A post from the developer of WireGuard on the severe security flaws and lack of trustworthiness of F-Droid:
gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-…
This led to them including a self-update system which was openly implemented and documented. F-Droid was unaware they'd shipped it for half a year, and by then WireGuard had essentially escaped from in their words being held hostage by F-Droid.
This was a rare case where an app used developer signing keys via their flawed reproducible builds system. Most don't.
wireguard inclusion policy violation (auto-updates w/o explicit user consent) (#3110) · Issues · F-Droid / Data · GitLab
Per https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Inclusion_Policy/ The software must not download additional executable binary files (e.g. addons, auto-updates, etc.) without explicit user consent....GitLab
reshared this
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •B. reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •F-Droid has incredibly poor security practices and a strong anti-security attitude held by most of the people involved. They've consistently engaged in coverups of vulnerabilities and targeting multiple security researchers with libel and harassment.
It's a massive single point of failure and not worthy of the trust many people are placing in it. It's adding another trusted party compared to using the apps built and signed by the developers. It is not avoiding trust in the developers of apps.
filobus reshared this.
Chris
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Sheogorath
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The risks F-Droid excels in managing by being a curated app store is protection from scam and phishing apps.
I know of not a single case where a fake or scam app has been part of F-Droid, which makes it a lot easier to recommend.
Do you have any good alternative curated app store?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Sheogorath • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@sheogorath It's curated in the sense that they only have open source apps in it. They don't have any real standards beyond stuff being fully open source. The selection of apps is very arbitrary and tons of high quality modern apps are not included in it while tons of obsolete and insecure apps are included. Some apps which would be fine to use are not because they end up doing weird things like downgrading the dependencies
F-Droid has absolutely had fake/scam apps including of one of ours.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Regularly not shipping critical Firefox security patches for months is the norm for the main F-Droid repository. Whether or not they sign the apps themselves as they do for the vast majority of apps, updates can be indefinitely delayed based on issues with their outdated infrastructure or their Debian-style downstream patches needing to be updated.
For the small subset signed by the app developers, many kinds of disagreements between F-Droid and developers will mean an end to receiving updates.
Felix
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •You are not the only ones that struggle with f-droid. (There is an ongoing struggle to fix certificate pinning by f-droid by a former maintainer, which has neither been acknowledeg nor accepted).
But the question is: what alternatives are there? As far as i can tell, f-droid is the only large scale-repository of open source apps there is.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Felix • • •@newhinton F-Droid doesn't actually package as much of the open source Android app ecosystem as people think it does and a lot of what are packaged are obsolete, unmaintained apps instead of the many high quality ones which aren't in it.
F-Droid stands in the way of better solutions being developed and adopted. It existing is the problem. It stops a group of people who actually care about providing proper updates, security, etc. making something better.
B. reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Alex L 🕊 🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@newhinton
I think you should stick to technical objective criticism. If you want to move to social science speculations then I reply that messages like this weakens your point.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Alex L 🕊 🇵🇸 • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Alex L 🕊 🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@newhinton
The evil marketing department of F-Droid Inc. is preventing better alternatives to be known... no wait, no even *exist* because security experts feel defeated from the start. This is what your whining sounds like.
The reality? Those security experts just don't volunteer.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Alex L 🕊 🇵🇸 • • •Alex L 🕊 🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@newhinton
Oh come on, it's FOSS we are talking about, just fork or start your project. In fact I never said they should contribute to F-droid specifically if they don't want to.
Marcello
in reply to Felix • • •@newhinton
I use Neo Store, but I'm not entirely sure if it is a valid alternative or just a reskin of sort of F-Droid.
There's Obtainium as well but that's a different beast entirely.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Marcello • • •Luce
in reply to Felix • • •@newhinton There is a new project here accrescent.app/
I don't know much about it, can't verify anything, just heard about it
Accrescent
AccrescentGrapheneOS
in reply to Luce • • •@Kulei @newhinton We recommend using Accrescent for the apps which are available through it. It's not specific to either open source apps or privacy focused apps but rather is meant to become a Play Store alternative.
Obtainium + App Verifier for getting apps directly from developers, although we'd prefer a leaner and more security focused approach than Obtainium.
Luce
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Isn't Obtainium just worse than F-Droid? Considering that F-Droid atleast does some of the antivirus scanning and such. It's very difficult to verify whether an app is secure or private (even for people that trust aGPLv3 or just open-source apps intrinsically more than proprietary ones there is no guarantee of safety or privacy).
F-Droid still does better checks than something like Play Store, right?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Luce • • •@Kulei @newhinton
> Isn't Obtainium just worse than F-Droid?
No, since it avoids added another trusted party which has proven to be highly untrustworthy.
> antivirus scanning
It's performative.
> F-Droid still does better checks than something like Play Store, right?
F-Droid doesn't have a target API level standard or other basic standards that the Play Store and Accrescent enforce. They don't do any serious review, it's the same largely imaginary system as the Play Store in that regard.
Luce
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Kulei @newhinton
Obtanium just allows you to install any random app from a git page.
Super dismissive of the work FDroid puts into curation, however faulty it may be.
LisPi
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> F-Droid doesn't have a target API level standard or other basic standards that the Play Store and Accrescent enforce. They don't do any serious review, it's the same largely imaginary system as the Play Store in that regard.
Isn't it supposed to be possible to target older APIs even in current builds?
GrapheneOS
in reply to LisPi • • •Felix
in reply to LisPi • • •@lispi314 @Kulei I think they meant the target api that should always be the latest available, ideally.
In android you have targetSdk and minSdk.
I think minSdk can be as low as you want, but targetSdk should be always as high as possible.
This way the app is still up-to-date security-wise, even if it still works on older sdks.
If you have a targetSdk that is too low, you are likely pulling in security issues with those sdk's
GrapheneOS
in reply to Felix • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •CryptGoat
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •While I appreciate bringing up the security concerns the existence of alternatives to #FDroid I do not think we have those when it comes to pure FOSS apps without the usual big corporate trackers/libs. #Accrescent lists a few apps and fails to provide relevant information about them (such as requested permissions). E.g. #Qlango includes multiple tracking libraries by #Meta / #Facebook and doesn't look like it is FOSS to any degree. Even while the #FDroid repo is not carefully curated I don't run into traps like these. 🤷
There is a need for a curated and maintained FOSS app repo and currently there is nobody but @fdroidorg providing it. #Obtainium, #Accrescent are mostly option for expert users who exactly know who to trust and what they are looking for. @Kulei @newhinton
elgregor
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Kulei @newhinton What checks does Accrescent perform other than enforcing a minimum API level? I assume more checks than Google Play, but what are they?
F-Droid has a warning like "this app was built for an older Android version and cannot be updated automatically" (rough translation). I assume this refers to the app targeting an old API level?
GrapheneOS
in reply to elgregor • • •@elgregor @Kulei @newhinton
> What checks does Accrescent perform other than enforcing a minimum API level? I assume more checks than Google Play, but what are they?
You can read about their requirements on their site. They have a system for tagging apps that's being implemented for marking which ones are open source, have reproducible builds, etc. If you only want to use it for open source apps, you'll be able to do that. Apps being open source does not mean other standards aren't relevant.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@elgregor @Kulei @newhinton
> F-Droid has a warning like "this app was built for an older Android version and cannot be updated automatically" (rough translation). I assume this refers to the app targeting an old API level?
Apps with an ancient target API level aren't possible to fully automatically update. This is F-Droid warning that their automatic updates don't fully work due to not complying with that minimum target API expectations, not them adding a warning about target API level.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Well that's sad. Having to implement your own updater in every app is annoying when F-Droid can just do it from a bunch of repos. It would be nice if there were a simple generic solution that let you bootstrap a single updater app and then add repos.
For traditional UNIX systems, there's a big benefit in having a single repo, because you distribute a load of shared libraries and you want a consistent build of all dependencies. With Android / F-Droid, each app is totally independent (or depends on things via late-bound intents) and so there's no real benefit from the centralisation, other than needing to deal with people who have the kind of purist views that put off users.
GrapheneOS
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •@david_chisnall F-Droid isn't updated dependencies across apps and has even down downgrades of security critical dependencies which introduced security vulnerabilities to apps again.
Traditional Linux distribution repositories have been moving away from working that way though with packaging systems like Snap and Flatpak along with projects having dependencies done in a way they're not good at handling. Distributions aren't really capable of dealing with all the dependencies in practice.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •kuijsten
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I wouldn't put Go and node.js in the same category when it comes to dependency culture. Also,
go buildwill put all dependencies in one binary.@david_chisnall
GrapheneOS
in reply to kuijsten • • •ejim
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I wouldnt want to give any app the permission to install anything
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
in reply to ejim • • •ejim
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •Users may be tricked to install an app. E.g. imagine a cookie clicker game that opens an install prompt.
GrapheneOS
in reply to ejim • • •@ejim @david_chisnall GrapheneOS has been changing these interfaces for permissions, ADB key approval, etc. to have a 1 second delay before it can be approved to avoid this issue.
Either way, you already have the app installed so it can run arbitrary code. If it has network access it can download and run code or change the existing code's behavior based on our. Our dynamic code execution restrictions prevent running dynamic native code or loading classes with the Android Runtime, not all code.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •F-Droid never shipped Firefox.
Do you mean Fennec Fdroid?
j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •Oh and btw
avg 4d 1h 49min 3s
max 1w 18h 51min 8s
min 22h 19min 51s
gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox…
Inclussion into official F-Droid? (#7) · Issues · IronFox OSS / IronFox · GitLab
GitLabGrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •guenther
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@jcast
fwiw, they do ship an app called FFUpdater, which, as far as its UI suggests, downloads the packages from Mozilla/Github. Updates are still manual, though does mostly cut out the F-Droid-in-the-middle.
F4GRX Sébastien
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to F4GRX Sébastien • • •We recommend using Accrescent for the apps which are available through it. It's not specific to either open source apps or privacy focused apps but rather is meant to become a Play Store alternative. It provides developer signed builds.
Obtainium + App Verifier for getting apps directly from developers, although we'd prefer a leaner and more security focused approach than Obtainium.
F4GRX Sébastien
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to F4GRX Sébastien • • •thePR0M3TH3AN ✝️ 🥩 🍊
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Owen
in reply to thePR0M3TH3AN ✝️ 🥩 🍊 • • •For apps that are signed by the npubs of the developers you know and trust, I understand it to be a better alternative. It will be amazing once all apps are signed by dev npubs.
AFAIK apps that at signed by ZapStore are requiring you to trust Zapstore's build processes, similar to Fdroid.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Owen • • •@eee8f90244589abc852b024493a077522157057e6d565788d8d09473b81d14a9 @78ce6faa72264387284e647ba6938995735ec8c7d5c5a65737e55130f026307d @a4a6b5849bc917b3befd5c81865ee0b88773690609c207ba6588ef3e1e05b95b
We recommend using Accrescent for the apps which are available through it. It's not specific to either open source apps or privacy focused apps but rather is meant to become a Play Store alternative. It provides developer signed builds.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@eee8f90244589abc852b024493a077522157057e6d565788d8d09473b81d14a9 @78ce6faa72264387284e647ba6938995735ec8c7d5c5a65737e55130f026307d @a4a6b5849bc917b3befd5c81865ee0b88773690609c207ba6588ef3e1e05b95b
Obtainium + App Verifier for getting apps directly from developers, although we'd prefer a leaner and more security focused approach than Obtainium.
Billie
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@eee8f90244589abc852b024493a077522157057e6d565788d8d09473b81d14a9 @78ce6faa72264387284e647ba6938995735ec8c7d5c5a65737e55130f026307d @a4a6b5849bc917b3befd5c81865ee0b88773690609c207ba6588ef3e1e05b95b
Accrescent requires developers to log in with a github account not giving alternatives. So you basically need to agree to some st***d tos from a us big tech company to publish an app? This is a complete fail, so no alternative to fdroid, sorry.
hueso
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to hueso • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •seoiotoshi_nakamoto
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to seoiotoshi_nakamoto • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •menschmeier
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@001863c7837dc05c768e4ed8d6ab2dd65d5f6af9df7e2a93190acf7f4a915c7a
GrapheneOS
in reply to menschmeier • • •Josh Fabean
in reply to seoiotoshi_nakamoto • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Josh Fabean • • •@d4c97d420f3a70722da9c67245b2d9b3da75bf3d9b795e8f8b42c322c7f96593 @001863c7837dc05c768e4ed8d6ab2dd65d5f6af9df7e2a93190acf7f4a915c7a
> Accrescent (from Graphene OS),
Accrescent is not from GrapheneOS. It's a third party project. We mirror it in our app store so people can obtain it securely and then use it to get apps like Molly with a chain of trust from GrapheneOS.
seoiotoshi_nakamoto
in reply to Josh Fabean • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to seoiotoshi_nakamoto • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@001863c7837dc05c768e4ed8d6ab2dd65d5f6af9df7e2a93190acf7f4a915c7a @d4c97d420f3a70722da9c67245b2d9b3da75bf3d9b795e8f8b42c322c7f96593 Even first party app stores built into the OS can't bypass the standard package manager signing rules. The OS itself provides a strong Trust On First Use model through this.
Verifying the download for the initial install is what's left up to the way the app is being obtained. As an example, our App Store has signed metadata with a timestamp and hashes of the APKs.
Wondrej
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •When we are pointing out that harassing, did u tried to black mail them 🤭🤭
Its weird to read this by GraphenOs profile 🤣🤣🤣🤣
One of my fav comments under one random YouTube video-
“One of the inherent advantages of Open Source is that when a project needs new leadership, but the current leadership doesn't recognize that fact, the project can simply be forked, perpetuating the good idea and leaving the failed leaders to howl into the abyss until / unless they decide to grow up.”
GrapheneOS
in reply to Wondrej • • •Sats-uma Stacker
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Sats-uma Stacker • • •1
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 1 • • •- YouTube
www.youtube.comMatija Nalis
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •- YouTube
www.youtube.comGrapheneOS
in reply to Matija Nalis • • •BohwaZ
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to BohwaZ • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Cassandrich
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dalias @NebulaTide Play Store used to be a way to obtain developer builds of apps signed by the developers but has moved away from it and the code transparency system they provide isn't a complete solution to verifying what they generate and sign from the app bundles uploaded by developers.
For our own app repository, we don't want to build thousands of open source apps largely not aligned with our approach, especially without doing a pass updating dependencies and adding basic hardening.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dalias @NebulaTide Accrescent is a project we recommend as an open source replacement for what the Play Store used to be but it's still in an early phase without a lot of apps. Makes sense to use it for the apps in it though.
It's a secure way to distribute developer builds where developers upload their releases. It's therefore not going to be a similar single point of failure, but it's also only going to exerting a small amount of influence on the app developers.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dalias @NebulaTide F-Droid repeatedly not giving users Firefox updates for months because they have to slowly update their patches removing things they dislike is an example of how much of a disaster it ends up being. Users getting browser security updates is critical.
They've also had a long history of doing weird things like rolling back security critical dependencies compared to what apps use themselves. They do similar things for their own apps too to support ancient Android versions.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •astroboy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Yes, I think it's best to install apps from GitHub releases, and subscribe to GitHub releases of your apps to get notifications about new releases. But that only works for apps hosted on GitHub (GitLab should have similar functionality).
But your own tool to verify certificates sounds very interesting.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@tibs @dalias @NebulaTide According to F-Droid themselves, their Firefox fork uses services which track users. The telemetry they're disabling is not mandatory and it's as if they're trying to make the changes more invasive rather than doing the least invasive change possible. Some of their changes include adding bookmarks/links to the F-Droid site.
The only thing they truly consider a blocker to updates is removing the client side Google Play libraries which blocks their updates for months.
GrapheneOS
in reply to astroboy • • •tibs
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Maybe Mozilla could make a browser that is not riddled with telemetry and bad defaults, so the F-Droid team doesn't have to fix it.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Si (he/him)
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dalias @NebulaTide
What's your recommendation regarding @IzzyOnDroid and their reproducible builds approach?
Use this instead of f droid repo?
j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I think you're dismissing the important curation work of F-Droid.
Sure it's imperfect and security patches take too long, an additional intermediary etc.
But using Obtainium [edit: I was wrong about Accrescent] just leaves the users to their own devices installing any app, with zero oversight.
Far from ideal.
You seem to be suggesting bad will from FDroid management, it would be better if you were more explicit on why you think that way, instead of just insinuating.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast
> I think you're dismissing the important curation work of F-Droid.
They don't do important curation work. They do a very poor job with that and their changes have consistently introduced security vulnerabilities and broken apps.
> Sure it's imperfect and security patches take too long, an additional intermediary etc.
It's not only an extra intermediary but a group of people who have demonstrated themselves to be highly untrustworthy with underhanded malicious behavior and coverups.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@jcast
> You seem to be suggesting bad will from FDroid management, it would be better if you were more explicit on why you think that way, instead of just insinuating.
They've done repeated coverups of security vulnerabilities including ones their own team discovered. They regularly refuse to fix serious security and other flaws. They've engaged in serial harassment towards security researchers, including but not limited to people involved in the GrapheneOS project. We're not insinuating.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@jcast
We're warning our users away from putting themselves at risk through an unsafe platform with untrustworthy developers.
j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast Accrescent has standards for the apps which are included and is going to include tags for filtering based on which apps are open source, have reproducible builds, etc.
github.com/accrescent/meta/iss…
It is in an early phase where it's not open to all developers submitting their applications yet and doesn't have a lot of applications. It is intended to provide an open source, secure and trustworthy alternative the Play Store not a small catered repository of apps they want to promote.
Support "open source" tag · Issue #25 · accrescent/meta
GitHubj@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •This looks as ugly for WireGuard than for F-Droid.
WireGuard current app on Izzy repo for F-Droid does not tell users where it's updating from, does not ask for consent and it's opt-out. So there were clearly not happy about letting users know.
Not to diss WireGuard which is course an awesome project.
A growing number of Izzy repo apps are reproducible builds.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •You replied to my comment on Wireguard choosing very deliberately to hide background updates from users with an adhominem on Izzy.
Not taking his side, and understandably you have removed your trust from them, but this doesn't look good on you.
j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •I've read Izzy's comments on several forums for many years now, and I never witnessed nothing but either praise or constructive criticism of GOS.
Your mileage might vary, but from my perspective it just sounds you're each fiercely defending your ground. GOS focusing on security and FDroid on the 4 freedoms.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast
Izzy regularly spreads misinformation about GrapheneOS and has participated in harassment towards our team. Call it what you want, doesn't change what it is.
GrapheneOS is a privacy project. No matter how many times you folks misrepresent what it is and falsely claim it cares about security over privacy and all the other misinformation.
j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I wasn't aware of that privacy vs. security controversy.
I'm in no way affiliated with FDroid and am seriously taking notes of your concerns and criticism.
I also appreciate your availability to communicate so transparently, and usually in a very mature way.
Just noting two things here: Wireguard opaque attitude, and you not replying to that concern.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Inclussion into official F-Droid? (#7) · Issues · IronFox OSS / IronFox · GitLab
GitLabGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •You're replying to me as if I was defending Izzy.
I'm not, I see things got ugly.
But you're still choosing to go down the path of attacking him instead of replying to a legitimate concern about Wireguard's choices.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Sure that shows two things:
- FDroid review system is to say the least flawed.
- Given that the new WG version on Izzy's repo does not even prompt the user for opt-out bg updates, WG chooses to be opaque (edit: to users), which I find concerning.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •j@mastodon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •In practical terms, this means WG installs from FDroid, using Izzy repo and updates in tje background without ever requesting user permission or producing a notification.
So it really sounds at this point you're purposedly misleading and obscuring this fact.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast
No, apps require the user to grant a permission to request to do app installs or updates:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
GrapheneOS
2025-01-28 19:34:50
j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast
No, apps require the user to grant a permission to request to do app installs or updates:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
GrapheneOS
2025-01-28 19:34:50
j@mastodon
in reply to j@mastodon • • •To clarify, I'm not using GOS, but another AOSP based OS.
Maybe GOS is more has more explicit permission model, but my issue is with WG, not GOS in any case.
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •@jcast
No, apps require the user to grant a permission to request to do app installs or updates:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
GrapheneOS
2025-01-28 19:34:50
GrapheneOS
in reply to j@mastodon • • •Bootsmann 🪢
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@kuketzblog @PC_Fluesterer
Eure Meinung/Einschätzung dazu würde mich sehr interessieren.
Vlady
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •to all of you asking what to use instead/how to install applications in the most secure way: youtube.com/watch?v=IAoCfrqxIE…
A very nice step-by-step explanation on what apps to use and how the sources hierarchy should look like
- YouTube
youtube.comfreemind
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •mrecheese
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to mrecheese • • •Active Peanut Butter Express
in reply to mrecheese • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Active Peanut Butter Express • • •@37974f34f799d8d9930b0114a2b0b5d1fcd1a35011bb1f6ed5839800605b9b1d @d8f38b894b42f7008305cebf17b48925654f22b180c5861b81141f80ccf72848 grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
GrapheneOS
2025-01-27 22:35:34
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@maggus
To provide some helpful context for other people, you've been repeatedly participating in targeting our team with harassment through spreading Kiwi Farms style content targeting them with spin and fabrications including from a Kiwi Farms user you support who regularly targets people in this way:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@Erklaerbaer Obtainium is a good concept, but it needs a more focused implementation based around shipping signed metadata with the locations for obtaining the apps and key fingerprints to bootstrap verification.
Accrescent will be providing a far larger selection of apps and tags for filtering based on whether they're open source, have reproducible builds, etc. It's in an early phase and is being built out. It needs people to support it, and unfortunately F-Droid folks are trying to harm it.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@dalias @a1ba @NebulaTide They did provide a code transparency system to prove the generated APKs match the provided code but it does not cover all the relevant forms of resources, just all the code, so we don't think it provides what is needed even if it was widely adopted to verify what's generated.
Google essentially moved to the system used by the Apple App Store where developers upload bundles of signed code which are then turned into the actual signed packages by Apple and Google.
Cassandrich
Unknown parent • • •41402-nyan
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Cassandrich
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@dalias @a1ba @NebulaTide There's a lot of pain releasing apps through the Play Store in general aside from this, but the same applies to most alternatives to it.
The delay for app review is at least generally down to around 1 day right now. There were times in the past where it took a week or more to get an update approved and there's no way to get it accelerated for a critical update.
There are some very painful policies and it can be very painful to get the allowed exceptions approved.
Cassandrich
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Viacheslav A
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •A package index with a script for each registered app that describes how the app should be (un-)installed or updated, where it comes from, what quirks it might have etc.
On MacOS it manages to deliver all sorts of apps from a variety of sources in I suppose a reasonably secure way. What challenges might Android face adopting similar model? Is that something worth putting more effort into?
Wilhelm Gere
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •So we can't trust squat anymore, is that it? Never heard of Obtainium either.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Doerk
Unknown parent • • •Cassandrich
Unknown parent • • •athena_rising
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Musashi
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I've been using it exactly because it is more eyes on top of code, minimizing the risk of malware. GitHub repos can be hijacked, so Obtainium is less secure.
Be free to correct me. If you prove to me Obtainium with GitHub is more secure I'll switch to it (already use it for a few apps). F-droid actually pissed me off by having the wrong name for an update for an app and now it crashes because a build was skipped. I also use Droid-ify, not the official app.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Musashi • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •