GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
Android has monthly, quarterly and yearly releases. Other Android OEMs only ship the monthly security backports with only all of the Critical/High severity fixes, not most of the Moderate/Low severity fixes including most privacy fixes. This is PARTLY addressed by using an alternate OS shipping these patches, but every alternate OS available for those devices rolls back security in a lot of ways. Firmware and a lot of the device support code comes from the OEM in practice. Running Android 14 QPR2 on top of Android 12 kernel / drivers is possible but will be missing the security improvements for a huge portion of the OS.
The batteries in Pixels aren't trivial to replace without damaging the device, but it's officially supported and there are official parts available:
https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Google_Pixel
We simply can't support insecure devices without the basics. Our hardware requirement list includes very basic things not provided by most Android OEMs along with more advanced features such as MTE which we now consider basic requirements for decent security. We want to support other devices, but those devices must meet these requirements. Memory tagging is a baseline feature supported by standard Cortex ARMv9 cores. It's unfortunate that Qualcomm is not implementing support for it and that OEMs using an SoC supporting it are not bothering to set it up. It's sad having a feature available in the CPU architecture that's not usable due to the SoC or OEM.
https://grapheneos.org/features
CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches. CalyxOS does not have features like this. It does the opposite of this.
Compatibility with Android apps on GrapheneOS is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:
https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the problematic microG approach.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-base... is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.
GrapheneOS provides much better privacy than CalyxOS including features like Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes, per-app Sensors toggle, Network toggle instead of the leaky LineageOS approach, per-connection MAC randomization, fixes for many data leaks and much more.
GrapheneOS provides much broader app compatibility than CalyxOS via sandboxed Google Play. Apps forbidding using an alternate OS via the Play Integrity API is an issue for any alternate operating system and it's known that spoofing the device integrity check for Google certification is not a sustainable approach that will keep working. It already doesn't work consistently.
CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches.
Compatibility with Android apps on GrapheneOS is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:
https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the problematic microG approach.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-base... is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.
GrapheneOS provides much better privacy than CalyxOS including features like Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes, per-app Sensors toggle, Network toggle instead of the leaky LineageOS approach, per-connection MAC randomization, fixes for many data leaks and much more.
GrapheneOS provides much broader app compatibility than CalyxOS via sandboxed Google Play. Apps forbidding using an alternate OS via the Play Integrity API is an issue for any alternate operating system and it's known that spoofing the device integrity check for Google certification is not a sustainable approach that will keep working. It already doesn't work consistently.
CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches.
Compatibility with Android apps on GrapheneOS is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:
https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the problematic microG approach.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-base... is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.
GrapheneOS provides much better privacy than CalyxOS including features like Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes, per-app Sensors toggle, Network toggle instead of the leaky LineageOS approach, per-connection MAC randomization, fixes for many data leaks and much more.
GrapheneOS provides much broader app compatibility than CalyxOS via sandboxed Google Play. Apps forbidding using an alternate OS via the Play Integrity API is an issue for any alternate operating system and it's known that spoofing the device integrity check for Google certification is not a sustainable approach that will keep working. It already doesn't work consistently.
CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches.
Compatibility with Android apps on GrapheneOS is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:
https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the problematic microG approach.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-base... is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.
Our hardware security requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Pixels are the only devices providing the requirements we set for updates and the list of security features. They also provide proper alternate OS support where all those security features work correctly. Samsung has most of the expected features and provides a similar length of support and number of major yearly updates but is missing the proper alternate OS support, MTE and the monthly/quarterly updates.
Each month, there's a new Android release which are distinct from the partial backporting of privacy/security patches to older versions. It's not monthly security releases but rather monthly performance/security/feature releases with separate backports of all Critical/High severity patches to older versions. Android 14 and Android 14 QPR1 are older versions of Android, and there are security backports to Android 14 separate from the monthly releases. This is currently fairly exclusive to Pixels. Samsung is getting much better at doing the security backports and are reducing delays for major updates but they're still acting as if the monthly/quarterly releases don't exist.
Not everybody has the same security needs, I often gift my older phones to my family members and if I have the choice to leave them on a fully unpatched device vs a GrapheneOS that is a "best effort" patch I will happily choose GrapheneOS.
I am super glad for all the work you guys do in any case, you can only love from me and I am honestly not buying an phone that doesn't support GrapheneOS at this point.
We're very happy that support increased to 5 years for 6th generation devices and then 7 years for 8th generation devices because we will no longer feel the need to do harm reduction via extended support. It will save us a huge amount of time and concern about people continuing to use these insecure devices.
7 years for a phone that's used as a main personal phone is a long time. Most people aren't going to use it that long, particularly a flagship phone. It mostly benefits people buying it used. It would be quite strange to buy a Pixel 8 Pro and use it for all 7 years. The audience for using a phone that long is probably going to buy a cheaper phone. The main benefit is to someone buying a used device where it still has 4 years of support after someone replaces it after 3 years. We aren't a fan of people unable to afford new phones getting insecure used devices. This is a big step towards that not happening anymore. 7 years is longer than iPhones have been getting full support updating them to the new major OS releases with full security patches.
We worry a lot that we're encouraging people to keep using insecure devices by providing extended support but we feel we have to provide it with how many people are clearly still using the end-of-life devices. However, how much of the amount of people still using them is because they think they are fine due to continued GrapheneOS support? This bothers us.
So they support it even a bit longer than google officially does.
If a critical vulnerability is found in a Qualcomm modem, wifi, or bluetooth firmware, there may be scenarios where this cannot be fixed at the OS level.
Android doesn't have a separate vendor security patch level. It has a single security patch level covering all of the Android security bulletin and OEM security bulletin patches. Most alternate operating systems set an inaccurate Android security patch level where they redefine it to mean AOSP patches. They added a separate Vendor security patch level to put the real patch level. The whole thing is strange because the whole point is having a simple overall patch level and being honest about it. The standard Android security patch level only includes Critical/High severity vulnerabilities now, not Moderate/Low severity, and it doesn't include a lot of things that are deemed optional or out-of-scope. Can see this by looking at the Pixel bulletins where there are tons of patches that are clearly generic AOSP patches for all devices and patches tied to components like the Exynos radio clearly used by other devices. Android Security Bulletin (ASB) and the patch level derived from it does cover a LOT of drivers/firmware, but far from all or even most.
The missing patches for end-of-life devices include a lot more than outdated firmware in practice since drivers stop being updated and maintenance doesn't get taken over by others. The kernel drivers are open source but it doesn't mean someone takes over maintaining them. It's often mistaken as having all patches to open source code and missing patches to proprietary code but that's not accurate since updating AOSP is not updating all open source code. Lots of device specific code including even large parts of firmware is open source. As an example, Pixels use Trusty OS for the TEE and secure core, littlekernel for the boot chain firmware, etc. Security patches to those open source projects are security patches requiring new signed firmware updates to be released despite being open source patches.
I do wonder what I am seeing on Lineage with an older device, where the OS security is current, but the vendor security is long out of date.
I had no idea that a library was presented by the bootloader (AVB).
Interesting reading.
Def can't trust Apple, can't trust Samsung. Google has managed to be the best. (Go ahead and @ me some cases that basically never hit the wild)
Yeah google does a better job.
Maybe you're special enough to be worth targeting for bespoke surveillance, I'm worried about avoiding ordinary mass-market adtech surveillance.
... oh this is some cryptocurrency thing, isn't it?
VoLTE in general is quite the trash fire.
Nope, unless you can fore your phone to only charge to below 80% they strain the battery just as much if not more by keeping them at 100% all the time.
(They support devices for slightly longer than the devices are supported upstream)
ARM did the work of designing it and integrating it into their standard ARM Cortex core/cache designs. Google/Samsung did the work of preserving standard ARM functionality, unlike Qualcomm which currently loses it. Google/Samsung also had to integrate it into the boot chain. They'd already previously done most of the bug fixing work via testing with HWASan. It is certainly true that Google paved the way to use MTE with HWASan and did a lot of the bug fixing work in the OS but external security researchers did a lot of this work too.
As an alternative to replaceable batteries you could consider installing something like acc[1] to mitigate stress on your battery. My phone is 7 years old and the original battery still holds a charge like the day I bought it.
[0]: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/22...
Our specific hardware requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. It's a very concrete list of requirements there rather than subjective things. You can select a device and go through the list checking what's supported, and it will make sense why we can't support it. It's far more than a few minor things missing on other devices. They're missing basic things required to have features like encryption working for most users. Most Android devices don't meet bare minimum security requirements. At least 2 of the features we list exist because of us pushing for them from Pixels. There's another feature shipping around April which we proposed, and it will definitely be added to the list right away because it's critically important for defending against forensic data extraction before the device gets data back at rest via our auto-reboot timer after locking.
> I still wish they'd release "GrapheneOS Minus" (in the vein of uBlock Origin Minus[0]) so a much larger audience could have 95% of the security benefits they'd have on Pixel hardware.
It would not be anywhere close to providing 95% of the security benefits. In fact, it would largely be reducing security as the baseline without the hardware having proper alternate OS support. If you unlock a Samsung phone, the next closest to meeting our requirements, you cripple the device's security. Many of the hardware security features aren't available for an alternate OS and some even remain permanently disabled if you lock with the stock OS again. How can we support a device like that? Many of these hardware security features are what the OS security features are built on. Our work on integrating MTE into hardened_malloc and turning Android and Chromium's MTE support into something that can be used in production doesn't do any good on a device with no MTE, but this applies far beyond MTE. MTE alone is a significant part of the exploit protection advantages we're providing and is going to grow as we do more MTE integration work including potentially getting stack allocation MTE enabled in a way that doesn't break app compatibility (stack scanning by GC, etc.).
Recommend reading through our security requirement list. It will make much more sense. It's not an exhaustive list of what we require but is what we were able to turn into clear concrete requirements which should be expected for all reasonably secure mobile devices.
Never heard of Google making installation of non genuine components hard the way Apple does.
*If your hands are too clumsy to reconnect battery wires when swapping batteries, get a swiss knife.
Look at this: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Google+Pixel+8+Battery+Replacem...
That's not "swiss knife" replacement.
Now I concur with the original poster in his lament on lack of new and fancy, yet fully owned by the user, phones that can cooperate with Graphene OS
> I still wish they'd release "GrapheneOS Minus" (in the vein of uBlock Origin Minus[0]) so a much larger audience could have 95% of the security benefits they'd have on Pixel hardware.
It would not be anywhere close to providing 95% of the security benefits. In fact, it would largely be reducing security as the baseline without the hardware having proper alternate OS support. If you unlock a Samsung phone, the next closest to meeting our requirements, you cripple the device's security. Many of the hardware security features aren't available for an alternate OS and some even remain permanently disabled if you lock with the stock OS again. How can we support a device like that? Many of these hardware security features are what the OS security features are built on. Our work on integrating MTE into hardened_malloc and turning Android and Chromium's MTE support into something that can be used in production doesn't do any good on a device with no MTE, but this applies far beyond MTE. MTE alone is a significant part of the exploit protection advantages we're providing and is going to grow as we do more MTE integration work including potentially getting stack allocation MTE enabled in a way that doesn't break app compatibility (stack scanning by GC, etc.).
Recommend reading through our security requirement list. It will make much more sense. It's not an exhaustive list of what we require but is what we were able to turn into clear concrete requirements which should be expected for all reasonably secure mobile devices.
https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-scores
> The battery is stubbornly glued down, and the soldered charge port can’t be easily replaced.
You have to take a heat gun to your phone to soften the glue to get the old battery out. Too little heat, the battery won't budge. Too much heat, you damage your screen or worse, ignite your battery. Good luck.