Posts by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #AwX3IkJtvrZjhtZi2S by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2025-07-26T11:14:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kevinbowen There is no belligerent fediverse presence as the article claims, would you say that a project that defends itself against harassment and regular attacks is belligerent behavior ? the article also seems to fixate on the founder, there's nothing paranoid or reactionary about it either, @GrapheneOS works perfectly in the field, the project is reliable, and their communication is in truth professional is more detailed and explicit than what we see mostly elsewhere, but many projects see GOS as a threat and want to destroy it, the article on LWN isn't bad, it's actually better than most others articles, unfortunately, it still contains inaccuracies and also oddities, it would have been wise to correct the original article, rather than simply letting the GrapheneOS community manager create his own publication with corrections that many probably won't read, I don't agree with this policy of not editing articles on LWM.The correction of the original article : https://lwn.net/Articles/1031454/
(DIR) Post #AwX6kZBnD3AP9kjvQu by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2025-07-26T18:05:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tomjennings @kevinbowen @GrapheneOS "And I didn't realize grapheneOS had a single developer!"I don't know where you read this information, but that's not the case. If I remember correctly, GrapheneOS has 10 full-time and part-time developers (I'm not sure of the exact number so correct me if i'm wrong). GrapheneOS is not Daniel Micay's solo project. It started out as a solo project, but it has long been a team hard work.I advise you to follow official sources rather than random ones.https://grapheneos.org/history/https://github.com/orgs/GrapheneOS/peopleI agree with you that discussions with malicious people are very complicated and often do not lead to reasonable agreements. People who really want to harm you will continue to do so. That said, defending the project is always useful and must be done. This is done to dispel the misinformation that exists about GrapheneOS for newcomers, and I feel that it is yielding results, as the number of users continues to grow.As the saying goes, one day, lies will pay their debt to the truth.
(DIR) Post #AygqBPQd5UvAJGp4nA by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2025-09-28T20:48:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nazokiyoubinbou @dianea Devices that meet these standard security requirements can officially support GrapheneOS: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices@GrapheneOS is collaborating with a major OEM to build a subset of devices that meet security requirements to natively support GrapheneOS. We would have an alternative to the Google Pixel, on a device whose hardware is controlled by GrapheneOS.Collaboration with this OEM enables GrapheneOS to provide early access to security patches. Currently, Google Pixels are the only Android devices that meet standard security requirements. GrapheneOS is a privacy project that enhances security to protect that privacy, so it will not lower its standards by officially supporting a bunch of insecure devices. These devices will require maintenance rather than allowing the project to focus on its core mission, and the project will not be able to offer good privacy/security to users. This is a problem on the part of the manufacturers, not GrapheneOS.A used Pixel 9a or Google 8a at a good price would be an excellent choice if you are on a limited budget.
(DIR) Post #AygqBRnkGWbFfXeZ6G by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2025-09-28T21:12:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nazokiyoubinbou @dianea @GrapheneOS I too am disappointed by the lack of security on most Android devices, which is one of the reasons why GrapheneOS is collaborating with a major OEM, and recent changes made by Google have accelerated this need.But the situation is what it is, and there is no point in not recommending GrapheneOS because of this, or even complaining about it without taking a step back. Google Pixel devices from the 8 series onwards get seven years of security updates from launch, and this period is expected to increase. For example, $499 for a Google Pixel 9a with 7 years of full security updates and all hardware security measures is a very attractive choice and good value for money. you have to look at the price you pay over time rather than the price at the time of purchase, it will also have a higher resale value, paying $200-$300 for a low-end device with hardware that is easily vulnerable to physical and remote attacks, with a broken operating system, tons of bloatware, software bugs, and no software or hardware security updates in less than 7 years is actually very expensive.
(DIR) Post #B3qMXcYOhRqbo2F59M by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2026-03-02T08:51:04Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Congratulations on the partnership between Motorola and GrapheneOS, a new era in mobile security and privacy, hoping that other manufacturers will follow suit.https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/#grapheneos #motorola #android #security #privacy
(DIR) Post #B4O2YWSQXpBFCVNnoe by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2026-03-18T15:07:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@vollaficationist @GrapheneOS An anti-competitive cartel violates the principle of fair competition not only in Canada but in most countries, including the EU. https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartels_enUnified Attestation is an initiative with Murena, Iodé, and Volla, three untrustworthy for-profit companies that want to copy Google’s Play Integrity API, which is already abusive and illegal, to manipulate the market and impose their misleading standards.There is nothing neutral about it, and the fact that it’s “open-source” doesn’t change a thing.
(DIR) Post #B51Gnp7aPYfXx7GJgu by Xtreix@infosec.exchange
2026-04-05T22:23:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS And this thing is old, for example, back when the first versions of Firefox were released, France had demanded versions of Firefox with significantly reduced security to allow law enforcement agencies to take remote control of it. I didn’t know about it at the time; I was too young, but I know it happened.During the gradual transition to encrypting the web, France was reluctant and initially wanted to limit encryption to states websites and banks.Surveillance by the French government has taken an even more aggressive turn since 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks.The GDPR has so far proven ineffective, and it is mainly due to the censorship and decisions of the Constitutional Council and the Court of Justice of the European Union that the French government is prevented from going further than it would like, but every year, it tries to circumvent these decisions.