong and expect that the others involved in them don't want you spreading FUD about GrapheneOS and starting a conflict with it.

Heh, youre actually the founder?

https://github.com/thestinger

https://daniel.micay.dev/

I'm surprised to be honest.

Your statements are quite general and not much substance can be attributed to it unless you give some solid evidence as to why or what was said of LineageOS/Linux that hurt your feelings. If you are merely referring to the discussions in the room about the shortcomings of the above mentioned OS/Kernel security-wise then this is just a reflection of the frustration people face with security in Linux. You didn't even bother to add some relevant quotes. And I dont know, but we rarely talk about LineageOS and maybe someone said something about it in a disparaging way when someone new to the room must have brought up the topic of lineage OS and privacy/security.

I dont know how Graphene OS has anything to do with your judgement of the developers behavior. He is quiet a reasonable person ,helps people out a lot. Anyone who comes to the matrix room with genuine interest knows that. There are of course trouble-makers who get themselves banned and then go around the internet spreading ill-will.

I dont know of anyone who was blocked because they just made technical arguments about linux phones and got blocked. It always comes down to someone shilling some linux phone, calling it more secure and distracting everyone in the room with weird conspiratorial messages. So if you know of a situation where you or anyone you know were merely making technical points about linux phones/mainline linux in some argument about some aspect of those projects and someone blocked you or accosted you please tell us here. We take care that we act in a civil manner in the room and try to have fruitful rational discussions and do not tolerate hot-blooded-loud mouthed "evangelists"

Two things:

- You seemed to make an account specifically to respond to me. Is there a reason you did that?

- I debated if i wanted to call out specific instances or not, but many of them are personal ones and I didn't want to dox anyone. Based on the replies I have gotten, it seems unnecessary to do it now.

>So, apps won't be able to get location when you are indoors and location lookups would be slow.

What? GPS works fine indoors.

> What? GPS works fine indoors.

Not in all the cases. In my particular house GPS (and all the others, Galileo, Glonass, etc) doesn't work. It may find a sattelite or two but never gets a fix, even when I stay close to a window.

Not really, no. Modern chipsets are way better than previously, but it's still far from universally reliable, and can't be.

> Currently Graphene does not support Network Location Providers. So, apps won't be able to get location when you are indoors and location lookups would be slow.

That's not super surprising. NLPs will come through either Google Play Services or MicroG, and Only in MicroG do you get a choice of them.

Location lookups still shouldn't be too bad, as from what I have seen, the Modem will still keep either an AGPS or GPS lock, so toggling the location icon really only toggles whether the information is presented to apps.

I've never had an issue with GPS not working indoors. I did have that issue when using degoogled ROMs on other phones but GrapheneOS on a Pixel 5 has worked flawlessly.

I guess if I was inside a big brick/concrete building then it might not work? It seemed to work fine in my brick apartment. Anyway if I am indoors then I probably don't need GPS anyway since I am not traveling and hopefully know where I am already.

> Anyway if I am indoors then I probably don't need GPS anyway since I am not traveling and hopefully know where I am already.

Many apps won't start when location is not available. E.g. Tinder. I guess usually people use Tinder while staying indoors.

There's another option for users who don't need Google Play Services or microG for notifications, etc., but still want to use Wi-Fi and cell tower trilateration to speed up the process of getting location readings. DivestOS includes only the location module (UnifiedNlp) of microG and nothing else:

https://divestos.org

This lets you choose non-Google network location providers (which can even be fully offline), and would be a good choice if you don't need the parts of microG that communicate with Google's servers.

Having said that, if you're already on an OS with microG pre-installed (such as CalyxOS), you can also keep the parts of microG that communicate with Google's servers disabled to achieve the same effect.

Regarding network location providers: sandboxed play services should do what you want.

Nope. For some reason NLP doesn't work it such setup.

Unfortunately I don't yet have an expertise so I can explain why.

I wasn't aware; that is unfortunate.

The linked page is not from the GrapheneOS project. It's from a company selling the phones. The best place to read about what's offered by GrapheneOS is at https://grapheneos.org/features. Sandboxed Play services compatibility layer is explained at https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-play-services.

> Well, while I like a lot of things about Graphene, at the moment there is at least one aspect of it which makes it somehow unusable (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/24)

This seems like an extremely minor thing to nitpick over...

> Currently Graphene does not support Network Location Providers. So, apps won't be able to get location when you are indoors and location lookups would be slow.

It doesn't bundle them in the OS and the OS doesn't trust third party providers. It doesn't mean that network location providers can't be used. They can still be used by apps and provided by apps to other apps such as how it works with the Play services location APIs. We also aren't going to be sending real time location information to that kind of network service, especially if it's a proprietary service from Apple/Google/Mozilla rather than something we can self-host. We don't particularly want to host a server receiving that kind of sensitive data though. We want a robust and secure local implementation respecting the OS security model for location providers. We'll need to set up generating databases for different regions, signing them and hosting them on a server. A new client needs to be developed for this.

> At the same time they use SeedVault which is developed by Calyx. I guess they need to add some notes on this into their FAQ.

GrapheneOS came up with the overall design/concept of SeedVault and it was implemented by a member of our community long before CalyxOS existed. They started funding development work on it but they didn't create it and it isn't inherently their project. We fully intend to fund development on improving backups and will be splitting away from what SeedVault has become for various reasons including their actions against us. The developer they're funding to work on SeedVault is NOT hostile towards us but their involvement is concerning to us nonetheless.

> So, while I think that Graphene has a lot of good properties (e.g. sandboxed Play Services are MUCH better than microg) and is somehow superior to Calyx

https://grapheneos.org/features explains what it provides.

> I won't recommend Graphene to a regular user who is privacy concerned but doesn't want to trade too much for privacy

It has much broader app compatibility, so what are you trading away for better privacy and security? Is this entirely about the OS itself not feeding your location to Mozilla to get back a location estimate based on their proprietary Wi-Fi data and the openly available cellular data? The cellular data would be put to much better use by via regional databases distributed from a first party server, with a first party location service locally consuming them while respecting the security model for this.

> For such people CalyxOS (probably a self-build) looks like a better option.

All simply because we don't do include a network location service? Really?

> Also there is some strange conflict between Graphene and Calyx, for some reason unknown to me Graphene guys consider Calyx as "malicious project" (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/632#is...).

It comes down to the CalyxOS project and community spreading misinformation and attacks on GrapheneOS and GrapheneOS developers across platforms along with engaging in substantial harassment. Our project members have been regularly impersonated by clearly fake sockpuppet accounts too, which were then used to engage in ridiculous false flag attacks such as https://github.com/bromite/bromite/discussions/1186 and the Monero incident brought up below although with the spin that we did something wrong when we were impersonated. It has become ridiculous, with this misinformation spread whenever GrapheneOS is brought up and with our developers subjected to substantial bullying and harassment.

You're a member of the CalyxOS community doing exactly the kind of thing that has led to this situation, including what you did on our issue tracker. It may seem small, but you started a whole pile on from the usual suspects lying about it here and you're representing CalyxOS whether you like it or not. They welcome you in their community, as they do others, and encourage you to attack us. Nick himself has directly engaged in vicious bullying and harassment.

> They can still be used by apps and provided by apps to other apps such as how it works with the Play services location APIs.

I'm not sure why but even with PS installed "Network" location provider never returns anything.

> It doesn't bundle them in the OS and the OS doesn't trust third party providers.

A user-installable package may be a good option?

> We want a robust and secure local implementation respecting the OS security model for location providers. We'll need to set up generating databases for different regions, signing them and hosting them on a server. A new client needs to be developed for this.

Maybe you are not aware, but isn't "GSM location provider" doing exactly that?

> It comes down to the CalyxOS project and community spreading misinformation and attacks on GrapheneOS

I guess you should create some kind of a FAQ entry explaning your relationships with Calyx and other distros. For a random person who just tries to find a good solution for their needs all these in-house dramas are pretty obscure and demotivating.

> You're a member of the CalyxOS community doing exactly the kind of thing that has led to this situation,

You've mistaken me with someone. I'm a passerby. Something is wrong with your perception. As I said before, I have same traits (I'm an Asperger and I had some depression-alike problems) though I've learnt to keep these traits more or less under control. Maybe it's a good idea to seek an advice.

> including what you did on our issue tracker

I posted a comment saying "there is also DejaVu location provider which is used by Calyx". I don't know why you think I did somehting wrong, I'm sorry if this bothered you SO much.

> They welcome you in their community, as they do others, and encourage you to attack us.

I'm not attacking you anyhow, I think that your project is very good and in many aspects superior to other projects, though as an end user I found it somehow inconvenient because of the NLP issue. Moreover I'm really impressed by your work on sandboxed PS. Nothing more.

> You're a member of the CalyxOS community doing exactly the kind of thing that has led to this situation, including what you did on our issue tracker. It may seem small, but you started a whole pile on from the usual suspects lying about it here and you're representing CalyxOS whether you like it or not. They welcome you in their community, as they do others, and encourage you to attack us. Nick himself has directly engaged in vicious bullying and harassment.

How did you come to this conclusion? I've seen a number of accusations such as these from yourself, and am wondering where they seem to come from. Normally, you seem to be mistaken.

pshirshov is a CalyxOS user who is active in their community and tried to create drama on our issue tracker. The comment was removed and now the duplicate issue has been removed. An archive has been kept to document the raid.

https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/24 is the feature request for this and the other one was closed as a duplicate in favor of it.

1) I'm your user as well. 2) I didn't try to create any dramas and, frankly, I don't care about your relationships with calyx 3) I'm pursuing my own interests - I need a good phone. Atm I'm self-building Calyx (their own build is not up to my expectations) and I'm experimenting with building Graphene with microG. 4) I'm an Asperger and I see something familiar in you. You may need to seek an advice.

Something to be aware of when considering a purchase of this device, is the fact that Google will stop providing security updates after August of 2023. GrapheneOS will also stop doing so after that date. This means you'll get a maximum of 2 years of usage out of this phone.

Thanks!

I was searching for this information but it wasn't immediately available on their site.

Confirmed by them: https://social.nitrokey.com/@nitrokey/106861543800696270.

Well that's a complete deal breaker.

The short lifetime of smartphone security updates makes me want to switch to a linux phone. It's just sad that I have to buy a new device due to software when I am perfectly happy with my current device hardware. I have computers that I have had for over 10 years, and they still get security updates because I keep them on the latest Debian stable. Why can't my phone be like that?

Because chip manufacturers like Qualcomm don't support their hardware beyond a handful of years.

No, it's because Qualcomm and co. don't provide specs and source code for the drivers/firmware.

Not true. Qualcomm source code is available... For a cost ;)

And with NDA.

I remember hearing that there's a "three year deal" between Qualcomm and OEM's. If they only support the device for three years, they get a mass discount on chips.

But a Linux phone is much less secure than an Android one, especially GrapheneOS.

Of course once support runs out it's another matter.

I never realized how bad Google is with their own device support: https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705

3 years from the date of release is horrible. My iPhone 6S is coming up on 6 years of OS updates and will get at least 1 more with iOS 15.

I remember hearing that a large part of this is that Qualcomm doesn't provide security updates for more than this long so they can't really promise anything more since they may be unable to fix CPU-level flaws.

That being said it would be nice if they could provide support until a CPU-level vulnerability is found. (Or is there a decent chance that they wouldn't be informed?)

On the upside I believe that the Pixel 5 has a Google-"made" SoC so that excuse is gone now. I would love to see a nice long promise of updates. The amount of eWaste generated by a phone every 2 years is awful.

For context Apple promises 5 years from the last sale and in practice supports devices even longer https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201624

Qualcomm supplies the entire SoC and this includes drivers and firmware for way more than just the CPU. You can get Lineage OS onto Pixel phones outside of Google's support, but that only includes the OS layer and not the driver/firmware/baseband layer.

I don't think Google can change anything about this really. Qualcomm is the only non vertically integrated vendor of SoCs with the wanted features and quality Google needs (apple is vertically integrated). They don't have any buying power towards Qualcomm. In the hardware business, they are a niche provider. 2% market share in North America, world wide even less.

With the Pixel 6 Google is introducing their own SoC called Tensor. https://blog.google/products/pixel/google-tensor-debuts-new-...

Google said they want to support the phones for 5 years, definitely an improvement. Note that it's not a sole Google product but a collaboration with Samsung, so will likely build on their Exynos IP.

Somewhat related, any suggestions on how to keep an older Pixel secure? Have a Pixel 3 that's about to run out of security updates from Google.

Seems like Graphene only provides legacy support once Google drops support.

So the thing they sell is actually installing Graphene and then additionally offer to remove internal mic's.

So its Graphene for non technical people. And in a few weeks they'll propably slap their own Fdroid Repo on top for any vendor apps.

I cant actually say if that is a good thing or not.

At least if they install vanilla Graphene, you can use attestation to verify that the os is signed by the official GOS key.

Pixel 4a on Amazon Germany is 399€. I recently bought an unused one for 300€ and needed about less than an hour to slap Graphene on top including doing attestation before and after install and storing the output.

So they crudely calculated want 230€/PersonHour. I guess the real person gets somewhere under 100€/h and the rest is put in to business reserve.

I havent seen any option to remove Mics. That would require to remove the display which is glued and fragile with an over 10% chance of killing it. Pixel displays are from 70€-150€ a piece.

Oh I had missed that bullet point. Definitely a service that might appeal to some.

If you remove the mic, this means you must use an external mic, yes? That seems terribly inconvenient.

Plenty people use a headset all the time anyways. Certainly a niche offer, but I can see it.

Depends on your setup. Many headphones (both wired and wireless) have built-in mics now & I also have a bluetooth dac with a built-in mic. Mics as integrated extras in external peripherals for phones have become very common these days.

This phone actually has a front facing camera that is behind the screen. So it's very hard to cover using the little plastic camera covers you can buy for your phone.

And of course no kill switch.

> 100% Open Source

> Open source allows verifying absence of backdoors.

Are all drivers and firmware open-source?

Given the level of detail in the post that seems highly unlikely. They seem to be heavily reliant on the Graphene community for their creds.

Also, are they using reproducible builds? Because without that, there is no quarantee that the same code is in the device. Unless I can build same binaries and verify output binaries cryptographically to be the same.

Graphene offers to be reproducible. Haven't reproduced them myself. Gonna test in n time units.

https://grapheneos.org/build#reproducible-builds

No. It's a Pixel phone, the hardware is not open.

There is no way this thing is %100 open source. Last time I built a full AOSP from scratch, I found out:

- VoLTE and SMS over LTE is a proprietary library.

- WiFi calling is a proprietary library.

- the Vendor partition is entirely proprietary, and at least for the Pixel, is different depending on if you use the AOSP version or the stock Google Version.

- For the Pixel 3a, you cannot even POST the phone without adding a proprietary library! I would be shocked if it's different for the Pixel 4.

I know for a fact that you cannot even boot a Pixel 3a without adding proprietary libraries.

If the reader is curious, feel free to look here and try it for yourself:

https://wiki.lineageos.org/extracting_blobs_from_zips.html

https://grapheneos.org/build#extracting-vendor-files-for-pix...

In my opinion, if Nitrokey was at all serious about making this 100% open source and secure, they would help mainline the kernel for it.

Edit: https://social.nitrokey.com/@nitrokey/106861801899442589

Its not 100% open source.

They removed the "100%" now: https://social.nitrokey.com/@nitrokey/106862053334870694.

Yeah, that was after I poked at them a few times to ask what "100%" even meant.

How is this different to buying a pixel and installing grapheneOS yourself?

This has been covered by a lot of other comments here, but the TL;DR is that the value-add is:

- option to have mics de-soldered

- graphene installation is done for you

So it's a Pixel 4a with GrapheneOS. Is it any different from purchasing a Pixel 4a and installing GrapheneOS or does the NitroPhone provide anything else in addition to that?

The entire set of sectioned bulletpoints seem to exclusively list features of either Graphene or the Pixel: if there was a value-add I would expect it to be up top.

A further oddity is that the "Buy" page has vector imagery instead of photographs of the actual device.

I just installed GrapheneOS on a Pixel 3 today[1], and it was easy enough that a non-techie could do it using the WebUSB-based installer: https://grapheneos.org/install/web

The only trick is that you have to make sure that your individual hardware is OEM-unlockable. The easiest way to do that is to buy a new device from the Google store; otherwise, you need to get the seller of a used device to check, or to just try your luck.

[1] The Pixel 3 will soon by end-of-support by Google, and then by GrapheneOS. But I had a Pixel 3, and I wanted to try GrapheneOS a while before I invested in a Pixel 4a or 5a for it. (So far, everything is solid, and I hope to stay with GrapheneOS until I can justify a Librem 5 or similar.)

Welcome to the GrapheneOS family. I highly think you should consider sticking with GOS, as the security model is much improved over devices such as the Librem 5.

Thanks. I like GrapheneOS, and I appreciate the software hardening. Though, for other reasons, I will like to someday move to something more like the Librem 5, when the timing is right.

How do these alternate Android distros play along with important apps, like for online banking and so?

If you only rely on Fdroid as an app store, you won't have access to any banking app.

this being said, my personal viewpoint is that a phone is the last device in the world where I would consider to do any kind of banking activity.

Assuming it's still receiving security updates, your phone is probably much more secure than your laptop.

People always bring up online banking, and its so fascinating to me; I've basically always (since 2010 at least) done banking online using mobile web. Are there any institutions that require using an app? For one of my institutions, the app is just a wrapper around the mobile site anyway.

I made the switch to GrapheneOS recently and its been quite pleasant overall, relative to expectations.

Everything else just works, barring notifications for some apps and things that are obviously Google-oriented (e.g. google camera). Also, location is seriously degraded, because it actually _only_ works with GNSS, as far as I can tell.

I've been making the switch to sites pinned to home screen for things that aren't useful offline (banking, weather) and that's been working well, but largely unnecessary. I just really don't trust Android apps generally.

I have bank accounts with many banks and all but one require an app. It acts as a security dongle amongst other things.

When your bank forces you to use insecure devices and support duopoly, you should complain and find a better one.

Good luck finding a better bank among 3 (three, effectively as two are leaving soon) banks operating in Ireland.

> Are there any institutions that require using an app?

Yes, there are. In order to log into Revolut web UI you need to confirm your login through their app.

There are many other examples but so far I didn't find any single banking app which doesn't work on MicroG.

From what I've heard russian Sberbank doesn't work without safetynet though.

Every bank app is different. I'd advise getting a cheap phone which supports LineageOS (ROM with the widest device support) and see if it works there first. You can also try LineageOS with microG builds to see if it only needs basic verification with Play Services in order to work.

In most of the cases either GrapheneOS + sandboxed Play Services or CalyxOS + MicroG works just fine with banking apps or any other apps.

What's not working: apps using strict SafetyNet checks, in-app purchases (on MicroG), GPlay license checks (on MicroG). And rest assured, location services will be a real pain in your ass on Graphene (and sometimes DejaVu may deadlock on Calyx, better turn it off completely and replace with "GSM Location" Unified NLP backend).

I've seen other phones with GrapheneOS preinstalled. At least one seemed marketed toward shady customers. Does anyone know this vendor, NitroKey? They claim:

Nitrokey is the world-leading company in open source security hardware. Nitrokey develops IT security hardware for data encryption, key management and user authentication. The company has been founded in Berlin, Germany in 2015 and can already count ten thousands of users including numerous well-known international enterprises from various industries.

https://www.nitrokey.com/about

They've been around for a while, yes, selling security keys and smartcards and such.

> Doesn't use microG because it's incomplete

> Our sandboxed PlayStore is also incomplete

One offers incomplete protection do to how its designed, another has better coverage but is still in early development.

Yes, though this incomplete PS support is much better than mG in almost all the aspects apart of location APIs.

I find all the comments about FBI honeypod interesting, just because they are a company from Europe that isn't well known in the US.

What is the guarantee that the Titan M chip is not backdoored?

Is there any detailed documentation about this chip?

I haven't found any yet, but it's likely out there given how heavily & directly the open-source GrapheneOS project relies on it.

It's notable that GrapheneOS only currently supports the Google Pixel 4 and 5.

e.g. Peter Easton wrote a short piece here https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/blob/ma...

The firmware for the Titan M HSM is open source but the RTL is closed, secret, proprietary, and even if it was open you’d still need to decap the IC to verify they fabbed the design faithfully, which exactly nobody can do, but I digress. There’s an entirely different design based around the Titan standard called OpenTitan based on LowRISC. So we know what Titan M does do, the documented functions. But what else does it do? Or put another way can a $1 trillion American corporation design a security chip intended for the 3 billion handset strong Android market and not allow the US government to install a backdoor? I think it’s common sense, the answer’s obvious. And if the HSM can’t be trusted the entire security model is broken. But maybe let’s call this for what it is: an attempt to fleece the wealthy paranoid. Unfortunately these types of products attract attention and make you a target. Let’s say you’re going through an airport inspection and it comes out that you’ve ripped the mics out of your phone well, now you’ve got a whole lot of explaining to do. You’re either crazy or up to no good and don’t expect to be flying anytime soon. Messing with the baseband probably lights up your handset on the network as well. No - if you want anonymity, privacy, secrecy from the state then you can’t use smartphones period. This technology is a fantastic advantage for general living in modern society but a cellphone represents 500+ years of R&D labor. You can’t rip a few components off the PCB and rewrite the bootloader and call it secure. This is just nonsense.

What guarantee do you have that any chip on any of your devices is not backdoored?

Conversely, what indication is there that Titan M is more likely than any other chip on any of your devices to be backdoored?

How do you suggest we prove this negative?

What indication? Basic common sense tells you it has to be backdoored. Look at what it is, what it does, who’s making it and who do they serve? It’s closed hardware for a reason. That chip is so backdoored I’ll wager the backdoors have backdoors. And that’s not even a joke.

Much love to Daniel and GrapheOS contributors.

Just buy a Pixel and install yourself, cut the middleman.

Just install it yourself. It's easy.

How many Pixels have they got?

new nsa/fbi present or future honeypot?

it is the perfect plot

“Privacy Protection: No Tracking, No Google” - but the remote attestation and secure boot are based on Titan M: Google designed silicon. So do you trust Google or don’t you? Because they built the phone, and wrote the software, and designed the HSM. Nitro ripped out the mics and deleted the play store. Good luck evading the government with that.

A cryptographic hardware key does not allow tracking you in the same way that Google Play Services does 24/7. GrapheneOS doesn't connect to Google servers unless you opt for it to.

> A cryptographic hardware key does not allow tracking you in the same way that Google Play Services does 24/7.

Well, with backdoored HSM module tracking is the least of your problems.

> in the same way

This is an odd phrasing since a cryptographic hardware key does allow tracking (in a different way), so the fact it's different seems hardly relevant. For example a compromised Titan M could open you up completely to MITM of any network connections your device makes.

It could also allow any entities that already have some limited access to your device (i.e. an app restricted via OS perms) to gain broader access to sensitive data on your device.

There are levels of security -

If you need protection against malicious states or corporations specifically targeting you, this isn't good enough for the reasons you point out.

If you just want to avoid google tracking you via their various services to show you ads, this is probably sufficient.

Oh I agree; everything is a matter of making informed compromises.

I just thought the phrasing was a bit odd and absolutist, and somewhat misleading. I'd generally put a reasonable amount of trust in a Titan M personally - the risk factor compared to Play Services is minuscule - but I still want to be aware of the mechanisms of risk. Implying it's non-existent doesn't help anyone.

It’s obvious nobody said risks didn’t exist.

> Privacy Protection: No Tracking, No Google

So you think they meant no Google at all on or in the device? Because to be clear, we are talking about a Google Phone running a GoogleOS. I fail to see how you can interpret their ad in the way you did while having that context.

Well, I mean, they are talking about customizing a Pixel 4a, which is made by Google. So I while I think it's reasonable to question the meaning of "No Google", it's clear that Google cannot and will not be taken out of the picture entirely, since they make the hardware.

Pixels can run without Google involvement. Instead of a phone, think of a Pixel as an empty Pepsi bottle filled with delicious Jolt cola instead.

Is this a new law enforcement startup? :D

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/fbi-sold-phones-...

Nitro has been around for a while: providing products in a similar space to yubico. Not particularly competitive on price or form-factor but I gather the "Made in Germany" tag has made them popular in Europe.

They are kinda doing assembly arbitrage with existing devices and support for them. Which is kinda good because it keeps talent in germany which might some day get to be able to produce their own hardware. And they support free software projects afair.

Nitrokeys: Smartcards + MCU and rather shitty GUI software for controlling them, compatible with standard crypto tools like gpg-card. Gen < 3 is missing the hardware button that Yubi has. The HSM model has a fancy smartcard. The Start is a triple GnuPGCard with usb.

The Pro can be used for attestation with HEADS firmware.

The Nitropad is just a refurbished x230 with coreboot and heads. Kinda pricey for my taste.

I'm not sure about your price comment, but they are pretty the same price as Yubico's in Europe (maybe you compared US prices with European prices?). Also their software and firmware is open source in contrast to Yubico, which for me means I always will choose them over Yubico.

That's fair. My comment was mainly in relation to the price point being similar to yubi for a vastly inferior form factor (there's e.g. plenty of large blocky U2F keys on the market for much cheaper).

The open-source nature of a lot of their offerings is a big selling point though, you're right. I overlooked that

OT but has there been any updates on that front? That “ArcaneOS” ROM on those phones probably hold some intelligence value to custom ROM communities.

I think it's legit. They're simply just trying to make a few bucks on asking ~€220 for pre-installing GrapheneOS for you and optionally removing the microphone.

In case you think you may be targeted by law enforcement you, probably, should self-build.

There are many different treat models and I believe that most of the people just want to get their privacy back.

If you're targeted by LE, you should not use a smartphone for anything sensitive period!

Nah it is legit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com