On: Android 17 is the first since 3.x to add new APIs without releasing to the AOSP

[subscribed]

So you're saying that being unable to prove the provenance of the image (whether it's original or not), becoming immediately exposed to downgrade attack, to someone injecting malware to /sys and you being unable to detect it.... That's not a big deal?

:)

Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)

[tcfhgj → subscribed]

hostile to non-stock OS - where are you getting this from?

[subscribed → tcfhgj]

If the bootloader cannot be unlocked, relocked, or doesn't provide timely updates to firmware/hardware, it's hostile.

The rest is not (might be lazy, insecure or just silly but not hostile)

It's surprising some vendors still don't support unlocking and/or relocking.

[tcfhgj → subscribed]

smartphones aside pixel like Fairphone do explicitly allow alternative OS, definitely cannot pretend they are hostile

[subscribed → tcfhgj]

Fairphone?

Delayed patches (they don't keep up with AOSP), missing secure element (makes disk encryption key cracking trivial in comparison).

Fairphone 6/6+ (the latest), is based on..... It's pretty hard to find the Android version it's based on... Got it. They ship phones based on Android 16 half of the year after the release of 17 (9 since public beta).

Many security patches are NOT backported to 16, which makes Fairphone insecure by design.

They allow relocking the bootloader, which is nice, If they also support custom AVB keys, I'd say this is a fine example of the example of the vendor that is not hostile, just not good enough.

I wouldn't say they're hostile - Samsung is hostile for example.

So, what's your angle here? Do you want me to go through every vendor you bring up or what?

[tcfhgj → subscribed]

I didn't insinuate hostility of every vendor except Google.

[subscribed → tcfhgj]

You're not engaging with my words but you're instead twisting them. I'll stop wasting my time on you.

[tcfhgj → subscribed]

I am pretty sure I understood quite well.

> Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)

[subscribed → tcfhgj]

No, you're maliciously extending my words about some vendors to all vendors.

In the comment about issues with software and hardware, that somehow is being painted as GrapheneOS fault, I mentioned (among other things) hardware hostile to non-stock OS.

I didn't say it's Fairphone, I didn't name them.

You brought them up, so I addressed that, explained why I don't consider Nothing hostile but just vulnerable by default and inadequate. I even provided an example of the vendor I actually consider hostile (Samsung).

So if you understood quite well, you're trolling now and not discussing in the good faith.

The alternative is you didn't understand and thought I consider ALL vendors as hostile, which is putting claims in my mouth, which would be fine if you asked, but you keep discussing with strawman.

So please go bother someone else; this is the second time you're doing that and I wasted enough time on that.