• MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Tell you what: I agree with you on this. If one is truly paranoid and takes physical security into account, a rooted stock OS is a far better option in terms of restricting access to system files (not saying the CIA/MOSSAD can’t do it, but your random reddit-informed script kiddie definitely can’t). Indeed, rooting your stock OS, firewalling everything and deleting telemetry might be a decent idea (there are ways to install security patches on rooted mobiles, not to worry).

    Edit: on the matter of CalyxOS, I wouldn’t go as far as to fault them on it. Grapehene has taken a resolution to either block/use their own almanac servers. This requires a fair bit of work. Oh, and what domain do Google chips use for almanacs anyway?

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Edit: on the matter of CalyxOS, I wouldn’t go as far as to fault them on it. Grapehene has taken a resolution to either block/use their own almanac servers. This requires a fair bit of work.

      Yes, but if you want sell a secure OS to people it should be really secure and not have big blind spots hidden from the users like this one.

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        One could argue about funding/interest when there are other things to fix. Essentially, when someone develops FOSS, people don’t get to order them around on what to do. I’m very pleased with what Calyx and Graphene have achieved till date and support them wholeheartedly (speaking of which, I should get back to donating, money is a bit tight though). But yes, perhaps a disclaimer for the paranoid people on Calyx’s website could be a decent idea.

        • TCB13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But yes, perhaps a disclaimer for the paranoid people on Calyx’s website could be a decent idea.

          It isn’t about being paranoid. It’s about knowing where you’re stepping, not everyone has time / can do proper research and I’m sure there are people running Calyx / others that aren’t aware of that boot security issue and if they were they wouldn’t be using it.

          Look those projects are great as you said and I’m very grateful they exist but people should know what they’re “buying into” when it comes to security and privacy.

          • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the industry/market generally realises that Graphene is the most secure Android OS there is. I’m interested in trying to understand how they implemented locking the bootloader and why other ROMs aren’t picking this up yet. Maybe it’s just a lot of work.

            I think people who go on to flash Calyx definitely know the advantages of locking one’s bootloader and that using Calyx doesn’t let you do that. I think ROMs such as these also explicitly mention that the bootloader cannot be locked once said ROM is installed. I understand if someone doesn’t have the time but if they had enough time to understand how to flash a ROM on their mobile one would think they’d be interested in such details too (well, if they aren’t, then they likely don’t care).

            • TCB13@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the industry/market generally realises that Graphene is the most secure Android OS there is. I’m interested in trying to understand how they implemented locking the bootloader and why other ROMs aren’t picking this up yet. Maybe it’s just a lot of work.

              From what I know it isn’t only about “a lot of work” its about phone vendors having to support that in the first place.

              I think people who go on to flash Calyx definitely know the advantages of locking one’s bootloader and that using Calyx doesn’t let you do that

              From what I see in this post and others doesn’t seem like it. Seems like a lot of people are unaware of this issue.

              • cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bootloader is relocked after flashing Calyx on an FP4. Are you saying that isn’t actually the case?

                • TCB13@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s only possible on a small subset of devices and I actually remember that even for the FP4 they said in some devices it doesn’t work due to some bug and may lead to a bricked phone.

                  • cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Ok. My understanding is that Calyx only supports devices that allows relocking, which essentially means Pixels, FP4 and some Shift-device (according to their documentation). So I become a bit confused when it is claimed that it cannot be done at all in Calyx, and that this is some big truth that its users (me included) are not privvy to.

                    https://calyxos.org/docs/guide/device-support/