←back to thread

Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

(arstechnica.com)
446 points akyuu | 5 comments | 30 Oct 25 23:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.703s | source
Show context
derbOac ◴[30 Oct 25 23:39 UTC] 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 #
IncreasePosts ◴[31 Oct 25 21:45 UTC] No.45777056[source]▶
Is grapheheOS actually harder to hack or does cellebrite just not put a lot of effort into supporting it because the very low odds of LEs running into one in the wild?
replies(5): >>45777082 #>>45777144 #>>45777155 #>>45779084 #>>45779157 #
markus_zhang ◴[31 Oct 25 21:48 UTC] No.45777082[source]▶
I read from an old HN post that three letter agencies hate graphen OS. The author heard it from defcon or some similar conference. I couldn’t find the post anyway :/ I think it is buried under one of the posts that discuss Defcon and Blackhat.
replies(1): >>45778143 #
overfeed ◴[01 Nov 25 00:19 UTC] No.45778143[source]▶
Wouldn't it be a total mindfuck if it turns out that Graphene is less secure[1] than stock Pixel, and this is all part of an ANOM-style honeypot operation that has Feds hyping it up, to trick interesting targets into adopting a less-effective security posture.

1. Such as via slower 0-day responses, for instance. This is a thought experiment, I'm nor alleging that this is what it is.

replies(9): >>45778164 #>>45778257 #>>45778894 #>>45779099 #>>45779207 #>>45779908 #>>45779962 #>>45780866 #>>45783723 #
1. jmnicolas ◴[01 Nov 25 07:59 UTC] No.45779962[source]▶
I use graphene not for security but because it doesn't come with any Google surveillance stuff.

Let's be realistic if some 3 letters agency really want some data about me, there's not much I can do to counter that unless I'm ready to go to extreme lengths.

replies(3): >>45780014 #>>45782759 #>>45783604 #
2. horisbrisby ◴[01 Nov 25 08:12 UTC] No.45780014[source]▶
Realistic is that some data is impractical to protect and too late to protect if your parents chose a somewhat normal life for you but that is hardly all data.

Even Mr Assange in his embassy could have added fitness trackers to add metrics that were hard and spotty to estimate from video surveillance.

3. yinznaughty ◴[01 Nov 25 16:06 UTC] No.45782759[source]▶
>Let's be realistic if some 3 letters agency really want some data about me, there's not much I can do to counter that unless I'm ready to go to extreme lengths.

I once thought like you. You do not need to go to extreme lengths to make things difficult and that is what is important. The fact is that the 3 letter agencies are increasingly fucking with normal people in a race to the bottom. Do not be defeatist - that only hurts everyone. The more people protecting themselves the safer everyone is from these people. If people just give up on privacy it puts a spotlight on normal people protecting themselves. The current state of which is so bad I have trouble putting it into words.

replies(2): >>45782968 #>>45783620 #
4. 0_____0 ◴[01 Nov 25 16:28 UTC] No.45782968[source]▶
I think their comment is rightly pointing out that if a TLA or other state intelligence actor takes an interest in you specifically, they can do quite a bit of classic spycraft that is considerably more expensive i.e. direct surveillance. No alternative handset OS will protect you from an agent who bugs your house, or someone firing a polonium pellet into your leg from a modified umbrella.
5. rcpt ◴[01 Nov 25 17:42 UTC] No.45783604[source]▶
Obligatory https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf