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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
My understanding is that Calyx only supports devices that allows relocking, which essentially means Pixels
It can be installed in other phones besides those that can be relocked. I guess you’re referring to actual “official support”. Anyway the “rant” (https://lemmy.world/comment/4965517) was more about other ROMs, not specifically Calyx as they are indeed one of the better options.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Bootloader is relocked after flashing Calyx on an FP4. Are you saying that isn’t actually the case?
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.
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/
It can be installed in other phones besides those that can be relocked. I guess you’re referring to actual “official support”. Anyway the “rant” (https://lemmy.world/comment/4965517) was more about other ROMs, not specifically Calyx as they are indeed one of the better options.