←back to thread

452 points akyuu | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | 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 #
MrDrMcCoy ◴[] No.45778348[source]
That is a major feature. It prevents coerced unlocking.
replies(1): >>45779121 #
1. tranq_cassowary ◴[] No.45779121[source]
That's not the reasoning. The reasoning is lack of proper hardware support on supported devices for secure face unlock.

Coerced unlocking also holds true for fingerprint in some instances and that's worked around by using 2FA (fingerprint + password/PIN).