I don’t like smartphones. I use a dumbphone.
But this is a wonderful initiative.
Shame there is no Graphene OS support for it
Graphene isn’t the best choice for everything. It doesn’t have good backup solutions nor device to device backup or anything solid for complete snapshots and when restoring your so called backups you’ll realize what all it truly lacks.
It’s hardened and has a lot of security and privacy features but none of that matters if your opsec is bad, or it’s feature set doesn’t match your threat model. I am not knocking it at all. It just isn’t the white knight for every case.
The biggest downside of Fairphone IMO is that they don’t maintain their hardware support in LineageOS and for the retail product then branch development off, add a bit of custom branding and adapt whatever Google requires these days. It would greatly improve custom ROM support in general.
You could always go for /e/os though
Edit: Didn’t know it was this bad…
deleted by creator
Can you explain?
Every other version of Android gets security updates out within a couple weeks of release at most.
/e/OS users are lucky if they get them within a couple months.
No offense, but that’s not what a security dumpster fire is. Security updates are important, of course, but they are also not the biggest deal.
In fact, I bet that the vast majority of users (on Android or otherwise) are lagging way behind in updates anyway.
deleted by creator
I am not dismissing it, I am saying that is not as big as you make it to be. Most users lag behind in updates anyway, besides using minimal and trusted applications, the outside exposure to exploitation is relatively small, for a device without a public address. I am not the one APTs are going to use the SMS no-click 0-day against.
Similarly for the bootloader issue. The kind of attacks mitigated by this are not in most people threat models. They just are not. As someone else wrote, it’s possible to relock the bootloader anyway with official builds (such as my FP3). But anyway, even for myself the chance that my phone gets modified by physical access without my knowledge is a fraction of a fraction compared to the chance that someone will snatch the phone in my hand while unlocked, for example (a recent pattern).
If these two issues are what prompts you to call a “security dumpster fire”, I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.
So an OS that boasts about the “privacy” it offers… Doesn’t need routine and consistent security updates?
Sure thing bud, keep going on like you know what you’re talking about.
Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example. In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a “googled” phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.
I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.
Thanks for the answer. How does it compare against other Android forks in terms of security update speed?
Also, isn’t Fairphone once also criticised for falling behind on Android security updates or was I misremembering this?
Also correct, though I am not particularly familiar with Fairphone. Seems like they are down to bimonthly updates, if that.
*We are including two months of security patching in a bi-monthly maintenance release.
Was thinking the same thing. Not Graphenes fault though but a failing of OEMs to provide what’s necessary.
