• unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    …without it you cant properly secure the phone.

    My understanding is that a locked bootloader helps protect against evil maid attacks and bootloader-level malware persistence. I find this a security risk that I would absolutely take for Google independence. “Properly secure” is subjective.

    GrapheneOS do decide what phones they support. It is exactly their choice to support only Google Pixels, rather than taking a security hit for hardware independence (whether you agree with the decision or not).

    • yaroto98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      Exactly, seems like this should be up to the consumer. The devs can say: pixels have best security, here’s a 2nd and 3rd option, here’s their pros and cons.

      Because as much as I approve of privacy measures and security, my phone doesn’t have any lock screen. No pin, no biometrics, nothing.

      I work from home, I don’t really travel, I have 4 children. Physical security is annoying. I want grapheneos for data security. I don’t have people trying to steal my phone, I do have people constantly stealing my data.

      And without a non-pixel option (fuck google), I’m likely to go for to a competitor because, while their data security might not be as good as graphene, it is better than what I currently have.