Based on historical data points we clearly see that both Android and iOS devices were vulnerable. Your own links shows this clearly. There is no evidence to suggest that Chinese devices are more vulnerable.
There’s just real world evidence that the devices aren’t as secure as some alternatives.
No, there isn’t. You keep saying this, but you haven’t provided a single source showing that these devices are more vulnerable.
The latest link you provide once again shows that many Android devices are vulnerable. But cellebrite is just one rootkit, not the totality of vulnerabilities either. That’s the whole problem. You’re ignoring what hardware backdoors may be present in US supply chain, and what other rootkits might exist.
Given that the US is a known bad actor, it has to be assumed that these devices are not safe. That’s just the reality of the situation. Meanwhile, Chinese companies have every incentive to make their devices safe from western malware and have zero incentive to put in backdoors for US or Israel in them. That’s what makes these devices inherently safer. The incentives matter.
graphene is at the top, then stock pixel then literally everything else.
Again, this is a baseless claim that is not supported by the evidence you’ve provided. Unless you can show proof that Chinese current devices have vulnerabilities that are not present in current stock Android, then you need to retract your claim.
Okay, to address just the request for proof that the security order is graphene, stock pixel then everything else, look at the 2025 link I posted, table 2, android access support matrix - locked devices:
Huawei - cold and hot brute force extraction at least partially supported
Pixel - second column of both cold and hot sections, brute force password to decrypt user ce and brute force password are marked not supported.
Xiaomi - bottom row, hot and cold extraction and brute forcing supported.
So there you go, pixel over xiaomi and huawei. If you need proof that graphene is at the top, compare the standard android and graphene columns in table 3: android os access support matrix - google pixel in the same most recent link.
I understand that you’re saying something else may be out there. You’re right, unknown security vulnerabilities might be around that have serious effects on non Chinese phones.
Im saying there are security vulnerabilities in the hands of police which are least effective against iphones, pixels and graphene and that it’s best to choose devices based on what you know as opposed to what you assume.
It really seems to me like I’m posting exactly what you say you need to see over and over again, what am I missing?
The devices in that table are ancient. We just keep going in circles here. Huawei doesn’t even run Android nowadays. I’m starting to get the impression you’re not even reading the links you’re using here. The chart even says this clearly that devices they can brute force are up to 2021:
It’s really tough to hear you imply I’m not reading the things I post when I made reference to the same p40 model fact earlier today.
In that same page, on the bottom row the same column that had the p40 comment referenced recently added support for the snapdragon 8 elite.
On the unlocked devices support matrix (they become unlocked devices once brute forced) support for the dimensity 9400 is referenced.
Those are both chips used in q4 ‘24 and forward phones and the cop hardware brute forces and extracts them in February of ‘25. That’s not ancient at that time by any measure and not even ancient by the standards of today.
On that same page support for private space and 2nd space are referenced (those are the name for containers that harmony and hyper use) indicating support for extracting and decrypting harmonyos and hyperos containers indicating support for cracking harmonyos and hyperos. I pointed this out earlier today.
The fact that older devices have notes on them does not mean newer devices are not supported.
It’s really tough when I keep pointing out that your examples are not recent, and you continue to double down. Huawei p40 came out 2020 which is over half a decade ago. I repeatedly pointd out that you do not have any recent examples. Yet, you just keep providing more old models. I really don’t know what else to say here.
This is not a chip either, it’s a phone that isn’t in production anymore. It was succeeded by p50 which was then succeeded by Pura 90. So, if your best example, is a device that’s no longer in production, then you clearly need to retract your claim.
As you must obviously know, harmonyos and hyper have also been evolving since those devices were released just like android and ios have.
To sum up. You’ve provided zero evidence that any phones from Huawei or Xiaomi that are actually in production have vulnerabilities. And your argument that the that older devices have notes on them does not mean newer devices are not supported equally applies to iphone and pixel.
You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions, yet you just won’t retract them. This is frankly bizarre.
Based on historical data points we clearly see that both Android and iOS devices were vulnerable. Your own links shows this clearly. There is no evidence to suggest that Chinese devices are more vulnerable.
No, there isn’t. You keep saying this, but you haven’t provided a single source showing that these devices are more vulnerable.
The latest link you provide once again shows that many Android devices are vulnerable. But cellebrite is just one rootkit, not the totality of vulnerabilities either. That’s the whole problem. You’re ignoring what hardware backdoors may be present in US supply chain, and what other rootkits might exist.
Given that the US is a known bad actor, it has to be assumed that these devices are not safe. That’s just the reality of the situation. Meanwhile, Chinese companies have every incentive to make their devices safe from western malware and have zero incentive to put in backdoors for US or Israel in them. That’s what makes these devices inherently safer. The incentives matter.
Again, this is a baseless claim that is not supported by the evidence you’ve provided. Unless you can show proof that Chinese current devices have vulnerabilities that are not present in current stock Android, then you need to retract your claim.
Okay, to address just the request for proof that the security order is graphene, stock pixel then everything else, look at the 2025 link I posted, table 2, android access support matrix - locked devices:
Huawei - cold and hot brute force extraction at least partially supported
Pixel - second column of both cold and hot sections, brute force password to decrypt user ce and brute force password are marked not supported.
Xiaomi - bottom row, hot and cold extraction and brute forcing supported.
So there you go, pixel over xiaomi and huawei. If you need proof that graphene is at the top, compare the standard android and graphene columns in table 3: android os access support matrix - google pixel in the same most recent link.
I understand that you’re saying something else may be out there. You’re right, unknown security vulnerabilities might be around that have serious effects on non Chinese phones.
Im saying there are security vulnerabilities in the hands of police which are least effective against iphones, pixels and graphene and that it’s best to choose devices based on what you know as opposed to what you assume.
It really seems to me like I’m posting exactly what you say you need to see over and over again, what am I missing?
The devices in that table are ancient. We just keep going in circles here. Huawei doesn’t even run Android nowadays. I’m starting to get the impression you’re not even reading the links you’re using here. The chart even says this clearly that devices they can brute force are up to 2021:
It’s really tough to hear you imply I’m not reading the things I post when I made reference to the same p40 model fact earlier today.
In that same page, on the bottom row the same column that had the p40 comment referenced recently added support for the snapdragon 8 elite.
On the unlocked devices support matrix (they become unlocked devices once brute forced) support for the dimensity 9400 is referenced.
Those are both chips used in q4 ‘24 and forward phones and the cop hardware brute forces and extracts them in February of ‘25. That’s not ancient at that time by any measure and not even ancient by the standards of today.
On that same page support for private space and 2nd space are referenced (those are the name for containers that harmony and hyper use) indicating support for extracting and decrypting harmonyos and hyperos containers indicating support for cracking harmonyos and hyperos. I pointed this out earlier today.
The fact that older devices have notes on them does not mean newer devices are not supported.
We are indeed going in circles.
It’s really tough when I keep pointing out that your examples are not recent, and you continue to double down. Huawei p40 came out 2020 which is over half a decade ago. I repeatedly pointd out that you do not have any recent examples. Yet, you just keep providing more old models. I really don’t know what else to say here.
This is not a chip either, it’s a phone that isn’t in production anymore. It was succeeded by p50 which was then succeeded by Pura 90. So, if your best example, is a device that’s no longer in production, then you clearly need to retract your claim.
As you must obviously know, harmonyos and hyper have also been evolving since those devices were released just like android and ios have.
To sum up. You’ve provided zero evidence that any phones from Huawei or Xiaomi that are actually in production have vulnerabilities. And your argument that the that older devices have notes on them does not mean newer devices are not supported equally applies to iphone and pixel.
You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions, yet you just won’t retract them. This is frankly bizarre.