GrapheneOS is all of that. You won’t admit because you have personal antipathy with the lead developer. This is unacceptable because you run a community, and you deliberately choose to spread misinformation
Sounds like you are a fan of GrapheneOS and Micay. I acknowledge it is a good security ROM, yet ignored and cherry picked my statements.
GrapheneOS may itself be a good ROM, but the exclusivity of it being used with Google Pixels is extremely suspicious to me.
See? Second paragraph in previous comment.
I do not talk with some emotions in my mind. What do you even know, Copperhead CEO messaged me to engage in joining hands and attacking Micay, and I stalled and ghosted him. This is exactly why I despise GrapheneOS community.
Not at all, I linked useful source to explain why pixels are the recommended devices. Instead, you didn’t counter the source. The trust is implicit, you have to trust every software and hardware that you use.
I countered the source exactly the way Google tells us to trust their blackbox hardware without explanations.on if their hardware is open.source or can be verified via ehitebox testing methods. It cannot. And I cited examples of every other USA major tech company’s security chip failing, so Google’s is only a matter of time, not if. Obscure security has failed repeatedly, and it always will.
CalyxOS also uses only pixels, and you suggest it. Instead, you should suggest both CalyxOS and GrapheneOS.
I refuse to recommend GrapheneOS, and instead recommend CalyxOS, because:
I do not recommend Google Pixels due to extra proprietary hardware layer, that does not exist on other phones and is an unverifiable blackbox
I do not recommend GrapheneOS because strcat simply bans anyone whoever asks even slightly complex, or a bunch of questions in his Matrix room. It is well documented in Techlore’s video. A custom ROM that claims security, and does not solve queries of its users, is a ROM with garbage after-installation support. This would be worse than recommending a phone with garbage post sales support, as the user of a security ROM likely has harsher threat model.
CalyxOS gives post installation support and advices, and has a community not filled with vile racists or unhelpful people, and does not give shitty answers to queries of GSF dependent apps not running properly, as GrapheneOS devs do.
Again, I’m not interested in madaidan, I linked his article because he made an objective analysis about Firefox. I asked you many times to give me useful source to counter his article. Instead, you gave me reddit delete comments about people who you defined sockpuppet. I don’t care to read a thread between you an micay. My point is not defend those people.
Are you purposely changing goalposts? I answered your question to my claim of if madaidan spreads FUD, and he does a lot. Now you do not care about madaidan at all, who is the admin of NoGoolag and SpiteChat Telegram groups, and is a side aide of Micay?
Random anons on internet are not specimens worth being studied by people with academic rigour.
Underhanded_C_Contest . This proves it false that closed source code can be audited properly. This doesn’t counter my point at all. The underhanded C contest can be apply also to open source software
This is false because you can read open source xode, line by line. Open source code is transparent and closed source code is opaque. Are you an antI FOSS shill, by any chance? I find a lot of these quirky people often. Or maybe you have the same problem that folks like Micay have, hurting other open source projects to boost their own and milk it for their popularity gains in community?
Open source it’s not equal to automatic security and privacy. Both open source and closed source software can be audited and you can find malicious code in both. This contest doesn’t mean that you can’t property audited closed source code
You seem to be making exactly same mistakes as cn3m, for some reason. Why is that the case? I think I caught you red handed, or you likely consulted their community to reply to me.
Open source ensures transparency, therefore it will always be superior to closed source. Why are you trying to shill closed source ideology in a privacy community?
not true at all source; the national bureau of Asian research.
Report Launch | A Full-Spectrum Response to Sharp Power: The Vulnerabilities and Strengths of Open Societies June 18, 2021 11:00 am - 12:30 pm
featuring Nadège Rolland, Senior Fellow, National Bureau of Asian Research
Prior to joining NBR, Rolland was an analyst and senior adviser on Asian and Chinese strategic issues to the French Ministry of Defense.
So you just cited this outlet that has clear links to France military, where France is a country that wants war with and is anti China? I swear you people are so funny to play around with.
That’s security through obscurity. Verified boot it’s not a panacea against all kind of possible attacks but it’s still a very useful security and privacy feature. It prevent the malware to get persistent. Users shouldn’t disable for any reason
Yes and you promoted security through obscurity above via claiming open source code does not mean nothing in the case of Titan M blackbox chip. Decide to stand for something for once. Open source, or closed source?
Pixels have also become the most vulnerable and worst phones to buy now (always were, now botnet loaded), considering Anøm phones are going onto markets as second hand.
Two different problems. Pixels didn’t became the most vulnerable because of the anom phones
Yes two different problems, but I am telling how problematic Pixels are to buy. One security vendor messaged mesometime ago to use my platform for their promotion of GrapheneOS loaded Pixels, and this is why I never responded to them. Also, second handed Pixels are all vulnerable devices now, because that is how an XDA member got hold of this ArcaneOS loaded Pixel.
You don’t recommend Google pixels and yet you recommend CalyxOS which uses only pixels.
There exist people who have purchased a Google Pixel already, and may ask me for help with achieving better privacy. I am not going to tell these people to sell off their Pixel, unless 5 Eyes is a threat adversary for them.
. I’d would be more honest if you refuse to suggest both OS because they both use pixels
Your version of honesty is not realistic, and does not help people in reality.
You refuse to admit that titan M it’s not a black box even if I prove you that google will rewards anyone who can find an exploit, of course that means that is not a black box.
Sorry but that is not what being closed source hardware means. Learn about software and hardware testing in an academic manner, as I did during my degree. And this argument “just hack it 1337 haxorman else shut up” is reductio ad absurdum, it is a dumb argument.
Every Phones comes with closed source components, you have to deal with.
“Every phone comes with closed source hardware so one more closed source hardware layer does not matter.” “They are taking our camera permission, let us give them microphone permission too, why does it matter?”
Your logic is utterly flawed. Please learn about how to reduce attack surface. Titan M is not some kind of open TPM chip that you can customise or disable.
You suggest huawei over pixels for no reason despite you know that install a custom os on huawei destroy completely the security model of android. Moreover, huawei delays security updates and lacks long time supports.
Verified boot working as intended assumes hardware comes from a non compromised source. This seems unlikely to be confirmed, especially with American companies that at this point have baked in backdoors left and right, otherwise they have hacked security enclave chips. You can trust USA as much as you want, but I will be your enemy if you try to shill that to others blindly.
You can read closed source line by line, it’s called reverse engineering. Open source it’s an ideology, it’s about freedom, which is good , but it’s not equal to security and privacy, it’s just a misconception.
Yup, you are an anti FOSS shill most likely. Closed source analysis can only be done via blackbox testing, and closed source is not transparent.
If open source is not equal to privacy or security, then by that logic closed source everything sure as hell is pure malware.
Your source doesn’t counter what I linked about huawei. National Bureau of Asian Research have some kind of interesting against China and so they are spread misinformation about huawei, right? But did you actually linked some article that counter the NBAR research? No
Are you recommending people to rely on 5 Eyes/Anglosphere think tank funded research as your counter points against Chinese companies? I proved how the leading people of NBR are directly linked to French military. This is purely a dishonest maligning attempt with no academic rigour.
You falsely accuse me to be something that I’m not because you can’t counter the source I linked.
I prove each and every point I made, and countered your arguments. You cannot get away with staying in denial mode, when everything is clear as day. You are the one shilling closed source over open source ideology. You are the one who cites madaidan’s FUD as authentic information, and then ignore counter proofs. You are the one spreading misinformation about open source workings. You are the one using think tank articles to prove your points. Your comments partially look like advertisements for GrapheneOS at this point. I am not doing any of this.
deleted by creator
Sounds like you are a fan of GrapheneOS and Micay. I acknowledge it is a good security ROM, yet ignored and cherry picked my statements.
See? Second paragraph in previous comment.
I do not talk with some emotions in my mind. What do you even know, Copperhead CEO messaged me to engage in joining hands and attacking Micay, and I stalled and ghosted him. This is exactly why I despise GrapheneOS community.
I countered the source exactly the way Google tells us to trust their blackbox hardware without explanations.on if their hardware is open.source or can be verified via ehitebox testing methods. It cannot. And I cited examples of every other USA major tech company’s security chip failing, so Google’s is only a matter of time, not if. Obscure security has failed repeatedly, and it always will.
I refuse to recommend GrapheneOS, and instead recommend CalyxOS, because:
Are you purposely changing goalposts? I answered your question to my claim of if madaidan spreads FUD, and he does a lot. Now you do not care about madaidan at all, who is the admin of NoGoolag and SpiteChat Telegram groups, and is a side aide of Micay?
Random anons on internet are not specimens worth being studied by people with academic rigour.
This is false because you can read open source xode, line by line. Open source code is transparent and closed source code is opaque. Are you an antI FOSS shill, by any chance? I find a lot of these quirky people often. Or maybe you have the same problem that folks like Micay have, hurting other open source projects to boost their own and milk it for their popularity gains in community?
You seem to be making exactly same mistakes as cn3m, for some reason. Why is that the case? I think I caught you red handed, or you likely consulted their community to reply to me.
Open source ensures transparency, therefore it will always be superior to closed source. Why are you trying to shill closed source ideology in a privacy community?
Oh my, citing an outlet funded by these entities that want a desperate war with China? Cute. https://www.nbr.org/about/our-funding/
From https://www.ned.org/events/report-launch-a-full-spectrum-response-to-sharp-power-the-vulnerabilities-and-strengths-of-open-societies/ :
So you just cited this outlet that has clear links to France military, where France is a country that wants war with and is anti China? I swear you people are so funny to play around with.
Yes and you promoted security through obscurity above via claiming open source code does not mean nothing in the case of Titan M blackbox chip. Decide to stand for something for once. Open source, or closed source?
Yes two different problems, but I am telling how problematic Pixels are to buy. One security vendor messaged mesometime ago to use my platform for their promotion of GrapheneOS loaded Pixels, and this is why I never responded to them. Also, second handed Pixels are all vulnerable devices now, because that is how an XDA member got hold of this ArcaneOS loaded Pixel.
deleted by creator
There exist people who have purchased a Google Pixel already, and may ask me for help with achieving better privacy. I am not going to tell these people to sell off their Pixel, unless 5 Eyes is a threat adversary for them.
Your version of honesty is not realistic, and does not help people in reality.
Sorry but that is not what being closed source hardware means. Learn about software and hardware testing in an academic manner, as I did during my degree. And this argument “just hack it 1337 haxorman else shut up” is reductio ad absurdum, it is a dumb argument.
“Every phone comes with closed source hardware so one more closed source hardware layer does not matter.” “They are taking our camera permission, let us give them microphone permission too, why does it matter?”
Your logic is utterly flawed. Please learn about how to reduce attack surface. Titan M is not some kind of open TPM chip that you can customise or disable.
Huawei’s security, according to BlackHat hackers, is same as that of Pixels. https://github.com/secmob/TiYunZong-An-Exploit-Chain-to-Remotely-Root-Modern-Android-Devices/raw/master/us-20-Gong-TiYunZong-An-Exploit-Chain-to-Remotely-Root-Modern-Android-Devices.pdf
Verified boot working as intended assumes hardware comes from a non compromised source. This seems unlikely to be confirmed, especially with American companies that at this point have baked in backdoors left and right, otherwise they have hacked security enclave chips. You can trust USA as much as you want, but I will be your enemy if you try to shill that to others blindly.
Yup, you are an anti FOSS shill most likely. Closed source analysis can only be done via blackbox testing, and closed source is not transparent.
If open source is not equal to privacy or security, then by that logic closed source everything sure as hell is pure malware.
Are you recommending people to rely on 5 Eyes/Anglosphere think tank funded research as your counter points against Chinese companies? I proved how the leading people of NBR are directly linked to French military. This is purely a dishonest maligning attempt with no academic rigour.
I prove each and every point I made, and countered your arguments. You cannot get away with staying in denial mode, when everything is clear as day. You are the one shilling closed source over open source ideology. You are the one who cites madaidan’s FUD as authentic information, and then ignore counter proofs. You are the one spreading misinformation about open source workings. You are the one using think tank articles to prove your points. Your comments partially look like advertisements for GrapheneOS at this point. I am not doing any of this.