←back to thread

Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

(arstechnica.com)
446 points akyuu | 2 comments | 30 Oct 25 23:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
tranq_cassowary ◴[01 Nov 25 03:40 UTC] No.45779079[source]▶
GrapheneOS isn't made by volunteers. They have a team of around 10 paid developers. They are a nonprofit foundation that receives donations and uses those to pay developers, infrastructure etc.

Ars Technica has update its article to rectify that mistake. It doesn't mention that anymore.

replies(2): >>45779993 #>>45780476 #
fph ◴[01 Nov 25 09:59 UTC] No.45780476[source]▶
Are you affiliated with the project? I see all your posts are about Graphene OS. On HN it is customary to state it: you often see "author here" in discussions where the author joins. If you are part of the team I would suggest against using the third person ("they have a team...").

I know strcat is the lead Graphene OS developer, and it seems you and Andromxda are very knowledgeable about the project and very active on this thread.

replies(3): >>45780753 #>>45780766 #>>45781714 #
1. subscribed ◴[01 Nov 25 14:00 UTC] No.45781714[source]▶
It's literally ONE click away from the GrapheneOS main page, lol, the literacy levels gone through the floor.

https://grapheneos.org/history/

> GrapheneOS now has multiple full-time and part-time developers supported by donations and multiple companies collaborating with the project.

This is beyond being just shockingly, willingly ignorant and this is out there re on the open, so in the spirit of your own response, I would suggest you admit your comment is a hit piece from their infamous competition.

replies(1): >>45782692 #
2. fph ◴[01 Nov 25 15:59 UTC] No.45782692[source]▶
I am not debating what tranq_cassowary and the other two users are writing: it seems all correct (from what I can verify) and useful. I am just suggesting that they disclose their affiliation, if there is any, as a good transparency practice.

I myself am not affiliated in any way with their "infamous competition", not even as a user of their software, so I have nothing to disclose. (Actually, I am a Graphene OS user.)