We're going to be moving forward under the expectation that future Pixel devices may not meet the requirements to run GrapheneOS (grapheneos.org/faq#future-devi…) and may not support using another OS. We've been in talks with a couple OEMs about making devices and what it would cost.
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
reshared this
Eskuero
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I hope a good candidate is found a a deal struck.
It would be important that a device partnered with another OEM also allows unlocking the bootloader for people who want to flash it themselves.
Steven
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Carlos Solís likes this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Google has released a statement claiming AOSP is not being discontinued. This should be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering that they made similar public statements recently followed by discontinuing significant parts of AOSP on June 10.
x.com/seangchau/status/1933029…
Gianmarco Gargiulo reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Google is in the process of likely having the company broken up due to losing an antitrust lawsuit from the US government and being in the process of losing several more. There's a high chance of Google losing control of Android in the next couple years.
nytimes.com/2025/04/21/technol…
Andreas Bulling reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Carlos Solís likes this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Carlos Solís likes this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Charles P.
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •On a side note, 5 years of upgrade after the first unit sells will be mandatory in EU due to a new law that will come into force in a week (20 june 2025)
energy-efficient-products.ec.e…
[EDIT : It's after the *first* unit sells for upgrades, it's the spare parts that must be available 7 years after the *last* unit sells]
Smartphones and Tablets
Energy Efficient ProductsRin
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •w00p
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •On the other, such a device could be a juicy target for a (hw) supply chain attack.
GrapheneOS
in reply to w00p • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •w00p
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kavus
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kavus • • •@Kavus We plan to support them for their whole lifetime. It just may take us longer than expected to do some of the major quarterly and yearly version ports.
Our initial port to Android 16 is done. We should have experimental releases out already. Unfortunately, AOSP dropping device support means we need to build it ourselves. We haven't even started on most of it yet due to making the initial port. We have the kernels ported with initial tested but not the other device support code yet.
Kavus
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •crepererum
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Benoit
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Silver Back
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to flashbackdealer • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Ted
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Ted • • •GNU/翠星石
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GNU/翠星石 • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSGNU/翠星石
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •>Pinephones have absolutely atrocious privacy and security
All demon rectangles have atrocious privacy and security, no matter how updated the proprietary malware is.
>hardware, firmware and software level.
The Pinephones come with no firmware - they have only proprietary hardware and proprietary software.
>highly outdated and insecure hardware components which lack proper firmware updates
Yes, you can update the proprietary malware and spyware, but that simply makes security worse, not better.
>is an outdated Qualcomm cellular modem on another chip running a whole outdated proprietary fork of Android
Last time I checked it was a custom proprietary RTOS and not Android.
If it was Android, that would be a matter of GPLv2 enforcement to resolve that issue.
Unlike any other modem, there is a free software userspace for that modem, which clearly can possibly have security, but as for the modem, the only possible way to possibly have security would be to finish the job and replace the remaining proprietary malware with free software.
>connected to the main CPU via very high attack surface USB
USB devices do not have DMA, thus it's a lower attack surface than a device that has the modem turn on and then start the main SoC and only then decide to turn on IOMMU (or not).
IOMMU is unfortunately inherently flawed as last time I checked IOMMU's only implement page-level filtering and many attacks have been found against it.
It is possible via software means and hard work to make a USB stack very attack resistant, but you're always screwed with DMA if the modem can decide to not enable IOMMU.
>Pinephones are closed source hardware with closed source firmware.
Obviously the hardware is proprietary like all hardware.
The bootloader is free software and you can run only free software on the SoC and when it comes to proprietary software loading, that's only for the Wi-Fi+Bluetooth combo card connected via USB (but I would just disable it via the physical switch as it's garbage).
>It's primarily used to run a much less private and secure software stack on top.
If the user doesn't run proprietary malware on their computer, they're quite secure.
You should not teach users to think they're safe just because there is sandboxing and permissions management, when the most degeneratey proprietary spyware and malware is running!
>It does not avoid closed source hardware or code.
Hmm, if you go and disable the modem and Wi-Fi card via the physical switches, it appears that everything can run with free software?
There might be some software on the usb controller I guess (but an update for that is never offered), but that doesn't have DMA - yes, that should be made free software.
>at least have close to competitive security with Pixels and iPhones
It's peak comedy thinking Pixel's and iPhone's are secure - imagine trusting the biggest malware and spyware experts on the planet!
The very first step of security is to first run 100% free software and then you actually have a chance of securing something - if there is any proprietary software, your security falls to pieces.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GNU/翠星石 • • •@Suiseiseki Decent phones have far better security than laptop/desktop class hardware which is also closed source hardware and firmware, but with far worse hardware, firmware and software security. Providing good security depends on hardware-based security features so those aren't separate things.
Pinephones have a huge amount of proprietary firmware running on the hardware. They have proprietary firmware for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, the SSD, the main SSD and other components. You're wrong.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Suiseiseki Not patching privacy and security vulnerabilities does not make you better off. It assures your lack of privacy and security. You're concerned about theoretical backdoors with no evidence existing of them rather than the front door being left open through having unpatched critical security vulnerabilities which are publicly known.
Pinephone has an outdated Qualcomm baseband running an outdated baseband RTOS on a Quectel chip running an outdated, closed source fork of Android.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Suiseiseki The modem used by the Pinephone was made for Windows. The company cut corners and didn't make real Windows drivers but instead put an extra CPU on the radio chip next to the baseband which is used to run their own fork of Android with the Qualcomm drivers and services. That provides an interface to the main OS via USB for using the radio without actually having proper drivers and services for it.
Pinephone SoC has a closed source early boot chain prior to the open source one.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GNU/翠星石
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •>Decent phones have far better security than laptop/desktop class hardware
No they do not. Demon rectangles are specifically designed to be spying devices and be vulnerable to outside hijacking and are designed to always spy.
Has GrapheneOS managed to find and fix any of the modem backdoors built into any of the supported devices?
There is ALWAYS a modem backdoor, as that is what demon rectangles are for.
Replicant devices have modem's without DMA, attached over USB, which has allowed fixing the modem SoC backdoor; redmine.replicant.us/projects/…
>which is also closed source hardware and firmware
On my GNUbooted computers, I run 100% free software.
All hardware is always 100% proprietary.
The question is if the hardware contains malicious circuits and if those circuits can be bypassed or made ineffective.
>Providing good security depends on hardware-based security features so those aren't separate things.
If all you run is free software that serves you, you do not need virtual machines - as the software serves you.
If you concern is that software getting exploited externally - maybe SELinux would be a good idea - as that tends to scream as soon as an attack is attempted (and on a real computer you can actually see the dmesg log and actually do something about it, as you have a proper screen and a proper keyboard and you can physically yank out the UTP cable).
>Pinephones have a huge amount of proprietary firmware running on the hardware.
Yes, you can run proprietary software on microprocessors - news at 11.
>They have proprietary firmware for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth
Yes, I pointed out that there's proprietary software for the Wi-Fi+Bluetooth card that is garbage and you're best of disabling with the hardware switch (which you actually can reliably disable).
Maybe that card would be useful with free peripheral software.
>cellular
Yes, all celluar modem's either contain a malicious circuit (some GSM ones and ealier), or malicious software - the modem used in the pinephone is no different - it just does not have DMA to the SoC.
There is free software available for the modem userspace as it seems the modem software isn't digitally handcuffed, which means it should be possible to write free software for the modem that isn't malware and you'll be good provided there isn't malicious circuits (but that doesn't solve the problem of location spying via the mobile network).
You can actually disable the modem via a hardware switch, unlike on modern demon rectangles when the modem never switches off (as far as I can tell, iphones actually reserve the bottom 10% of the battery or so when the device hits "0%" battery, so apple can keep spying on the location and listening no matter what).
>the SSD, the main SSD
Wrong - there is no SSD.
The A64 supports raw eMMC; files.pine64.org/doc/datasheet… and it looks like there's a free driver in Linux for it, thus I don't see why they would add a eMCC controller; wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone…
Yes, microsd cards run proprietary software, but there is no reason why they can't run free software. Usual SDIO and bit-banging SPI doesn't have DMA either.
There is also a power management chip that could run software; wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone… which should be free.
Other than that, it doesn't seem there's any other software and it seems possible to replace the propriety software in the device - but good luck doing that with google's device.
The pinephone's hardware seem to be a hell of a lot better documented than google's devices huh?
SamsungGalaxyBackdoor - Replicant
redmine.replicant.usGrapheneOS
in reply to GNU/翠星石 • • •@Suiseiseki Connecting a modem via USB exposes an enormous amount of attack surface to the modem via the kernel's USB stack and drivers. That's far less secure than having an IOMMU isolated modem with DMA using a typical approach. The Pinephone's modem is far less secure against attacks and missing important patches. No need for a backdoor. Since the isolation is far worse, it's easier to take over the OS from it.
Replicant has atrocious security and non-existent protection from this, not more.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Trash Panda
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Gianmarco Gargiulo
in reply to Trash Panda • • •@raccoon @Suiseiseki read this: grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/….
GrapheneOS
2025-06-12 17:43:36
/dev/null
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to /dev/null • • •@dev0null GrapheneOS is already a Linux distribution and it's one of the biggest problems we have with security. Hardening it is already a major focus for us and will have to become and increasingly big one over time, even if it's contained within virtual machines for most of the OS.
There are so many memory corruption bugs in the Linux kernel deploying hardware memory tagging for it to protect against attacks has ended up uncovering a lot of core Linux kernel bugs. It will not be solved.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •/dev/null
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to /dev/null • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dev0null The way it would work is proxying the stuff the app or group of apps does through an outer app. Android's standard Terminal app for running desktop Linux as a demo for virtualization is an existing example of this.
We're just saying that in the long term we would want to replace the OS underneath everything with a more secure one based on a microkernel. That would be a far future thing to do after we already had increasingly custom hardware, etc. It's many years away, not a couple.
/dev/null
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dev0null Defending the Linux kernel against applications is essentially hopeless in the long term. We can make it much harder and defeat real world exploits not specialized for GrapheneOS but it's pretty much a lost cause. We cannot make it an extremely strong barrier. A stronger sandbox not permitting any file access, etc. can be used to run specialized code but for apps, they require too much functionality from the kernel. We need virtualization for it.
The Linux network stack is also scary.
/dev/null
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •/dev/null
in reply to /dev/null • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to /dev/null • • •@dev0null SELinux is not something which is simply on or off. Using it properly requires designing the overall userspace OS around it and heavily integrating it. It's hardly used by distributions like Fedora and it's an entirely different kind of thing from what's deployed in AOSP.
Running AOSP with the security model destroyed on top of a far less secure userspace OS is an anti-privacy and anti-security approach. It is the opposite of progress. What problem do you think that's solving?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dev0null GrapheneOS exists to build a more private and secure OS, not a far less private and secure one. Moving to the desktop Linux software stack would be an enormous regression, not progress.
We already have hardware accelerated virtualization on GrapheneOS for all of the devices we support. We're already going to be using that as an improved sandbox better than what the Linux kernel can provide.
Why would we have interest in using an extraordinarily insecure approach on a less secure OS?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Demi Marie Obenour
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Light
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Would this be a good opportunity to make something that competes with Linux?
I find myself getting annoyed at the smartphone way of doing things these days. But supposedly Linux (and desktops in general) are much less secure.
Would it be possible to make a desktop OS that meets your standards?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Light • • •zaire the bored genderfuck
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to zaire the bored genderfuck • • •zaire the bored genderfuck
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to zaire the bored genderfuck • • •🌸 lily 🏳️⚧️ θΔ ⋐ & ∞
in reply to zaire the bored genderfuck • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lily 🏳️⚧️ θΔ ⋐ & ∞ • • •Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸 • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Liberux I should've asked that question above without Graphene in the mentions, sorry. Could've known they'd immediately start to ramble. 🫠
So, what's your security concepts regarding Waydroid?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸 • • •Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Lurkie
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Neil Craig
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •On one hand, there'd be loads more freedom of innovation but on the other hand, surely it'd be massively underfunded/understaffed and struggle to operate.
I'm not close enough to it to know for sure either way so maybe I'm completely wrong.
Carlos Solís likes this.
Baffling7384
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSkraftnix
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Carlos Solís
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSGrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Darren
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •LB: Google really are a shower of cunts.
It's a shame there isn't a push to ensure that every single device can have its bootloader unlocked, to pave the way for a kind of mobile Linux. The fact that the vast, vast majority of computer hardware can run Linux, but still runs Windows or macOS tells me that the number of people who would take advantage of an unlockable bootloader would be tiny. But the option would be there for those who wanted it.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Newk
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSWhoDisturbsMySlumber
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Chris
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙖 ☄
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙖 ☄ • • •kraftnix
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@zyx @MurmeltHier Samsung will never do it, the scale as you mentioned, and the money they make from the spyware and surveillance they preinstall from their apps. It will never happen.
I think the market could be larger than just current Graphene users if the phone would include some of the features manufacturers are ignoring, like:
- smaller phones
- headphone jack
- SD card
But it will be expensive... I do think there would be enough interest to make it possible though.
Carlos Solís likes this.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Suiseiseki @WiFiHugger @Miaourt A bug in an obscure driver, optional TCP feature, etc. usable for code execution provides full control of the Linux kernel and the OS. The reason Linux uses a monolithic kernel design is because having everything in a single address space with access to everything else has lower overhead. It avoids the need to switch between different processes as is done in userspace.
Linux chose ease of development and performance over having good security and reliability.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Suiseiseki @WiFiHugger @Miaourt For the same reason that the Linux kernel has a horrible architecture for security, it's bad for robustness too. Kernel bugs in obscure drivers can trivially take down the whole kernel, corrupt filesystem data, lock up the machine, expose you to remote takeover by attackers, etc.
Due to the Linux kernel being written in C, a large subset of bugs are exploitable vulnerabilities due to lack of memory and type safety. Their coding style / choices also contribute.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Frej 🇩🇰 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Frej 🇩🇰 🇺🇦 🇵🇸 • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •�
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to � • • •@utf_7 @Mik3y No secure element so disk encryption doesn't work for the majority of users not using a very strong passphrase but rather a typical 6-8 digit PIN along with the other protections missing because of that.
Typically around 1-2 months of delays for backported Android and hardware vendor security patches. Monthly and quarterly updates with many additional patches are skipped entirely. Yearly releases with many more non-backported patches come a year or more late.
FDA approved lychee
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Carlos Solís
in reply to FDA approved lychee • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Infernal_pizza
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Infernal_pizza • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Demi Marie Obenour
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •xz
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •D3fault 🏴☠️
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Final
in reply to D3fault 🏴☠️ • • •D3fault 🏴☠️
in reply to Final • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to D3fault 🏴☠️ • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •flashbackdealer
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Ben
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Ben • • •zaire the bored genderfuck
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to zaire the bored genderfuck • • •Martin
Unknown parent • • •kraftnix
Unknown parent • • •@zyx @MurmeltHier ye so its a non-starter. i don't see samsung ever allowing it, if you ever unlock the bootloader on a samsung you permanently break access to the security key via an e-fuse.
Given it's a non-starter, my original question still stands..
GNU/翠星石
Unknown parent • • •Why would you write a new kernel when GNU Linux-libre exists? All that kernel would need extra is drivers for such hardware.
Why make a new OS when the GNU OS exists and is 100% free software and is the best?
Laser
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Laser • • •Laser
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •How much does this matter in practice?
nevent1qqsrcwg6d92ktcqxa4yszerajlv6m4gvgffafa5hfylsjdaqk57a3ecpzemhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skcq3qx458tl7h9xcxa66vr4a8pg0h2qz96pnhwnfpcra0le9090uk5t5qxpqqqqqqz4say8e
GrapheneOS
in reply to Laser • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •thepurpose
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to thepurpose • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSKevin Karhan
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I know you can't spoil things rn (NDAs and stuff) bit I do hope #Fairphone is one of those manufacturers.
A #Fairphone6 with #GrapheneOS would really be cool because it coincides with the hex rings of carbon atoms that Graphene is made if.
Chris 👾
in reply to Kevin Karhan • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Chris 👾 • • •Kevin Karhan
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kevin Karhan • • •Thomas
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I'd be curious to read more about this. Currently I'm happily running a (manually installed) /e/OS on a Fairphone 5 and both encryption and security patches look fine.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Thomas • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@thpar @kkarhan @chris @fairphone@lemmy.ml @fairphone@mas.to If you do have a strong passphrase such as 6 random diceware words, disk encryption will work when the device is in the Before First Unlock state. If you have a random 6-8 digit PIN or similar, you do not have working encryption on a Fairphone.
/e/OS omits a bunch of important security features including verified boot which are needed to protect a locked device in the After First Unlock state. If your device is in that state, it's easily taken over.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Thomas
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •And with that last remark you are talking about the actual FP5 hardware? As the software is (optionally) Murena's /e/OS or (by default) their own vanilla Android. Would GrapheneOS run on a FP5?
Thanks for pointing this out. Currently I don't feel the need to hop OS again, but it's good to know the options.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Thomas • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kevin Karhan
in reply to Thomas • • •@thpar @chris @fairphone@lemmy.ml @fairphone@mas.to have you run #SnoopSnitch's #PatchLevel Tester?
f-droid.org/en/packages/de.srl…
SnoopSnitch | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository
f-droid.orgGrapheneOS
in reply to Kevin Karhan • • •@kkarhan @thpar @chris @fairphone@lemmy.ml @fairphone@mas.to This has some false positives when there are security improvements preventing access to things or blocking exploits, although that's not relevant to either OS officially available for Fairphone. It only checks for a tiny minority of patches which is very relevant. It checks for certain specific things.
It's best to just start by looking at the claimed patch level dates while noting that /e/OS, CalyxOS and LineageOS set an inaccurate main patch level.
zyxhere💭
in reply to kraftnix • • •Miaourt 🍰
Unknown parent • • •Having android without them is kind of like having Linux without most of its drivers.
Still a working kernel, but, well, nothing to run it on
�
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Miguel Torrellas
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Health Is Wealth
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Stewart X Addison
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Stewart X Addison • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Stewart X Addison
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •