[fluffypony]

I don't want to gush about this too much, but it's SUCH a big deal. Graphene has languished with hardware support for so long - they basically only had Pixel devices as first-class citizens, which are not bad devices per se, but it's hard when you're spending most of your time doing something without the manufacturer's support.

There is a very real possibility that we end up with devices that can play modern mobile games at high frame rates on a secure, privacy-focused mobile OS, which is a huge step towards general adoption of something like this as a daily driver.

[bubblethink]

This is such a strange comment that is full of contradictions. Pixels are supported because the manufacturer supports alternate OSes. I don't get what languishing means here. Pixel hardware lags behind the latest Snapdragon hardware, but it's not something that average people know or care about. So, you can gush all you want, but I don't see why it's a big deal. It's great that they found an OEM and it's great for the overall health of the project, but not because of gaming or the latest Snapdragon.

[gchamonlive]

Does pixel support alternate OSes or it just doesn't get in the way of custom firmware developers?

And for the gaming aspect, there is a huge market for mobile gaming, specially in Asia, so having a manufacturer like Motorola adopting GrapheneOS as a first class citizen will improve the chances that high performance applications will have better performance in such OSes which is a big win.

[ysnp]

The Google Pixel has first-class support for alternate OSes (not custom firmware like a Chromebook). The OEM has to go out of their way to support avb_custom_key as mentioned in https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/avb/+/mas... and I believe the GrapheneOS founder strcat was heavily involved in helping Google design this feature and flow for Android Verified Boot.

[throawayonthe]

i mean, that sounds like a subjective distinction, but it lets you unlock the bootloader and then re-lock it with your own keys so eh..?

[gchamonlive]

If you conceive a device to be shipped with a specific OS that's a completely different relationship with the developer than just giving the keys to the kingdom and wishing good luck, so I hardly think this is subjective

[sharperguy]

they used to publish a buildable AOSP tree for the device which is no longer the case

[t0bia_s]

Lets hope those Motorola devices will be smaller then current Pixels.

[ysnp]

Since ~2023 all Motorola phones with Snapdragon SoCs (the ones most likely to support MTE as needed by GrapheneOS first) have been larger or equal to 6.5" screens.

[user2722]

I do hope however having a Snapdragon device will be beneficial to having postmarketOS support.

For now having Android-type OS on a daily driver is a must, but for older devices (thinking of 10 years time) I'd like to explore an OS which doesn't depend of Google open-source drops and delayed security open-source drops, which is the situation for ROMs without an ODM partner.

[bubblethink]

Do you mean to say that postmarketOS is somehow better on non Pixel devices? I would assume that Pixels are closest to upstream and have the longest software support life in Android world.

[opan]

pmOS runs well on a couple OnePlus phones (6, 6T). For whatever reason the Snapdragon 845 and 865 have decent mainline support. I expect the OnePlus 8T to join the prior list of phones in the near future. You can similarly look at which gaming handhelds are supported by ROCKNIX and what SoC they use to get an idea for which ARM SoCs have decent mainline support. I expect the vast majority of phones and other ARM devices to not be very well-supported. RockChip is usually the safest bet, but I've been pleasantly surprised with some Snapdragon stuff.

[monegator]

"general" people really play actual games on phones? I thought the general public at most played with time waster freemium games

[archievillain]

I wouldn't consider gachas to be "actual games" (sue me), but yeah, they do tend to have way more complex gameplay and graphics than the timewaster freemium games of yore. Genshin Impact is essentially a single-player MMO, it has an open world and lots of characters and different weapons etc etc.

[monegator]

still wouldn't bet the general phone audience find those games to be the the deciding factor in a phone

[applfanboysbgon]

The "general phone audience" is some 5 billion people. If even 10% of them want to play games, on what is in the current year likely to be their primary if not only computer, that's already a market segment of 500 million. It wouldn't honestly surprise me if the number is closer to 15 or 20%, mobile gaming is extremely popular.

[monegator]

i would be surprised if it was more than 1-2% for those "graphic intensive games"

normies use consoles, sometimes PCs

my personal beef, after a camera that gets decent photos in low light, would be an accurate GPS that doesn't crap out after half an hour

[applfanboysbgon]

I think a lot of HN users, living in our own PC-oriented bubble, may not have realised the world has completely passed PCs by and that smartphones are the personal computers of the current generation. While PS5 and Switch each have about 100-150 million in sales, there are an estimated 3 billion mobile game players. Are a majority of those "mobile game players" playing Flappy Bird, sure. But again, even 10% of that number being interested in "real games" would outnumber PS5 and Switch players combined. Fortnite and PUBG each have hundreds of millions of active users, most are on console but around 20% appear to be on mobile from a quick search. Genshin Impact also has tens of of millions MAU, a non-neglible percentage of which are mobile players. There are hundreds of millions of people for whom being able to play 3D games on their phone matters.

[kuboble]

Anecdotally,

In public transport I see almost as many people playing games on their phones as those watching videos.

[SietrixDev]

And yet Apple was at some point called one of the largest gaming companies in the world by revenue

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/05/apple-one-of-the-biggest...

[throawayonthe]

mobile has been the largest gaming market for years now, wdym?

[DrewADesign]

I think it would be on par with camera quality— really important to some, bot not a huge deal for most.

Good enough quality screen for solid video media performance, generally, would be an absolute must I imagine.

[Markoff]

it's quite a big deal Motorola will have officialy devices with unlockable bootloader now that Samsung is ditching it and Xiaomi is making unlocking almost impossible, Sony reintroduced it but has probably the worst VFM in the market, so having Motorola with pretty good VFM (better than Pixel outside US) is big news, though they don't really make smaller phones and I'm worried about camera quality or gcam stability

[torben-friis]

The key enabler is the camera. Manage a flagship level result in a Motorola, that’s the main reason people pay for High end devices nowadays.

I’m seeing enthusiasts go out of their way to get vivos and xiaomis now that they are surpassing the western counterparts based solely on that.

I think it’s doable, pixels did it with meh hardware for years. But I’m not sure if there’s enough overlap between people who care about selfie quality and open source enthusiasts.

[strcat]

Motorola Signature and Motorola Razr Fold are ranked above the Pixel 10 Pro on https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/. Pixels have fantastic camera hardware and software which is fully functional on GrapheneOS which isn't something we need to lose on a Motorola flagship. There will be much better CPU and GPU performance via Snapdragon too. The compromises are mostly in terms of getting some security improvements while losing others but we'll still be able to meet all of our official security requirements.

[torben-friis]

I haven’t been able to see actual results that match those tests in the Motorolas sadly. Maybe it’s more accurate in technical terms but I haven’t found good results in practice.

>Pixels have fantastic camera hardware and software which is fully functional on GrapheneOS which isn't something we need to lose on a Motorola flagship.

This is very interesting to me! Does graphene OS manage to keep google’s processing? How does that work?

[Itoldmyselfso]

Pixel camera app is fully supported by GOS, you just install it from Play store (or from other sources). If you don't have Google Photos installed the last photo preview won't work, but you can install a 'shim' app that fixes it without need for Photos app: https://github.com/lukaspieper/Gcam-Services-Provider

https://grapheneos.org/usage#pixel-camera

[worksonmine]

> There is a very real possibility that we end up with devices that can play modern mobile games at high frame rates on a secure, privacy-focused mobile OS, which is a huge step towards general adoption of something like this as a daily driver.

This might be true, but the priorities are depressing.

[thot_experiment]

I'm not holding my breath but it would be amazing to have root and be able to tap to pay without constantly playing cat and mouse with google.

[diacritical]

Unfortunately from what I read a couple of times, including a month or so ago, GrapheneOS discourages and doesn't support rooting the phone for security reasons that seem vague to me and don't appeal to my need to actually own my phone and OS. You could still root it with some third party tools from what I know, but not having root as the default makes it less of a secure FOSS OS and more of a closed down toy.

As for payment apps and other crap that refuses to run if I, the owner and administrator of my own device, don't have admin access, I would just refuse to run it. What's next - websites refusing to work if I have root on my Linux desktop?

[strcat]

LineageOS also discourages and doesn't support replacing the core of the OS with a rootkit providing persistent app accessible root. GrapheneOS is no different from LineageOS in that regard. People do this with GrapheneOS regardless of our strong recommendation not do it. Our reasons for discouraging it aren't vague. It very directly harms the security model and is not a good approach to implementing any of the features hacked together through it. Those features should be properly implemented to fit within the overall approach taken by GrapheneOS. Giving root access to a huge portion of the OS harms security even if you never use the feature. It does not mean you can't do it, we only recommend you don't.

[Narushia]

I agree that the features should ideally be provided by the base system so that the user does not have to "hack them in" with root-powered apps. But the reality is that most Android "distros" simply do not support the features that I would consider basic functionality. I mainly root for three reasons:

- Backing up all app data via Neo Backup. Android has an auto-backup feature that backs up app data to the user's Google Drive, but unfortunately the app developer can simply opt out of this, and the user cannot do anything about it. This means that app data may be lost when migrating to a new phone, as the app data is stored in directories that are not accessible in the filesystem without root.

- High-quality call recording via Call Recorder. For some reason, some (most?) phones do not allow apps to access the raw incoming audio stream. Non-root apps have to rely on capturing the other end through the microphone, which is horrible.

- /etc/hosts-based ad blocking while using a VPN via AdAway. DNS-based ad blocking is possible via apps like AdGuard, which use a local VPN to accomplish this. Unfortunately, Android only allows one VPN connection at a time, which means that without root I would not be able to use a VPN for any other purpose while simultaneously blocking ads.

---

I have no experience with GrapheneOS, so I'd be interested to hear if these features are possible on it without rooting. If not, can I request these features somewhere?

[Andromxda]

Rooting is a very bad idea. https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#rootin... But GrapheneOS is fully open source and provides great build instructions, so you can always make your own build and add whatever features or privileged apps you like within the standard AOSP frameworks for privileged apps with system integration.

> Backing up all app data via Neo Backup

GrapheneOS includes Seedvault by default. https://grapheneos.org/features#encrypted-backups

> High-quality call recording via Call Recorder

Call recording is built into the Dialer app on GrapheneOS. https://grapheneos.org/features#encrypted-backups:~:text=Cal....

> DNS-based ad blocking is possible via apps like AdGuard

DNS-based blocking can also be accomplished by using Android's native Private DNS feature with a resolver that blocks ads. You could even host your own on a VPS if you are more comfortable running name resolution and DNS-level adblocking on infrastructure you control.

The RethinkDNS app also lets you use DNS-level adblocking and a VPN at the same time. https://grapheneos.org/faq#ad-blocking-apps

> I have no experience with GrapheneOS, so I'd be interested to hear if these features are possible on it without rooting.

I recommend giving https://grapheneos.org/features a read.

> If not, can I request these features somewhere?

Check out the issue tracker on GitHub: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues

[Narushia]

Thank you so much for replying! Seems promising, I will take a closer look. I'm definitely looking forward to possibly buying a Graphene-powered Motorola phone in the future.

[thot_experiment]

Rooting is only a bad idea if there is an alternative. Unfortunately I have to root my devices because there isn't an alternative method to provide me, the physical owner of the device with control over the device. I would much prefer not to generally have root on my phone but to be able to access root externally or via a hardware switch or some other scheme. ADB root is fine.

The alternative to "running as root" isn't "not having access to root".

[diacritical]

> https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#rootin...

I'm trying to understand why rooting Android is such a sin.

If I give root to my terminal so I can browse and edit any files I want, I'm placing a lot of trust in the terminal, sure. But trusting the terminal seems reasonable, as it's an important (basic; fundamental; necessary) part of any "real" OS. If I don't trust the terminal to not be malicious, why should I trust my OS? Anything could be compromised from a supply-chain attack. If we don't trust anything, we can turn off the computer and have perfect security, but if we accept that there's a trade-off between security and usability, we have to place some trust in some parts of the system.

> It does not matter if you have to whitelist apps that have root — an attacker can fake user input by, for example, clickjacking, or they can exploit vulnerabilities in apps that you have granted root to. Rooting turns huge portions of the operating system into root attack surface; vulnerabilities in the UI layer — such as in the display server, among other things — can now be abused to gain complete root access.

So if some app can somehow exploit the display server, it can inject commands on the terminal and hide the real output? I know the X server on Linux has (or has had) major security issues [1] that don't provide any real GUI isolation. Is that the type of issues Madaidan is talking about?

I don't know much about Android's display server, but if it's possible for an app without root access to exploit it, couldn't that app inject touch events or keystrokes in another app, or read the other app's screen? How would not having root benefit me if a random can view or control other apps without my knowledge by exploiting the display server? [2]

From what I gather if an app with root access has vulnerabilities, it makes it easier for another app (or other type of malicious code) to use it to gain root. But if the UI layer, to use Madaidan's example, has a vulnerability, it seems like it could be exploited successfully, with awful consequences, even if the malicious code doesn't get root in the end. So if I choose several apps to give root access to, I would just extend the attack surface from {all of the OS and its various layers} to {all of the OS and its various layers and those several apps}.

> root fundamentally breaks verified boot and other security features by placing excessive trust in persistent state.

I don't understand this. Could someone explain it with more details to me, please?

[1] https://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2011/04/linux-securi...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1200/

[gruez]

>but not having root as the default makes it less of a secure FOSS OS and more of a closed down toy.

I don't get it, it's "less of a secure FOSS OS" to not have root by default, but it's secure to run random apps as root and breaking android's security model? What's the threat model here?

[treyd]

Those "random apps" are foss terminal emulators and other various foss apps I explicitly installed.

[gruez]

So what's wrong with using avbroot or magisk to root?

[kevincox]

Yeah, this is the deal breaker for me as well. The fact that I own my device is non-negotiable. It is the reason I left the stock OS and I'm not going back. The idea that I can't access my own files if an app doesn't explicitly give me access is wild to me. I understand there are security risks of a root permission but it is important to have that fallback when you need it and the existing permissions aren't sufficient.

[thot_experiment]

The "access your own files" thing is so insane! Hard to describe my feelings [negative] when I found out that all of my voice notes were in the voice recorder and the easiest way to get them out was to manually send each one to myself over discord. Google helpfully mentions that you can just "download them through google takeout" and doesn't leave any option for people who don't just give all their personal data to google.

[MSFT_Edging]

I use a FOSS voice recorder app from F-Droid. It's just called "Voice Recorder" with an orange icon. It does exactly what it says, records audio from your microphone, lets you play them back. They're just files on the device.

Anytime I need a "simple" utility, I check f-droid first to get the one-trick-pony app over spyware from the play store.

Other utilities I use are: WorkTimer: pomodoro app DiskUsage: self explanatory Http Request Shortcuts: setup home screen app shortcuts that run http requests

[thot_experiment]

Yeah I swapped to using the f-droid version after that debacle, though the one i use has a green icon. XD

[strcat]

LineageOS also discourages and doesn't support replacing the core of the OS with a rootkit providing persistent app accessible root. GrapheneOS is no different from LineageOS in that regard. People do this with GrapheneOS regardless of our strong recommendation not do it. Our reasons for discouraging it aren't vague. It very directly harms the security model and is not a good approach to implementing any of the features hacked together through it. Those features should be properly implemented to fit within the overall approach taken by GrapheneOS. Giving root access to a huge portion of the OS harms security even if you never use the feature. It does not mean you can't do it, we only recommend you don't.

[kevincox]

LineageOS provides ADB root access in stock builds. Sure, it isn't as convenient as some su apps but at least I can use ADB to access every file on the device. It probably also improves the attack surface compared to a su app.

> It very directly harms the security model

What do you mean by this? You mean that it is a "god permission" that bypasses other permissions? If so then yes, with great power comes great responsibility and it shouldn't be used lightly.

> and is not a good approach to implementing any of the features hacked together through it.

Maybe not, but is there an alternative? What is your recommended way to access all files of any app? This is my primary use case. Modification would also be valuable but I would be ok with read-only access.

> Giving root access to a huge portion of the OS harms security even if you never use the feature.

Can you explain why root access must be given to a huge portion of the OS? Why can't it be limited to specific apps or features (like ADB shell)?

> It does not mean you can't do it, we only recommend you don't.

Of course. It is your right to recommend whatever you want :)

[rudhdb773b]

It's pretty easy to make your own `userdebug` build of GrapheneOS using their official build instructions

That's what I do to get `adb root` and full file system access.

[palata]

> [I want root,] The fact that I own my device is non-negotiable.

I read that a lot, and I agree that I want to own my device. But that does not mean that I should have root access on the OS I choose to install on it.

Owning my device means that I should be able to install whatever OS I want. It does not mean at all that OS developers must do whatever I tell you to do.

[kevincox]

Yes, that is why it is a deal breaker. I'll choose to run a different OS. I didn't say that GrapheneOS must support root. Just that I won't run it if they don't.

[palata]

And I'm fine with you wanting root on the device you own. But you were implying that not having root means that you don't own your device. I disagree with that. You can totally own your device and not be root.

I think it is important, because I read a lot of comments that imply that "owning their device" means "owning the developers". And that's a wrong fight.

The real fight is that it should be illegal to prevent me from installing my preferred OS on a general-purpose computer.

[galangalalgol]

What should that support look like? Maybe have a userdebug build already built and available? I don't include a root account on hardened container images for some of the same reasons they cite. So including it for everyone and creating a way to activate it is suboptimal for people who don't want that trade off. A parallel build pipeline seems the most reasonable to me?

[stavros]

Hm, what do you mean? What app has to let you access your files? Is this Graphene-specific?

[strcat]

There's nothing GrapheneOS-specific about it and it doesn't prevent rooting. LineageOS doesn't officially support it any more than GrapheneOS does. It doesn't stop people doing it for either. Our recommendations aren't law.

[kevincox]

Any files created by apps in their main data directories are inaccessible on most distributions of Android (I think it is actually required to be Google certified). The exception is apps that go out of their way to store files in user accessible directories or provide a feature to export or share data out of the app.

By rooting your device you can access the app data directories as you wish.

[stavros]

Ah, you mean /data/data, I see, thanks. I forgot as I've usually had rooted devices (until they stopped Google Pay working).

[subscribed]

These reasons for not supporting the root have been stated on their discussion forum multiple times.

But they do not stop you from doing so, you can fairly easily build your own images with root enabled.

[microtonal]

As far as I know, root and tap to pay are pretty much mutually exclusive, at least if you meant Google Pay? Unlocked and rooted devices do not pass remote attestation. And it's not just something you can fake when you have root, since it is anchored in hardware (the attestation certificate chain is signed by a hardware-backed key and contains the verified boot state and verified boot key).

[thot_experiment]

I can tap to pay with google pay on my rooted pixel while the spoof key isn't blacklisted, IIRC it uses dumped credentials extracted from other devices but I can reliably spoof Play Integrity and SafetyNet. It would be nice to not have an adversarial relationship with my things for once.

[stavros]

"While the spoof key isn't blacklisted" is the critical bit. Soon, all the keys will be, as these old devices age away from being too common to blacklist.

[HugoTea]

GrapheneOS doesn't give you root access, citing security issues it introduces. You could re-compile your own copy with root access, though not sure if we'll then be back to some non-certified OS that can't make payments...

[thot_experiment]

Yikes. Nevermind. The whole phone security model is one of the worst things to happen to computing, the concept that you shouldn't own your device for safety is so fucked.

[palata]

> the concept that you shouldn't own your device for safety is so fucked.

That's not it. The concept is "if you choose to install this particular OS on the device you own, then it comes with this particular security model". That's totally fine. If you own your device, you can run Linux on it and you'll have root access.

"Not owning your device" means "not being able to install the OS you want on it". I want to own my device, obviously. But it does not mean that I own the developers of every OS in the world and that they should do whatever I tell them to do, for free.

[thot_experiment]

I mean sure but I should be able to have DMA on some level, like I should be able to rootkit whatever software on my device, because it's on my device.

[zenmac]

A non rooted device is NOT really my device, just seems like a leased device.

If we want to use banking app we have to use a non-rooted/leased device. That is what is really messed up. Personally I only use bank now that has website for banking. If they don't have a web site only app, then it is a red alert for the company.

[charcircuit]

Android is not UNIX, and that's a good thing. The root account was a historical mistake and not having access to it doesn't mean you don't own your device. That mindset is just trying to project how things worked with a half century old operating system with how modern operating systems work.

[thot_experiment]

What a disgusting take. It's actually so depressing to see anyone say this, presumably sincerely. It's how all the modern operating systems I use work.

It's what makes computers so wonderful and powerful, you can just have it do whatever you want. Turning that into "whatever google decides i should be allowed to do" is not gonna lead us to a bright future.

[charcircuit]

With Turing completeness you can do whatever computation you want. If you want to go outside of Turing completeness and starting interacting with the real world or other apps that is when security models need to exist. There isn't a reason to allow a program to act however it wants. Why should we allow for programs to secretly spy on a user's mic with no visual indication. It's okay to bound what is possible with a device. This already happens in practice with other operating systems. Redhat can still be useful even if you don't have permission to write new CPU instructions (only Intel and Amd have they signing keys to add new instructions). Sure Intel may be limiting what you can do, but it still is a useful machine without it that many people successfully use and gain value from every day. Even as a smaller example root on Linux has limits on how it can interact with the kernel. It may be root, but there are still limits on what it can do without loading a kernel module to modify things. If you want a less secure operating system where things are less secure like allowing the user to be spied on you can make your own, but the average person wants to have a secure device.

[bornfreddy]

Let me guess - you like Apple?

[charcircuit]

I think they build good products and their operating systems are ahead of their competitors in the space.

[b112]

I think is great, if there are no ramifications when skilled people unlock it.

There's just too much hacking going on, malicious behaviour, to allow uneducated masses to have root on a phone. I've seen so many people just not understanding the outcome of their actions. You'd get people rooting because some shady app lied about why, and just wanted control.

And we don't need more botnets. And it's why banks sometimes throw a fit.

So if a recompile does the trick, and no downside, then it'd be fine.

[thot_experiment]

Lots of freedoms have downsides that are outweighed by the upsides, I'm absolutely unconvinced that the line lands on the far side of allowing you to control your phone.

[ChocolateGod]

You can control your phone, it's just your bank won't allow your phone to store EMV keys if it's a non-locked down environment.

[gruez]

>You could re-compile your own copy with root access, though not sure if we'll then be back to some non-certified OS that can't make payments...

GrapheneOS is already non-certified, for most apps that care, because it can't pass STRONG_INTEGRITY with play protect.