Replying to an earlier post

This is also why open source wearables can’t have the best PPG heart rate/SPO2 tracking.

There are only about 4 PPG analog front ends still in production that don’t require an NDA and the Max86141 is the only one worth anything it seems.

You can’t do analog front ends with any small FPGAs that I know of and it is simply to large to do it (well, at least) on a small wearable with discrete components.

Replying to an earlier post

I was hoping that when Apple released thr iPhone 17 with a horizontal island it would end the wobble on a lot of phones, as others tend to copy Apple.

Unbelievably and fucking annoyingly, the iPhone 17 still has one of it’s fucking camera lens jut out enough to fucking wobble still. Which fucking engineer okayed this fucking shit.

I still want a google pixel for the visor, but last year I bought a S24 Ultra as it was cheaper and I don’t like the performance of the Pixle 9 overall. (I always buy the previous gen of current year, when I need to). Oh well, after my S24U breaks maybe when pixel 14 or 15 comes around I’ll get a pixel. Or some other phone with a visor camera island like it.

Replying to an earlier post

I got a deal on a new 9 from my carrier for $5 a month for 24 months.

$120 CAD.

But, in canada, the phones come carrier unlocked and had no issue flashing it. Though i only ever powered it on once before it was flashed - to turn on oem unlocking. The sim was not used until then. So it didn’t do any auto downloads that might have caused a problem.

Long short: you can find them cheap if you look.

Replying to @⁨sundray@lemmus.org⁩

Interestingly, Motorola itself is doing “a large portion of the work of porting GrapheneOS to their devices”.

…and Motorola is owned by Lenovo, which is effectively controlled by the Chinese state.

I love GrapheneOS but jumping into bed with the CCP is bad, bad idea.

Edit: I’m not a fan of US tech either, and this isn’t an “I hate China” post. They are both awful countries.

Replying to @⁨jobbies@lemmy.zip⁩

You believe GrapheneOS is not able protect against Motorola? Or do you think GrapheneOS is weaking the OS specifically for Motorola? Do you believe that’s also the case for Google with their Pixels and the USgovt? Are you saying stay on stock Android? Is there another mobile OS you are recommending? Your message is not clear and you seem to be making unsubstantiated claims with no evidence to back it up.

Replying to an earlier post

If you read what I originally wrote I mentioned that Motorola had done most of the work in porting GOS to their hardware. To me that sounds like Motorola/Lenovo having oversight of both hardware and software. I’m not an expert in the capabilities of the Chinese state but I’d put money on them using their influence to give them an advantage on GOS.

Again, I’m not a fan of US or Chinese tech. I’m not a fan of either regime. I don’t know what the alternatives are. I’m on an older Pixel running GOS but I won’t be upgrading to Motorola - once this phone dies I’ll probably get a dumb phone or give up mobiles entirely.

Replying to an earlier post

Good luck, dumb phone means no encryption, SMS and MMS are stored plaintext and freely shared with US three letters and phone convos have been spied on en masse since the 80s.

For that to be effective you’d have to give up phones, smart, dumb, even carphones and landlines. Not only that, you’d have to reliably know your contacts are never contacting you through their phones, windows PCs, etc, that all themselves have that compromised HW as well. Realistically you’d need to fall back on the postal service, but people can steam open letters, so you’ll need directly employed couriers, but can you really trust anyone else? So you need to hand deliver it, but can you really trust your contact to burn after reading? Better say it face to face, if you can be sure they (or third parties) aren’t recording, but then Flock knows they were with you and they could be tortured later.

Replying to an earlier post

Good luck, dumb phone means no encryption, SMS and MMS are stored plaintext and freely shared with US three letters and phone convos have been spied on en masse since the 80s.

That wouldn’t be an issue, if say, the dumb phone existed for emergencies only.

you’d have to give up phones

I did mention that as a possibility

Realistically you’d need to fall back on the postal service, but people can steam open letters

Well there’s always carrier pigeons and jungle drums.

Replying to an earlier post

Ask GrapheneOS. Thats literally their mission.

Device support

Devices are carefully chosen based on their merits rather than the project aiming to have broad device support. Broad device support is counter to the aims of the project, and the project will eventually be engaging in hardware and firmware level improvements rather than only offering suggestions and bug reports upstream for those areas. Much of the work on the project involves changes that are specific to different devices, and officially supported devices are the ones targeted by most of this ongoing work.

Hardware, firmware and software specific to devices like drivers play a huge role in the overall security of a device. The goal of the project is not to slightly improve some aspects of insecure devices and supporting a broad set of devices would be directly counter to the values of the project. A lot of the low-level work also ends up being fairly tied to the hardware.

Non-exhaustive list of requirements for future devices, which are standards met or exceeded by current Pixel devices:

  • Support for using alternate operating systems including full hardware security functionality
  • Complete monthly Android Security Bulletin patches without any regular delays longer than a week for device support code (firmware, drivers and HALs)
  • At least 5 years of updates from launch for device support code with phones (Pixels now have 7) and 7 years with tablets
  • Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they’re released)
  • Linux 6.1, 6.6 or 6.12 Generic Kernel Image (GKI) support
  • Hardware accelerated virtualization usable by GrapheneOS (ideally pKVM to match Pixels but another usable implementation may be acceptable)
  • Hardware memory tagging (ARM MTE or equivalent)
  • Hardware-based coarse grained Control Flow Integrity (CFI) for baseline coverage where type-based CFI isn’t used or can’t be deployed (BTI/PAC, CET IBT or equivalent)
  • PXN, SMEP or equivalent
  • PAN, SMAP or equivalent
  • Isolated radios (cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc.), GPU, SSD, media encode and decode, image processor and other components
  • Support for A/B updates of both the firmware and OS images with automatic rollback if the initial boot fails one or more times
  • Verified boot with rollback protection for firmware
  • Verified boot with rollback protection for the OS (Android Verified Boot)
  • Verified boot key fingerprint for yellow boot state displayed with a secure hash (non-truncated SHA-256 or better)
  • StrongBox keystore provided by secure element
  • Hardware key attestation support for the StrongBox keystore
  • Attest key support for hardware key attestation to provide pinning support
  • Weaver disk encryption key derivation throttling provided by secure element
  • Insider attack resistance for updates to the secure element (Owner user authentication required before updates are accepted)
  • Inline disk encryption acceleration with wrapped key support
  • 64-bit-only device support code
  • Wi-Fi anonymity support including MAC address randomization, probe sequence number randomization and no other leaked identifiers
  • Support for disabling USB data and also USB as a whole at a hardware level in the USB controller
  • Reset attack mitigation for firmware-based boot modes such as fastboot mode zeroing memory left over from the OS and delaying opening up attack surface such as USB functionality until that’s completed
  • Debugging features such as JTAG or serial debugging must be inaccessible while the device is locked

In order to support a device, the appropriate resources also need to be available and dedicated towards it. Releases for each supported device need to be robust and stable, with all standard functionality working properly and testing for each of the releases.

The expectation is for people to buy a secure device meeting our requirements to run GrapheneOS. Broad device support would imply mainly supporting very badly secured devices unable to support our features. It would also take a substantial amount of resources away from our work on privacy and security, especially since a lot of it is closely tied to the hardware such as the USB-C port control and fixing or working around memory corruption bugs uncovered by our features. We plan to partner with OEMs to have devices produced meeting all our requirements, providing additional privacy/security features beyond them and ideally shipping with GrapheneOS rather than massively lowering our standards.

Replying to @⁨9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world⁩

That’s all very nice but not many of us are willing to buy a $1000 phone (or an obsolete Pixel) to get Graphene. They soon won’t be able to run it on new Pixels, and also the stuff about AOSP updates stops mattering since AOSP itself is nearly dead. The obsession with security chips (fighting the seized phone attack while comparatively ignoring much more relevant threats) is another misplaced priority. It’s the old notion of “fence post security”, putting a 100 foot fence post in the middle of the desert expecting the attacker to try to climb over it instead of going around it.^1^ And again, I’m amused at the idea of the US and Chinese governments allowing a Motorola (Lenovo) Graphene to be sold if it’s really that secure.

We need a de-googled Android fork (maybe Lineage is that) on mass market phones using the hardware that those phones have. Otherwise we’re acquiescing to the notion that Elon Musk deserves more privacy than Joe Schmoe when it should be the other way around.

^1^ hpmor.com chapter 115.

Replying to an earlier post

That’s all very nice but not many of us are willing to buy a $1000 phone (or an obsolete Pixel) to get Graphene.

Pixel “a” series phones typically sell for under $500 and support GrapheneOS.

They soon won’t be able to run it on new Pixels, and also the stuff about AOSP updates stops mattering since AOSP itself is nearly dead.

Source for this?

The obsession with security chips (fighting the seized phone attack while comparatively ignoring much more relevant threats) is another misplaced priority. It’s the old notion of “fence post security”, putting a 100 foot fence post in the middle of the desert expecting the attacker to try to climb over it instead of going around it.1

The obsession with security chips is what allows Pixels and iPhones to be the most secure devices on the planet. They have some of the most researched technologies being used here. You’re literally just throwing it away based on…your link to a harry potter book? Seriously, look at the source you just shared. Its not even relevant 😂

And again, I’m amused at the idea of the US and Chinese governments allowing a Motorola (Lenovo) Graphene to be sold if it’s really that secure.

What are they going to do, ban security chips like they tried to ban encryption in the 90s?

We need a de-googled Android fork (maybe Lineage is that) on mass market phones using the hardware that those phones have. Otherwise we’re acquiescing to the notion that Elon Musk deserves more privacy than Joe Schmoe when it should be the other way around.

GrapheneOS and LineageOS are already degoogled… LineageOS is extremely subpar when it comes to security since they dont enforce it onto their hardware. GrapheneOS actually enforces it and wont work unless it has those specific security features. LineageOS doesnt solve the problem you were concerned about in your post.

Replying to an earlier post

Source for this?

This is a start: grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117140352254892456

The obsession with security chips is what allows Pixels and iPhones to be the most secure devices on the planet.

I remember the govt trying to muscle Apple into unlocking someone’s iphone, til they suddenly stopped because they found Cellebrite could unlock it instead. There have been several new iphone generations since then but I haven’t heard about govt muscling anytime recently. So I have to infer they can still unlock iphones. As for Pixels, this is in Dutch but very recent: omroepbrabant.nl/…/drievoudige-moord-in-oosterhou…

Machine translation of main paragraphs:

The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) has unlocked the Google Pixel phone belonging to 29-year-old Veronica K., according to the prosecutor. “A large number of images of weapons and stacks of cash were found on her phone. There are also a large number of chat messages that can now be read.” K. is alleged to have facilitated the murder by supporting the perpetrators.

The prosecutor expects to receive the first results from the NFI on Thursday. During the hearing, the prosecutor also said there is good reason to hope that the NFI will be able to unlock the Google Pixel phones belonging to the other two suspects as well.

So I think you’re putting too much faith in this stuff. I will ask my crypto homies if they have any recent info about phone attacks though.

More relevantly, most secure devices AGAINST WHAT? You’re talking about a locked phone attack which is the absolute least of most users’ worries. The phone is so insecure in everyday use that the border patrol is near irrelevant. Plus users including paranoids like me don’t have any opsec to speak of. When was the last time you crossed a border with an Android phone anyway? I don’t think I’ve ever done that. Like most people I don’t leave the country that often. Last time I did was before I switched to Android, IIRC. I might have had an analog or 2G flip phone or something. If I travel somewhere again it’s not that big a deal to leave my Android phone at home, as I mentioned before.

Even in the border patrol picture, Graphene and TPM won’t protect you from what used to be called rubber-hose cryptanalysis (xkcd.com/538). They’re defending from the wrong threat.

Look, I understand the advantages of crypto hardware. I’ve programmed it and written simulators for it. But, the way to really keep cryptography in people’s hands is to make it not require special hardware. Thus I’m skeptical that the government hates Graphene, but it really did hate PGP back in the day.

If I get to add new hardware to phones, TPM would be on my list but not at the top. First might be something like POCSAG (plus build out the pager network again) so you can receive text messages without transmitting anything or revealing your location. Second, third, etc. would be in a similar vein.

Replying to an earlier post

Your TPM concern here…

If I get to add new hardware to phones, TPM would be on my list but not at the top. First might be something like POCSAG (plus build out the pager network again) so you can receive text messages without transmitting anything or revealing your location. Second, third, etc. would be in a similar vein.

…is literally addressed in your post here:

This is a start: grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117140352254892456

They mention all the secure enclave type of stuff needed. They have the verified boot. They have the MTP. Its all there.

As for Pixels, this is in Dutch but very recent: omroepbrabant.nl/…/drievoudige-moord-in-oosterhou…

Were they using GrapheneOS?

Also, keep in mind that Cellebrite slides were leaked and they show that they arent able to tap into GrapheneOS on modern Pixel devices.

androidauthority.com/cellebrite-leak-google-pixel…

Until GrapheneOS breaks away from AOSP, which they have mentioned they could potentially do so once they have a solid hardware platform, we seem to at least be in a good place where even the DoJ is upset about people using GrapheneOS.

www.theguardian.com/…/cop-city-protester-phone

Replying to @⁨jobbies@lemmy.zip⁩

I’ll take my chances with the CCP over ICE any fucking day of the year.

We are always under more threat from our own governments than a foreign one and I do not live in China or China-aligned country. I’m safer with my data in Beijing than in Redmond.

And that’s the worst case scenario. Likely, it’s enough of a win for China to have an OS that the US doesn’t have backdoors into without China needing their own.

Replying to an earlier post

Not what I meant, the US is grabbing all the information on their own, don’t think they aren’t. Maybe some of you more sophisticated computer heads can avoid it, but I wouldn’t expect it.

They have everything compromised on a basic level, basic levels. China could sell your information back to the US too though in some kind of deal.

But yeah I agree, I’d rather have foreign governments having it than mine own. But it’s near impossible for a layman, or person without substantial resources, to keep their information out of the hands of the NSA and data brokers, I strongly suspect, as Edward Snowden informed us.

Replying to @⁨late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net⁩

You constructed this overcomplicated chain of thought that supposedly proves GOS sold out

Actually, that’s not what I’m saying. GOS is a small team, and they’ve confirmed that most of the work has been left to Motorola/Lenovo. Given what we know about the Chinese state, its not a stretch to imagine that interference has happened.

And I’m not arguing anything. All of what I’ve said is possible based on what we know (through verifiable information in the public domain) about the activities of the Chinese state. If you choose to call that a conspiracy theory thats up to you.

Replying to an earlier post

And they function normally in this sandbox? I’m assuming sandbox is just compartmentalization. I’m interested in these mainly because when I use an app, browser, whatever… I want it seeing only what I give it with regular use, I don’t want it digging through my contacts, messages, location, microphone, other programs, yada yada. Instagram should only see what I’m scrolling. The play store should only see what I choose to download.

Replying to an earlier post

Functional and hypothetical only example usage of a curated digital footprint, for story purposes:

You keep, use, maintain, and preferably daily drive technology interfacing gizmos in a manner that results in a footprint where the conclusions drawn from it resolve to a “curated” set of… whatever the beholder is looking to ID from the footprint.

Functional example:

You keep and use devices in a manner that is at most “normie+”.

You own a Pixel Phone but keep stock android on it and add just enough to it not make you hate your life. You use a couple of normal sub services.

You still show some of your silly, like use an account on a porn website that federates with the world you care to socialize with. You still post how The Man better watch out.

Same as everyone else. The fingerprint looks like what you want it to look like.

So that it remains separate from what could happen/be happening elsewhere inside a Faraday cage with other devices there. How they are configured like, or who they talk to, the networks you utilize and the level of silly you display in your other accounts that have never so much as shared a trace route in passing together.

That’s hypothetically separate from the curated digital identity, depending on how careful and good at it your set up was.

So when the friendly folks with the mass surveillance pull up your file, it’s composed of what you wanted there to begin with.

It’s just another implementation layer of minimizing and compartmentalization, really.

Hypothetically. For a friend.

Replying to an earlier post

Wouldn’t it be better if it DID? Wouldn’t that get around all the “tamper” detection stuff?

Right now I have Google Play disabled in my owner profile, but it would be nice if apps in secondary profiles could pass the full Play Integrity checks… even though I’m actively trying to transition away from them.

For example Cisco DUO says my device with GrapheneOS installed has been tampered with, and I was hoping that would go away if I could just buy the phone with GrapheneOS installed.

Replying to an earlier post

In the long term, yes it would be better if it shipped.

However, if someone went to a phone store with a stock graphene on display and anything else next to it, which one do you think they’ll choose?

Until Graphene’s stock experience (i.e stock apps and launcher) mature enough to not look out of place next to google and apple, the average Joe will pick the more polished phone. I hope improving that is a task Motorola will be able to help with, while graphene keeps doing their thing.

Additionally with the app/play store dualopoly, Motorola would be shooting them selves in the foot if they didn’t ship with the play store.

Getting an option beside a pixel for Grapheneos is pretty cool and a big step forward. I hope new demand will be high enough to show the decision makers that its an endeavor worth continuing.

Replying to an earlier post

Until Graphene’s stock experience (i.e stock apps and launcher) mature enough to not look out of place next to google and apple

why, what’s the problem with it? that it’s not filled with promotional apps?

Additionally with the app/play store dualopoly, Motorola would be shooting them selves in the foot if they didn’t ship with the play store.

they could just ask in the setup flow whether to install the play store

Replying to an earlier post

Honestly I can’t tell the difference with the launcher compared to what shipped on the phone, not that I used that very much - but I upgraded from an LG G8 and the whole thing looks very familiar. The camera app feels very much like the one on my LG but I suspect someone who is more into photography than me would be frustrated by it. But the standout awful stock app has got to be the clock, the ui is clunky and feels awful to use, the tones are obnoxious, and it has all the visual flair of a C student project.

I’ve mostly just replaced it with the alarm on my smart watch.

Replying to an earlier post

if someone went to a phone store with a stock graphene on display and anything else next to it, which one do you think they’ll choose?

People consider the phone features too. For example Huawei has built a really solid following due to their phones’ quality and that following didn’t go away when Google started sabotaging their phones. Eventually banking apps started releasing versions for Huawei AppGallery (the Huawei Android app store).

So the Google monopoly can be bent if there’s sufficient demand.

Replying to an earlier post

I think the second part is correct, but the first one is not because lots of developers don’t use a custom ROM, and neither does a large part of their intended audience. Sadly, many people are not ready to give up the bank’s app, perhaps literally cannot give up the government app, but also hardware compatibility with most phones is not there, because of missing drivers.

Replying to @⁨jeena@piefed.jeena.net⁩

I’m pretty sure this is wrong. Like obviously it’s a bad thing that they are making it harder to distribute apps through 3rd parties but they aren’t stopping you from sideloading unsigned apps. They are introducing an additional step to unlock your phone to allow unsigned apps. Yes it is annoying and no I do not agree with what they are doing. But they are not removing unsigned app support from all android devices.

The new step will be deciding how long you wish to allow unsigned apps to be installable on your device (either 7 days or indefinitely) and then it requires you to wait 24 hours before you can start to install apps without Google developer signing.

These rules do suck, and it is a bad thing, but lying or exaggerating what is happening will not make them reverse course. It only justifies them when they say “it’s not that bad and it’s for your protection.”

Replying to an earlier post

I 100% understand and support why the moved away from google.

And Motorola was a good choice. But they really should have supported some budget phones.

A pixel series a could easily be found for under 500€ new. These flagship motorola phones are all way over 1000€.

And the developer clearly said they had currently no intention to support cheaper motorola phones. Among other things because Motorola won’t offer 7 year updates for anything but these flagships.

So, I get it. But let’s face it that people on a budget will keep using pixels for GOS while they are maintained.

Replying to @⁨FrogOnShark@programming.dev⁩

(nothing I am about to say is necessarily personal; I am genuinely grateful for the link!)

Is there a table of these requirements as columns and vendors as rows?

I think most of this list is acquired by having a modern CPU or SoC, no?

Much of the list is software requirements.

There is one item that sticks out:

  • Support for disabling USB data and also USB as a whole at a hardware level in the USB controller

Just how much of the hardware list is satisfied by say having a Snapdragon SoC?

I would prefer if people said such and such vendor is missing such and such feature which we need. Always NAME the SPECIFICS. A link to a web page with the exact specifics missing for the most popular phones would help, imo. This is clear and educational. Instead we get “they don’t got no good hardware maaaan.” It’s annoying. Looks handwavy even when it is not.

Replying to @⁨willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com⁩

I haven’t seem anyone respond in the way you’re complaining about.

There’s a long list of requirements, with a big one being hardware memory tagging.

techtimes.com/…/grapheneos-expands-motorola-bette…

The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 — the chip inside the 2026 Motorola Signature — introduced MTE support, but only in the Elite variant. The Foundation has characterized MTE in the non-Elite Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 as effectively broken for GrapheneOS’s purposes. This is why even Motorola’s current flagship lineup cannot qualify: the chip is close but the specific hardware feature GrapheneOS treats as non-negotiable is not reliably present across the Snapdragon lineup.

GrapheneOSTech TimesGrapheneOS Expands to Motorola: Better Snapdragon Radio Isolation Than Google PixelGrapheneOS Motorola support is confirmed for 2027, but current Motorola flagships miss two silicon-level requirements: broken MTE in non-Elite Snapdragon chips and an inadequate secure element. Here is what next-gen Snapdragon must deliver, and why Motorola devices could beat Pixels at defending

Replying to an earlier post

NFC pay is not ubiquitous enough in my area so I use a phone case that has room for cards. I still need to carry a physical health insurance card and a physical ID as well so my wallet case is not going away. I actually bought a pixel 9 instead of 10 just because my favorite wallet case was available.

I’m considering just getting a Garmin watch that I keep disconnected from my phone to use for NFC pay. Seems like I would be able to set up my cards in Garmin Pay app and then just disconnect it.

Replying to @⁨BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works⁩

Most Motorola phones in the U.S. were cheaper, but post sanctions I’m not sure.

www.motorola.com/us/en/p/phones/…/pmipmjb42mv?pn=…

Wish I could get it without the free watch and earbuds and take those out of the price. "Free $299 value buying a $399 phone. Can I just buy the phone for $150 please lol.

Edit: (Apparently the developers are just supporting flagships for now, so the normal phones I guess won’t be supported)

www.motorola.comLong Battery Life Smartphone with 50MP AI Camera | moto g power - 2026 | motorola CA | motorolamoto g power - 2026 has 2-day battery life, a low-light camera for clearer night shots, and a large screen smartphone design that makes every moment feel bigger and brighter.