←back to thread

446 points akyuu | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
derbOac ◴[] No.45766747[source]
They couldn't answer the question most on my mind: "We’ve reached out to Google to inquire about why a custom ROM created by volunteers is more resistant to industrial phone hacking than the official Pixel OS. We’ll update this article if Google has anything to say."
replies(10): >>45766778 #>>45777056 #>>45778032 #>>45778056 #>>45779079 #>>45779102 #>>45779404 #>>45780503 #>>45781099 #>>45783125 #
LoganDark ◴[] No.45778032[source]
GrapheneOS makes security trade-off that are inconvenient to the user. This results in a far more secure device, but nonetheless a device that the general public would find far more annoying. Google would lose a proportion of its user base by implementing the same protections.

Example: https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/ytk1ng/graphen...

Also Google Pay is missing.

replies(4): >>45778078 #>>45779111 #>>45779935 #>>45780063 #
zb3 ◴[] No.45778078[source]
Which particular thing you consider inconvenient or even annoying? You can even install Google Play there.

I see just one minor tradeoff - no face unlock.

replies(4): >>45778348 #>>45778541 #>>45779117 #>>45781598 #
1. tranq_cassowary ◴[] No.45779117[source]
The face unlock is deliberately left out. Non-EOL Pixel hardware, the only currently support phones, don't have the hardware to support secure face unlock. They lack the sensors. Face unlock on current Pixels is not secure and should be avoided, on stock OS as well.