"Nonexistent security" is not an accurate description. It's just a totally different approach to security. It's verifiability.

https://puri.sm/posts/defending-against-spyware-like-pegasus...

https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...

That’s not how security works.

Whether or not I am allowed to check that my entrance has no locks whatsoever doesn’t make it harder to open it. And the reverse, even if I don’t know the details of the lock in my door, it will not let others pass through.

> even if I don’t know the details of the lock in my door, it will not let others pass through.

You absolutely can not make that assertion without being able to verify the lock.

What if I have a locksmith verify it for me? Like Apple and Android have been checked by several security researchers and while they absolutely have holes, there is are at least gates that can have them. Sandboxing is the bare minimum an OS should do if it wants to have third party applications installed.

You can only hire someone to verify your lock if the lock is verifiable in the first place. Apple is trying to make it non-verifiable.

Anything concrete on that?

For a fact we know that ios has strong sandboxing, secure bootchain and apps are revokably verified.

> For a fact we know

Not sure about that. No source code. Also, Pegasus.

> Do note, that copperhead os is a scam and is not to be used

Can you expand on this point a little bit?

While it may be biased, this is a great summary: https://grapheneos.org/history/

Basically Micay is a legitimate security researcher who created the project and it was later hijacked by the company funding some of it. That company since then try to badmouth Micay at any place they find and is doing shady things on top of the still open source code base. Micay was so professional to destroy the verification key at the time of the forking.