How does this compare to grapheneOS on security?
Contrary to what you just read, there is a big difference. Gos sandboxes everything and doesn't even provide elevated permissions to Google. Which is otherwise a major backdoor. He kind of admits this but pretends everyone is doing it (or could do it - but doesn't - duh) and there is no difference. Making it a huge difference. This is why, for example, Android Auto doesn't work on gos. Because asop and lineage still provide direct hardware access, including to USB and other low level hardware which doesn't have permissions assigned.
Basically you can ignore his explanation as completely wrong and extremely poor advise. It's so wrong, he immediately becomes highly suspect.
What are some other apps that don't work on GOS because of sandboxing if you know off the top of your head? I don't care about Google Auto but I am curious.
I remember a video Louis Russman did on it.
Couldn't say. But it's beside the point. The point is, google reserves direct hardware access for themselves. GOS, AFAIK, is the only OS removing native google permissions from the platform. The reason being, they all try to be android with levers. Whereas GOS tries to be a secure platform which treats every provider equally, except where controlled by lever. It's a fundamental approach to creating a secure platform.
GOS is about security of your device, and control, minus black box RF/processor.
The others attempt to provide control.
They are built from the same source (AOSP).
GrapheneOS talks a big game, but that's just it, most of it is just everyday shit that they hype out of proportion.
A lot of the grapheneOS "security" features are build.prop tweaks and kernel tweaks that can be applied to almost any custom rom.
Bootloaders on most android devices are already secure. If not every bootloader for every device would be unlockable. Which they are not. Very few manufacturers even allow it still.
Hardware attestation is gay. The only way an android phone is going to get "attacked" on the system level is if you install something really stupid or click a link in a message from someone you don't know. Knowing whether or not your hardware and OS are "genuine" isn't going to stop ignorance.
What else? Oh yeah... device support. If you wanna use grapheneOS you gotta support google by buying one of their phones. As far as I know it only runs on a handful of Pixel devices.
Sandboxing can be done on any android phone. That's another one of their big talking points.
I don't think grapheneOS is special in any way. It's a slightly hardened fork of AOSP.
Thanks. I knew they came from the same source but was really unsure of what real difference to graphene. I always hear about graphene but never want to commit to those pixel phones.
I did some roms in the lower galaxy S years but haven't in a awhile.
So I guess in the end to get stuff similar security to graphene I would need to do a custom build.
So I guess in the end to get stuff similar security to graphene I would need to do a custom build.
Not really. There's not much security needed on an android besides keeping security patches up to date. I'll say it again. The only security flaw an end user of android phones really needs to worry about is ignorance. If it looks questionable don't click it. You should be less worried about security and more worried about privacy. The more private your phone is the more secure it is.
(post is archived)