You should really stop shilling for GOS. This thread is not about them, especially in light of their often inflated claims (bordering on outright misrepresentation), known toxicity and scandalism.
1 Like
Honestly, STOP with this propaganda and creating duress and promoting political gos agendas.
Where does the article you linked sayâs that Pixelâs are more vulnerable then other devices?
The firmware code for the security chips, especially Titan M, maximally open to the public, so the claim that Google Pixel develops its own security chips somethingâs bad or wrong, absolutely unfounded. I also want to remind, that it is mostly exactly Google post the source code of their phones (specifically phones, for example the same USB stack and not just the security chip), and although starting with Pixel 10 they do it partially or with a delay, many other companies donât do this at all. Developers of open operating systems exactly therefore are oriented exactly on Pixel phones. Among consumer smartphones, now only on Pixel can offer maximum control and security, in particular, use Verified Boot on third-party firmwares. In the context of operating systems, which you were talking about recently: there was once a project called DivestOS, but it was closed precisely because it couldnât provide deep control over a many devices with closed source and proprietary drivers, yes and security patches they couldnât make them that deep. As a result, from the group of security leaders remains only GrapheneOS, the first name of which was AndroidHardening, which directly spoke about deep change in the level of security, which is the same DivestOS allow to itself canât, but AndroidHardening(GrapheneOS) could, because it only worked on Google Pixel phones. Any security is known in comparison. Or you choose the safest method from availables and the most secure device from availables, or you lose if you choose inaction.
1 Like
I posted the article to dispel the bogus argument that there is no need to use firmware for data grabbing.
Titan M, maximally open to the public
That is absolutely FALSE.
The firmware binaries in Pixels (Titan M included) do not correspond to published sources. Although, Google uses (and contributes to) open titan repositories, the final product used in Pixels is proprietary.
You canât build Pixelâs Titan firmware from Open Titan sources the same way you canât build Google Chrome from Chromium sources. Both Titan and Chrome are black boxes.
Since the rest of your post is based on this false premise, there is no need to respond further.
Hasnât been a single Documented instance, doesnât necessarily mean it never happened. Havenât you heard of tools and methods that were kept secret in order for them to be useful?
Are you ignoring the intent and force there is to establish full control and surveillance? And believe all the power behind it to just accept existence of a barrier in a form of custom operating system?
I have seen with my own eyes threads where with claims stating law enforcement gained access to a Graphene OS pixel that have been erased from Graphene OS official forum.
Do which argument exactly are you referring?
You said that you are against Google Pixel, so I ask for the reason why you think that Google Pixel is less secure then other devices.
Then there is still no reason to believe that Pixelâs are more vulnerable then other phones or computer
Please, donât try to appear more stupid than you actually are, and donât run in circles.
Iâve already told you:
I posted that article to show that hiding malware/spyware in firmware is more potent than doing the same in Android apps, such as Gapps.
As far as why Pixels are not secure - the same, A company that
(i) has no experience in designing processorsâ software (firmware), but
(ii) has plenty of experience in putting spyware/malware in closed source binaries
{iii) has the primary business model of grabbing and monetizing data, yet
(iv) the same company still ventures into processorsâ design.
The only reason for the above is: It wants to Hide Data Grabbing Activities in Firmware, because Firmware is NOT controlled by Android.
I take it the only reason you would argue for Pixels is GrapheneOS. So, I am going to tell you too: Stop shilling for GrapheneOS, which is NOT relevant to this thread.
2 Likes
Do you know any smartphones that are safer than Pixel?
Virtually any phone by major OEM, and please donât ask me why again, just read this thread.
Youâre simply biased against Google because theyâre an advertising company. But that doesnât change the fact that their smartphones are the most secure in practice, when it comes to physical hacking. Especially compared to Samsung. Cellebriteâs methods are specifically optimized for Samsung, as it is more popular and has less control over its supply chain and, therefore, security.
1 Like
I beg to disagree. Neither theirs nor anyone elseâs phone are safe security wise and physically too. The research does not mean it is not possible, it only means those researchers have not found a way to do it.
Nothing is impossible in this all is possible world.
Agreed. And like wise Pixels are no less vulnerable.
While Pixels with Graphene OS tend to have smaller surface of attack, thus yield a narrower adversary able to get in.
You logic doesnât work.
They build the only device that can compete with iPhoneâs on hardware security.
Source? (No your link above doesnât have anything to do with Google)
Literally every company (thatâs not explicitly a privacy focused company) will collect and monetize all the data they can get.
The reason GrapheneOS is focused on Pixelâs is that they have the highest hardware security in the market.
They are less vulnerable because you can relock the bootloader and because Titan M chips bet the competion
An article based on information coming from Graphene forums (read GOS themselves) known for toxicity and the North Korean style of exaggeration and lies, like âwe have a brand new OS that (thanks to our shear genius) is compatible with android appsâ?! How convenient.
You are not arguing, you are promoting and running in circles repeating the same tired talking points (like the OP).
I am done with you too. Best regards.
Almost all mobile operating systems are based on Android (or more precisely, AOSP). And they are all compatible with it. GrapheneOS is also AOSP, just with additional security.