other8026

No. Here's a quote from our X account:

> Google committed a fix on June 15th and it was shipped in the security preview patches in mid-July. GrapheneOS shipped it in our security preview releases in July. It's in the upcoming November security bulletin but a patch was pushed to AOSP in October:

> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/opt/tel...

https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2115848460578762757

> I have played this game many times with Android apps

I haven't had this issue myself and fortunately GrapheneOS has its scopes features and more are coming, so it's still possible to use a more private and secure OS without having to cave in like you're saying. For example, WhatsApp might think it needs access to contacts and GrapheneOS users can let the app think it has access to everything while it really doesn't.

Also, what makes you think that apps that demand too much will never exist on other OSes? You seem to be blaming AOSP for app developers' behavior.

> Since I use the PureOS and Mobian distros (which are Debian derivatives) on my Linux phones, I can have a lot more confidence that I'm not installing anything that will harm me or spy on me.

Again, it doesn't make sense to judge entire OSes based on your experience with apps. The argument doesn't make any sense. You can't say that an entire OS is private and secure because the apps you use aren't trying to invade your privacy or exploit security holes.

> Yes, there are companies making AOSP derivatives which have good business models that respect and protect the user, such as Murena, iodé and Volla

Murena is plagued with issues, their OS rolls back privacy, is far behind on updates, they were sending data to OpenAI without informing users first, their cloud services were down for months and at one point mixed up user IDs and users' data was being synced to the wrong devices. They're hardly a good example.

iodéOS and Volla have the same problems with their OS as /e/OS.

> I have a personal beef

Members of the GrapheneOS project (myself included) call these projects out because they're misleading their users. We believe that people have the right to privacy and it's awful to see people being duped into using OSes that aren't actually private.

It's also ridiculous that we are attacking anyone. Facts aren't attacks and it's ironic that you name Murena and iodéOS in the same paragraph and accuse _us_ of attacking other projects.

Gael Duval has attacked GrapheneOS many times. He has called us toxic and violent and he has even attacked our supporters by calling them idiots and zealots. He even said that devices with strong privacy and security are for criminals and pedophiles. It's insane that someone in his position would even say such a thing.

iodéOS is or was at least partnered with someone who has also attacked GrapheneOS regularly, Robert Braxman. He has also insulted members of our project. He has also told clear lies about GrapheneOS on his channel in order to promote his less private and secure devices. He is a scam artist with a YouTube following.

In short, it doesn't affect you. Even if you tried installing the app that enforces the changes on GrapheneOS, it wouldn't have the necessary privileges to do anything.

What does GrapheneOS have to do with the post or the website? We didn't make the website nor did we help with its messaging. We agreed to be listed on the website, but we describe the changes differently when it comes up in our community spaces, when asked via email email, or otherwise.

Although many people do say that there's an issue with banking apps on GrapheneOS, I don't believe that's actually the case. Many banking apps work just fine. In cases where other apps refuse to run, GrapheneOS has compatibility toggles. After toggling those on, many banking apps that complain start working again.

In other cases, banks add Play Integrity checks to their apps, which is a more complex subject. In short, many banking apps check for the basic integrity verdict, which GrapheneOS can get. In other cases, the checks are not implemented properly, and GrapheneOS has a toggle which often gets those apps to work. Finally, a very small number of banking apps require the strong integrity verdict and the apps will refuse to run on GrapheneOS.

Although there are no statistics about this, it does seem that a majority of banking apps work or can be made to work with different compatibility toggles.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I literally just said that GrapheneOS isn't affected.

The narrative that GrapheneOS is so focused on security that it affects usability, especially given the context, is nonsense. The change that's being discussed here doesn't affect GrapheneOS or other non-GMS operating systems. The only affected OSes are the ones that install Google apps with privileged permissions.

If you want to switch to something else, go ahead. GrapheneOS is still a better overall choice.

Not at all. The app that is enforcing the change is a privileged Google app. Even if someone tried installing it on GrapheneOS, it wouldn't be able to do anything like remove apps, block installation, or disable apps.

They pointed out privacy issues and you're still claiming that GrapheneOS is security first? Location leaks are a privacy issue, for example.

GrapheneOS doesn't have such a narrow focus. As we keep saying, GrapheneOS prioritizes privacy, security, and Android app compatibility. Given those three things:

Privacy: microG's leaks and failure to implement other checks and there's arguably no real gain in privacy since the Sandboxed Google Play approach means Google Play Services and Store don't have privileged permissions.

Security: microG needs privileged permissions to work properly and can also download Google binaries and runs them in that privileged context, depending on settings

App compatibility: It's an incomplete reimplementation. Even microG's GitHub says as much.

Why would GrapheneOS take so many steps back just because the only real compelling argument in favor of microG is "Google bad"?

You do realize that people use the flag feature all the time, right? People have abused the feature to remove our comments in the past too. It's beyond unacceptable to accuse us, without basis, that we're flagging all of your comments.

You are accusing us of "attacking" other groups when we're repeatedly pulled into conversations and we give objective answers and respond to misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to correct misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to defend ourselves against harassment.

Objective facts aren't "attacks." Why are you misrepresenting what we say? Isn't it better if people can make informed decisions?

We were pulled into this conversation by people who were attacking GrapheneOS. We didn't want to participate in this conversation. GrapheneOS doesn't recommend or support microG. The topic of this entire post has nothing to do with us.

Look at ForHackernews' comments and you'll understand why we counter them.

What's toxic about responding to people attacking GrapheneOS?

The point of GrapheneOS is privacy, period, not something as narrow as simply deGoogling.

GrapheneOS isn't a single person. One or two of us responding to misinformation on socials doesn't mean work isn't getting done. Unfortunately there are people who spend a lot of their own time making new accounts and attacking GrapheneOS instead of doing something more productive with their own time.

As a member of the GrapheneOS team, I can say you're very incorrect.

Within the project, there's a lot of discussion and collaboration. Daniel is the most famous of all of us because he started the project, but we all work together and value each other's opinions. You can see the same in the issue tracker and other places as well. All of us, Daniel included, are happy to consider other ideas or approaches.

Instead of making some broad accusation about someone, you should be more specific. I hope that your bitterness isn't because one of us rejected a feature request or explained why our team implemented something in a specific way that you disagree with.

Sandboxed Google Play isn't installed by default, so users have a choice if they want to use it or not. Many don't.

GrapheneOS is more deGoogled than alternatives, so if you're thinking privacy = deGoogling, then GrapheneOS is a good option.

But you seem to be under the impression that microG improves privacy. That's not the case when you look at the big picture. Consider why people need microG in the first place. It's basically there to pretend to be Google Play Services for apps that rely on Google Play Services. Which apps are those? Apps with Google libraries in them.

So, pretend apps with Google libraries are an "app & mini Google Play Services", and the breakdown is like this:

---

App & mini Google Play Services = access is restricted, like other regular apps.

App & mini Google Play Services + Sandboxed Google Play (unprivileged) = virtually the same access as above

App & mini Google Play Services + microG (privileged) = Google has the same access as the situations above, but with worse app compatibility, worse security (especially because of privileged access), and worse privacy (leaks).

The hostility is one-sided. I went back through old posts and found that while people on the GrapheneOS side (before my time) were sharing _objective facts_, and Murena's started responding with personal attacks.

GrapheneOS's approach is far different from microG's. It's not about rebuilding everything from scratch, it's about making Google Play Services behave as a non-privileged app.

You're not seeing the big picture. Imagine every app with a Google library is basically the app & mini Google Play Services.

---

App & mini Google Play Services = access is restricted, like other regular apps.

App & mini Google Play Services + Sandboxed Google Play (unprivileged) = virtually the same access as above

App & mini Google Play Services + microG (privileged) = Google has the same access as the situations above, but with worse app compatibility, worse security (especially because of privileged access), and worse privacy (leaks).

---

You're worried about apps without special permissions to anything sharing usage data that they have access to anyway while ignoring the huge problems with microG just because "Google bad". That's hardly a sane approach to privacy.

There is a huge list of issues with /e/OS. Let me just give you a few examples:

Android 17 introduced a local network permission. GrapheneOS ported to Android 17 months ago. LineageOS, which /e/OS is based on just recently started releasing Android 17 updates. /e/OS may not be on Android 17 yet, I haven't checked. So, imagine for months apps have had access to the local network. What can they do with that?

That's just one example of how being far behind on updates can affect privacy.

/e/OS is far less deGoogled than GrapheneOS.

/e/OS lacks features like Storage Scopes, Contacts Scopes, Secure Paste, and sensors permission.

I started to try to answer your question, but I found that the GrapheneOS account gave an answer. Here are quotes:

> microG still heavily uses closed source Google services and even downloads executables run with the full privileges of microG. It downloads and runs droidguard with the privileges it has, giving that full access to the privileged access granted to microG.

> microG has repeatedly had vulnerabilities leaking sensitive data to apps including location data. The approach of having an extra service sitting between apps and the OS which handles sensitive data means having to add all the same privacy and security checks as Play services which microG doesn't do in practice and it has caused severe privacy leaks. The main location leakage was eventually fixed but it persisted for years and there are still holes in the location service causing privacy issues.

I also regularly try to explain to people why microG doesn't make sense. It's more of a big picture thing so it's hard to explain briefly. Consider why people would even install microG. It's only helpful for people who have apps that rely on Google Play Services. Those libraries can have fallback implementations and run even without Google Play Services or microG

Sandboxed Google Play is installed as a regular app. It has the same restrictions as other user-installed apps. If apps have Google libraries that don't need Google Play Services or microG are installed with regular apps, they effectively have the same access as Sandboxed Google Play. If those same apps are installed on a device with microG, Google effectively has the same access, big picture.

GrapheneOS's priorities are privacy, security, and app compatibility. There are issues with microG as far as privacy goes, as already noted. It requires privileged permissions to even work properly, and even microG admits that its reimplementations of Google Play Services features are incomplete, so it's worse in terms of app compatibility too.

By "they" I assume you mean GrapheneOS supporters? I can only speak for myself, but I only flag things when they clearly deserve to be flagged. Fair discussions are important. They help us grow as people and even in our case, GrapheneOS, but we encounter a crazy amount of misinformation here. Some members of our team are also targets for endless harassment. It's so unfortunate that people behave that way. There are also clear sockpuppets attacking GrapheneOS while promoting others. There was a brand new account participating in this thread that was clearly doing that.

Misinformation, harassment, and people who are using unfair methods to win arguments and damage the reputation of others is unacceptable. That's the kind of thing that I flag. What other people do with their permissions is up to them, but I would say that I wouldn't condone people flagging just because they disagree. I'd consider flagging genuine questions to be awful behavior as well.

> I don't understand how you're gaining any privacy as a practical matter.

Exactly.

Being too focused on "Google bad" means you're not seeing the bigger picture. microG is only a thing to provide app compatibility for apps that rely on Google Play Services. Which apps do you think do that? Apps with Google libraries that often have fallback implementations and can operate without Google Play Services.

So, given those facts, if someone has microG installed, Google still effectively has the same access as a device with Sandboxed Google Play, except microG users are stuck with worse app compatibility and because of signature spoofing it's less secure and code runs in that privileged context.

GrapheneOS focuses on privacy, security, and app compatibility. microG fails at security and app compatibility. Also, there are apparently leaks (that I admit I don't know the details of) regarding location that make it worse for privacy too. There could be more leaks that I don't know about.

We are partnered with Motorola, so people will have that option in the near future.

Also, GrapheneOS has plenty of users, and we're growing fast. People appreciate quality.

That's very false. GrapheneOS is a better choice for deGoogling than alternatives.

Sandboxed Google Play isn't installed by default, so our users don't have to use it if they don't want to.

Sandboxed Google Play doesn't have privileged permissions and has no more permissions than other user-installed apps. This means that they have the same restrictions as other user-installed apps.

It's not a priority but GrapheneOS does better at deGoogling than other OSes, including adding features to the OS so people have fewer reasons to install Sandboxed Google Play. One big example is Network Location, so now users don't have to grant Google Play Services location permissions.

Sandboxed Google Play is never preinstalled, so people who wish to deGoogle can do so. And I'm sure GrapheneOS users who don't want to use Google devices will be happy to get a supported Motorola in the future.

That's very false. GrapheneOS is primarily a privacy OS.

Sandboxed Google Play has no privileged permissions, which means that those apps have the same permissions as any other apps you can install on Android, meaning the same restrictions.

All that plus the fact that Sandboxed Google Play is a better approach because it offers better app compatibility and is more secure. microG doesn't meet the project's standards.

GrapheneOS's approach is Sandboxed Google Play so the apps don't get special permissions. Without privileged access, Google apps get access to nothing more than what other apps can get access to on Android. So, for example, even if a device has microG installed, an app with a Google library would have virtually the same access as if Sandboxed Google Play was installed. And why would anyone need microG if not to provide compatibility for apps that rely on Play Services, aka apps with Google libraries?

Also, for some reason some people think that microG means deGoogling. That's not at all the case. microG still communicates with Google servers.

microG doesn't meet the project's requirements. If you look at the big picture, microG offers worse app compatibility and is less secure. The cons outweigh the pros by a lot. "Google bad" isn't an argument that works for us. App compatibility is very important.

GrapheneOS has a growing userbase, and of course many of the people who would like to switch to GrapheneOS are extra mindful of their devices' privacy and security. Maybe a majority of those people are more technically capable, but I can assure you our users aren't all "nerds."

We (yes, "we," not hiding who I am, check my bio) have seen many users from all walks of life asking for assistance. For example, I remember multiple times newcomers in our community asking for help self-identified as old, or retired, or grandparents switching to GrapheneOS. It's not hard to use, and we have a fairly large community of people who are happy to help others learn the ropes.

GrapheneOS is easy to use, just ask the grandparents rocking it. Our userbase will only continue to increase as we continue to deliver features that people want, with the latest being Secure Paste. Many of users are very excited about the feature. More are planned.

As for the complaint about the name, okay? GrapheneOS is open source. You can change the name everywhere and build it yourself.

> Hopefully the HN mods will unflag the astroturfing campaign done by GrapheneOS here to allow a good healthy discussion.

A quick Google search shows that you've been attacking Daniel for a long time using this account. You complain about moderation and astroturfing and I find tons of posts by you attacking Daniel. You clearly have some sort of weird vendetta against him. Don't pretend to want a "good healthy discussion" when all you seem to be interested in is attacking him further.

All the stuff about members of our team not being stable is ridiculous and only works in favor of people or organizations that don't like us or want to damage GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS has multiple people helping out. Many developers as well as people who help out with non-development work. It's a big claim to say that the whole team is unstable.

I'd suggest reading the article again. Considering the situation, the party about deleting the keys should be a good sign for anyone reading it. It shows that the project's leadership cares about doing things the right way. Members of the team are similarly dedicated to helping build and support an OS that improves people's privacy and device security, not to scam users by making a flashy product and rake in cash. Or, in Donaldson's case, work with shady companies and even possibly criminals.

Privacy and security projects like GrapheneOS are important considering the political landscape these days. People really need to stop repeating inaccurate claims about us, like that we're criminals, unstable, crazy, etc.

Just read the article again and I'd suggest also reading responses we sent to fact checkers (many answers didn't even show up in the article). James' side of the story is riddled with lies. So, if you read the article with that in mind, you can see that Copperhead got steered in the wrong direction by James. Daniel has been the owner of the open source project from the beginning and Copperhead was never in control of it. It was right to move forward without James. Nothing paranoid about that. It's more a move by someone who is dedicated to doing things right.

See the attacks on GrapheneOS and even other privacy projects trying to make them look like they are designed for criminals. Even French law enforcement took part. We have shared these details publicly and even with links to articles with quotes. There was even news about authorities in Spain assuming anyone with a Pixel was likely a criminal.

Months ago, we saw tons of reports of organizations reporting hacking GrapheneOS without any evidence or links to court cases. We never claim that GrapheneOS isn't hackable, but we still haven't seen any credible evidence showing forensics companies were able to hack it.

These are just a few examples of how GrapheneOS is being attacked. Again, we're not the only ones.

It's also important to note that GrapheneOS has many project members. GrapheneOS isn't a one man show.

Our responses to these things are not out of paranoia. We want our users to know what's going on, so we keep them informed. What's wrong with that?

> The community is unnecessarily toxic from what I've seen

I'm a GrapheneOS community moderator and I would disagree with this take. If people have issues with the community and feel that they can't ask "why" then a moderator should help with that. I can assure you we've had talks with "supportive" community members who cause problems. Being supportive of the project doesn't mean they can get away with acting rude towards others.

As for the F-Droid post, I never even heard of that post. I don't recognize the username of the user who posted it either. I guess I won't be able to see the original aggressive post, but either way just because someone is a fan doesn't mean the rest of our community is toxic.

> Instead of blockading SafetyNet as being a user hostile solution, GOS instead... implements their own version of it.

SafetyNet was depreciated, so you must be talking about Play Integrity. We don't reimplement Play Integrity, but rather have Sandboxed Google Play, and have even taken steps to reduce its effect on GrapheneOS users, notably optionally blocking API attempts or returning a server error (I forget) and blocking Google-injected code from running in apps that have automatic protection enabled in the Play Developer Console.

Outside of some workarounds, apps that expect Play Integrity verdicts can refuse to run if they choose to. Blocking things won't change that. Spoofing is also not practical because Google can and will break spoofing every time, especially since GrapheneOS has so many users. They already do that for people who root and use various spoofing methods.

> Pixel exclusivity is dumb and remains dumb.

Only Pixels meet the project's requirements as of now. GrapheneOS is in talks with a major OEM for them to get a few of their devices to meet the project's requirements and have official support for GrapheneOS. If all continues to go well, we expect it'll be 1-2 years before this happens.

> GOS doesn't let you do hosts based adblocking

There are apps and VPNs that can do this kind of thing.

> GOS as a project doesn't quite grasp the relationship between app developer and app user and how it's become toxified over the years > The problem these days is usually the developer going bad, not a third party.

The way you're talking here and your mention of F-Droid earlier leads me to believe you're a supporter of F-Droid. The project's advice is just that: advice. People are free to ignore that advice.

GrapheneOS is far from the only group that talks about issues with F-Droid. I don't personally know of all the issues with F-Droid, but as I understand it they use out of date servers, out of date build environments, and other similar issues. Also, they don't actually audit code at all, so developers can still sneak changes past them as long as the developers' changes aren't caught by their basic scanning. There's even the case where the WireGuard developer made changes that break F-Droid's terms of use or something like that. They were making those changes very much in the open and the F-Droid team didn't even notice. If a developer was trying to hide malicious changes, they could easily do that. No, we still have to trust developers. F-Droid is just another trusted party, and they don't deserve that trust considering all the issues they have.

As someone else pointed out, it's not just the comment. There's context you're either ignoring because it's inconvenient for you, or you don't know because you couldn't be bothered to learn more about it.

The video is harassment content, plain and simple. It's filled with disinformation and he lied about not using GrapheneOS moving forward. The developer was swatted multiple times, then when upset with Rossmann he tried to talk to him about his support for harassment content (the swatter was a fan), and instead of being a decent human being, Rossmann made a video of it while it was happening.