The way profiles work right now makes a decoy profile not work properly. GrapheneOS developers don’t add features that can be defeated by basic training.

Last I heard, the way the developers want to do it is add an early boot passphrase and then a decoy setup would be possible without leaving a way for attackers to be able to know for sure that a decoy feature was used.

(GrapheneOS project member here) We are not aware of any organization or software that can hack into GrapheneOS.

It would be harder for a few reasons. In this case, it would be harder because the baseband is isolated on supported devices so hacking remotely would be harder. GrapheneOS also ports to new Android versions very quickly, which means security patches are applied that other devices/OSes are always far behind on. We also have security preview releases so even more patches are applied for users who enable that. And, finally, there are lots of other hardening things that have been done protect against unknown vulnerabilities. See the website for info about that, but basically the hardened memory allocator + enabling MTE for 8th generation devices and later will catch the most common classes of bugs.

Fair enough. I said “huge” because I guess some people care a lot. I personally don’t and have been on security preview releases since they started releasing them.

Not exactly. GrapheneOS has an OEM partner and has early access to AOSP changes that aren’t public. A huge downside to that is that security preview releases can’t be open source until after Google makes the code public.

At this point GrapheneOS is big enough that there are people who do pay attention to changes and forks that would notice as well.

Well, the fact is it is impossible to target someone with a modified update. The update client sends no IDs to the server, it just fetches static files and determines whether it needs to update or not. The server only has static files.

thet could, in theory, make a single OTA that everybody gets, but checks for a specific IMEI or other device ID and only there enables some malicious payload.

That would be very obvious in the code. And how would devices be targeted if GrapheneOS project members don’t know the unique IDs because they’re not sent in the first place? There are also community members who build GrapheneOS on their own and check if the builds match because GrapheneOS builds are reproducible. It just isn’t possible. But even if people don’t believe all of that, they can still disable the updater app and sideload updates manually. Instructions are on the website.

That’s because they’re the only ones that meet the project’s requirements at the moment, but that may soon change soon. Maybe you’ve seen the news that the project is in talks with an OEM for them to meet the requirements and have official support for GrapheneOS for some of the existing devices.

Me being a GrapheneOS moderator doesn’t change things. I’m a random person on the internet who was interested in the project and helped out in the community before joining the moderation team. All of the Rossmann stuff happened before I was a moderator.

I’m a GrapheneOS user and I am a member of the team. If I ever saw anything I had a problem with, I’d jump ship. All people I’ve met that are involved with the project are smart and dedicated. None of them are “lunatics”.

But since my affiliation with the project makes you think this way, I feel it’s only fair to point out that from where I’m standing I’m the one who’s being reasonable here. You’re the one who seems to have an odd, unwavering support for Rossmann or maybe an odd unwavering dislike for GrapheneOS. What are your affiliations? Why are you defending Rossmann’s harassment? Why are you using such over the top charged language about our team, such as calling us lunatics?

Removed by mod

Rossmann has only ever said that he no longer feels comfortable using GrapehenOS on his personal device due to Micay’s personal grudge.

Which was a lie. He kept using GrapheneOS for a long time after that. Even though targeted updates aren’t possible he left his video up with that disinformation anyway.

Rossmann has never even criticised GrapheneOS itself, only Micay.

He didn’t have to. All he needed to do was make people think the lead developer was crazy and that the OS isn’t trustworthy. His video has negatively affected GrapheneOS for sure. Still does considering comments like these…

he is an unhinged lunatic

and these.

Removed by mod

GOS team is now working on trying to find OEM to meet their specs. TBD.

More like actively working with an OEM now for them to add official support to some of their devices in the near future.

This could prevent my next phone from being a Pixel.

But it doesn’t make sense for them to do that. They can’t just sell devices promoting them as “unlocked” then brick people’s phones or locking them out so they can’t access their data down the road.

Now, I agree that the long term future of GrapheneOS, if it has one, probably isn’t Google hardware.

Maybe, maybe not. 10th generation Pixels can be supported, so it’ll be a while still. But GrapheneOS is in talks with an OEM and it’s looking likely that they’ll have official support for GrapheneOS for their devices soon enough.

Well I suppose they could? But then how would that end for them? They sold devices with unlocked bootloaders. Changing that might get them in legal trouble. I’d think if a device is sold unlocked, it’ll remain unlocked.