Revolut, McDonald's, and Authy have banned the use of GrapheneOS.

grapheneos.org GrapheneOS attestation compatibility guide

Guide on using remote attestation in a way that's compatible with GrapheneOS.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15995282

Real unfortunate news for GrapheneOS users as Revolut has decided to ban the use of 'non-google' approved OSes. This is currently being posted about and updated by GrahpeneOS over at Bluesky for those who want to follow it more closely.

Edit: had to change the title, originally it said Uber too but I cannot find back to the source of ether that's true or not..

privacy @lemmy.ca

GrapheneOS attestation compatibility guide

grapheneos.org /articles/attestation-compatibility-guide

23 3

Privacy @lemmy.world

Revolut, McDonald's, and Authy have banned the use of GrapheneOS.

grapheneos.org /articles/attestation-compatibility-guide

252 65

You're viewing a single thread.

331 comments

This makes me want to use GrapheneOS more. If the dataminers don't want you to use it then it must be doing something right.
- Too bad it only runs on Google's phones...
  
  It's only officially supported on google phones because sadly those are the only ones that are not modified to fuck which makes installing and supporting other OS'es way too much work.
  Giving google money once for a device is not a problem from a privacy or security standpoint.
  
  That's correct, but not the reason grapheneOS chooses only pixel phones. It's the level of hardware security features.
  
  Also unlockable and presumably has well working builds. It's not just graphene, but just about every Android project it there that's best supported on pixels. Other manufacturers have a crazy variety of locking schemes and required tools. Each one is a nightmare to support.
  
  For GrapheneOS, it's primarily that it's re-lockable. That's why other unlockable phones aren't supported.
  The GrapheneOS install process sets new OS signing keys so you can lock the phone again and get full verified boot. However, most manufacturers haven't implemented this feature.
  
  Yes, that cuts the list down even more.
  
  What do you get, app/feature wise for verified boot vs. Play integrity app? Does it increase the amount of apps that work on it?
  
  No, Play Integrity intentionally checks if it's a Google-approved key. Android itself has an API to check verified boot and gives info on the signing key - most devs just want to know verified boot is working.
  I feel Play Integrity has a short life ahead of if competition authorities realise how exactly it works. "Anti-competitive" is the first thing policy-minded folks think when I explain the API to them.
  
  Hope you're right, because it basically spells the end of customizing.
  
  I would guess that it allows to detect tampering if you have to give your phone to the security officers and they do or don't do something with it without you present. I heard of such occurrences on the border, but this happens in other places and countries, too. Not sure if locked bootloader would help, though
  
  Second hand, no money for them
  
  In the EU almost every phone has an unlockable bootloader, there just isn't any roms or custom recoveries for a lot of them.
  
  Wish they'd at least support Fairphone.
  If Graphene reached out to them I bet Fairphone would even actively work with them to make it an official OS option.
  
  Fairphone would need to substantially modify their hardware to make that work
  
  Right? Have to pay google for the privilege
  
  You can always buy a second hand one
  
  Someone installing graphene os for security shouldn't be trusting random second/third/etc hand hardware lol
  
  There is absolutely no problem with that. The phone is wiped and encrypted when you flash graphene, and it does an integrity check every time it boots.
  
  Hypothetically the hardware could have been modified, but that would take some insane level of a determined attacker to be fabricating modified pixels just to sell them on the used market.
  
  Yes, this would only be a concern for targeted attacks by state actors, in which case not even buying new would be safe.
  Thinking about it, in such a scenario buying used may even be safer
  
  It also comes with a hardware auditor, although you need another trusted graphene phone to use it. I don't know about the details, but sounds very hard to mess with it.
  
  although you need another trusted graphene phone to use it
  No, Auditor can be installed on any Android phone. It's even available on the Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.attestation.auditor.play
  You can even perform a remote verification, which uses GrapheneOS servers and doesn't require a second device at all: https://attestation.app/tutorial#scheduled-remote-verification
  
  Nothing too hypothetical nor an "insane" level of work. Didn't Israel do just that with some beepers to blow up children?
  
  And you can even use the GrapheneOS Auditor app to perform a manual verification of the OS.
  
  Shouldn't trust anything then. They could intercept your new phone and modify it. They did it for switches. But your not worth it for "them".
  
  Your options are:
  Apple phone
  Bloated android phone like Samsung etc.
  Chinese android phone (xiami etc)
  Google phone with Android
  Google phone with graphene. This still looks like the best of those options.
  Or no phone? I guess people are hardcore enough that will be the option.
  Edit: I stand corrected.
  
  Fairphone? Swiftphone? eOS? Linuxphone? PostmarketOS etc?
  
  Is swiftphone its own thing or did you mean shiftphone? I kinda want the shiftphone 8 myself even if they only ship to neighboring countries of mine.
  
  There's always package forwarding. I'm about to find out how bad an idea that is.
  
  Ah sorry, you're right. I meant shiftphone.
  
  All of these are insecure as hell. Linux phones especially https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
  Fairphone also really fucked up: They signed their own OS with the publicly available (!) AOSP test signing keys. These guys really don't know that they're doing, and I would trust their hardware or software whatsoever. And no, installing a custom ROM doesn't solve this. Considering how bad their security practices are, we genuinely have to assume that there are security issues with the device firmware as well.
  /e/OS is based on the already insecure LineageOS, and it weakens the security further, so it's not a good option either.
  None of the options you mentioned can be compared to GrapheneOS. It's currently the best option if you value your privacy and security. You don't have to give Google money either, since you can just buy a used device, which is also cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Google also makes repairing their devices pretty easy for consumers and even works with iFixit. Here's a Mastodon post I recently saw about that: https://social.linux.pizza/@midtsveen/113630773097519792
  
  An used Pixel, assuming I can find one in my country, still costs four (4) times what I need to shell out for a in-market Lineage compatible phone.
  Theoretical security is cute, but it has to be adjusted to practical feasibility. The most secure computer in the world is useless to you if you can't boot it up.
  
  Security-wise you're better off using whatever OS comes with your device (as long as it gets updates) than downgrading to LineageOS. At least most smartphone vendors (except for Fairphone) manage to ship their Stock OS with a locked bootloader and somewhat working Verified Boot.
  
  Security-wise you’re better off using whatever OS comes with your device
  So, Android 9 / 10?
  I'm sure not as heck going to spend zillions on a new phone (or a hard-to-find used one) when the one I have still works perfectly.
  
  So, Android 9 / 10?
  In that case, no. I assumed we were talking about up-to-date devices.
  
  Well, on my phone that back in stock could only do up to Android 10, Lineage gives me Android 11 (maybe 12, haven't checked) so it's still a serious win.
  Now, if you insist that I shall have an up-to-date device from the official manufacturer with all the bloatware, same planned obsolescence and zero control, or even worse a 4× overpriced Pixel, maybe you are so assured of this superiority that you'd be willing to fund it?
  
  I use cheap motorola phone with lineage OS, add that to your options
  
  I don't think LOS has any privacy/security improvements over the stock android?
  (IIRC) it's even worse than stock because you can't lock the bootloader after installation.
  Though if your phone isn't getting official updates, it's probably safer with LOS.
  
  There's also the Lineage-based DivestOS that attempts to keep up with more security updates, and relocking the bootloader in phones that support it.
  https://divestos.org/
  
  Yeah, I myself am using CalyxOS, because DivestOS doesn't support the Fairphone 5 unfortunately. CalyxOS also has relocking.
  
  Calyx also comes with MicroG, right? So mitigates many problems with a bit more Google.
  And Fairphone 4 here, partly for Divest (had it on Oneplus 6 before this and just used to it), partly because of a good deal for a barely used one.
  
  (IMHO) CalyxOS is a good balance between security and usability. Better than LineageOS, worse than GrapheneOS (and DivestOS).
  
  Amen to that. Everyone has their own balance point, Calyx seems to hit that for many.
  
  Physical access is game over anyway?
  
  Not with GrapheneOS, since you can entirely disable the USB controller from the settings on a driver level, making it impossible to connect the phone to a forensic data extraction device. GrapheneOS also has a convenient auto-reboot feature, which (together with their patches to the Linux kernel and Fastboot recovery OS to include memory zeroing) erases the encryption keys from memory, putting the device in BFU state and requiring the PIN/password to unlock. This is additionally secured by the Titan M2 secure element, which makes use of the Weaver API and drastically throttles brute-force unlock attempts. https://grapheneos.org/faq#encryption
  
  Some cool features, wonder what backdoors google have put in the hardware
  
  Those conspiracy theories often come up in discussions here on Lemmy, but the TLDR is: Google is a tiny player in the smartphone market, compared to vendors like Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, and others (https://www.statista.com/chart/25463/popularity-of-google-smartphones/). They also serve a much smaller geographical region than most other manufacturers. The Pixel 9 lineup, for example, is only sold in 32 countries. Most of those are wealthy industrial nations. Google doesn't even try to assume market share in developing countries in Africa and Asia. It can also be assumed that over 97% of Google Pixel users keep the Stock Pixel OS, where Google doesn't need a hardware backdoor since they can just implement it in software. So that leaves only a tiny fraction of all users: people in some wealthy industrial nation who specifically buy a Pixel to install a custom ROM. GrapheneOS for example has about 300K users. Do you really think Google would put in the effort to create a hardware backdoor and take all the risk associated with it (negative PR, loss of sales, etc.) just to collect some data about this tiny amount of users? Google already controls EVERY Android phone on the market by forcing vendors to include Google Play Services as a system application through their contracts, licensing and monopolistic market position. Be realistic for a second, and you will realize that your backdoor theories make absolutely no sense and that no business in the world would ever take such a huge risk with such little reward.
  
  Bare in mind the chipset is the Google Tensor G4, they already had to design and build their own hardware. We don't know everything it can do
  
  Yup, it's definitely worse https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#lineageos
  
  (IIRC) it’s even worse than stock because you can’t lock the bootloader after installation.
  That's a problem with the phone manufacturer, not with Lineage.
  
  LineageOS itself drastically weakens security even compared to stock AOSP, for example by exposing root access or deploying insecure SELinux policies
  
  Xiaomi has the biggest custom ROM scene out there btw despite them trying their hardest to stop bootloader unlocking. You really don't need to have a company supporting unlocking to make ROMs for them. If they outright block it then that's an issue.
  
  I read somewhere that on some xiaomi phones in china you need to request it, https://github.com/melontini/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame/blob/main/brands/xiaomi/README.md
  
  My friend just got a new Xiaomi phone. He tried unlocking it a few days ago and got "try again in 168 hours". That happened in Europe. It's an absolute mess nowadays, I remember when they started blocking you from unlocking the bootloader. First you had to wait 24 hours, then 3 days, now it's an entire week. You also need to make sure you're logged into your Mi Account on both phone and PC and do even more weird fuckery to ensure the process actually go through. Meanwhile, on GOOGLE Pixel devices you just type one command after you enable oem unlocking in settings and reboot into fastboot mode. Crazy.

331 comments