GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
Pixels are currently the only devices meeting our security requirements. Other Android devices don't even come close. Hardware memory tagging support is one of many major security advantages of Pixels. Our official list of hardware requirements is available here: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices . These requirements are fully provided by 8th generation Pixels. 6th/7th generation Pixels are only missing MTE,…
GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
101–110 of 228 posts
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iPhone, it's called iOS. https://security.apple.com/blog/towards-the-next-generation-...
This is also satire, right?
Daniel Micay himself said that iphones are one of the best choices from a security perspective, GrapheneOS closing the gap. The reason is the close working together of hardware and software, which is very seldom done in case of Android devices - pixels being the sole exception that care about it, that’s why they are the only supported device.
Not much point in buying some fancy lock to your door, if there is a window open next to it.
Also, ios has a very locked down secure mode for the ultra paranoid.
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#103Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#104> Pixels shipped a massive hardware security feature (MTE) they aren't enabling for the OS to save 3.125% memory/cache usage. It's silly. Heap MTE has near 0% perf overhead in async mode and is cheaper than increasingly ineffective legacy mitigations like SSP in asymmetric mode. I really want to see someone from the Pixel team justifying the decision here. I really wonder what the thought process is for someone to di…
I think their accusation that the decision was made to save 3% memory usage is too presumptive. They also claim that no other OS is shipping with MTE enabled right now. The decision to enable is likely more nuanced.
They could enable it for the whole base OS and apps opting into it. They have already fixed nearly all the bugs uncovered in regular usage. They did nearly all the work but didn't take it over the finish line due to performance and memory/cache usage concerns. Their security engineers did their job already. They have very talented people working for them. Our ability to ship this feature before them is because the performance and memory concerns are not significant enough to matter to us. We're more than willing to lose 3.125% memory/cache and we accept the performance overhead of asymmetric MTE which is in the ballpark of a few percent overhead in most cases rather than near 0% like asynchronous MTE. There are cases where asymmetric MTE has a larger overhead than a few percent, but it's not common. Async mode is nearly free. MTE may not be as low overhead on future Pixels. It depends on them deciding to prioritize MTE performance in their future custom CPU design. If they do not ship it in production, it's unlikely that they'll prioritize the performance. The overhead may increase from 0% for async and a few percent for asymm to a far more significant cost.
The performance argument against MTE being deployed in production and against supporting MTE at all is the argument that's relevant. There is no other significant reason not to ship it for the base OS and enable it for all their own apps in their manifests. Getting it enabled for the whole app ecosystem is a much bigger problem requiring multiple steps: 1) broad availability of MTE capable devices for app developers, 2) making it opt-out instead of opt-in for a future target API level so developers get around a year and a half to either opt-out or deal with it, 3) removing the opt-out for a future target API level so that developers cannot simply opt-out. We know that part is hard. We know that part involves documentation, developer relations, concerns about giving app developers too much to deal with too quickly, etc. It isn't what we expect them to do short term. What we want them to do is enabling the near 0 overhead sync MTE for Pixels by default, with it used in the base OS and Google apps opting into it. They already did most of the work, even years earlier via HWAsan testing.
We don't expect them to enable asymmetric MTE or keep track of tags to provide more deterministic guarantees as we're doing. We understand they don't want to sacrifice 5% overall performance, and don't expect them to, but they could provide an opt-in for asymmetric mode + better deterministic guarantees. Google can could do it for Android 15 if they make the decision to do it now. A reasonable prediction is that in a couple years Apple ships MTE support in hardware with async mode by default and asymm in lockdown mode, and then Google does the same. They have a chance to be a leader on a hardware security feature far more valuable than the PAC feature where iOS is years ahead.
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#105GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
(They support devices for slightly longer than the devices are supported upstream)
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#106GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
Well, maybe. But in this case I think the MTE work is in AOSP and they just turned it on.
ARM did the work of designing it and integrating it into their standard ARM Cortex core/cache designs. Google/Samsung did the work of preserving standard ARM functionality, unlike Qualcomm which currently loses it. Google/Samsung also had to integrate it into the boot chain. They'd already previously done most of the bug fixing work via testing with HWASan. It is certainly true that Google paved the way to use MTE with HWASan and did a lot of the bug fixing work in the OS but external security researchers did a lot of this work too.
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#107GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
Def can't trust Apple, can't trust Samsung. Google has managed to be the best. (Go ahead and @ me some cases that basically never hit the wild)
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed but they do drop support for older pixel devices very very quickly which is kinda of PITA. At least the Pixel 8 is supposed to be supported 7 years.
Just a point of clarity, GrapheneOS has the same support window that Google does, so they're not dropping support earlier than the vendor. The reason they drop support is because the burden of supporting an EOL device is way, way higher, especially for a security-oriented OS.
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#109If only something like GrapheneOS was possible on iPhone. Love the system on my Pixel but not a fan of the Android UI and functionality.
The Android UI allows complete customization, you can even make it like iPhone if you want.
Looking at what GravityBox was able to do, nothing in that can be done in a stock ROM without getting root.
Re: GrapheneOS finds Bluetooth memory corruption via ARM MTE
#110GrapheneOS is so far ahead in terms of security than anything else that it makes chosing anything but pixel hardware really questionable. But I REALLY want replaceable batteries. Why does everything have to suck nowadays?
Agreed but they do drop support for older pixel devices very very quickly which is kinda of PITA. At least the Pixel 8 is supposed to be supported 7 years.
Our hardware security requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Pixels are the only devices providing the requirements we set for updates and the list of security features. They also provide proper alternate OS support where all those security features work correctly. Samsung has most of the expected features and provides a similar length of support and number of major yearly updates but is missing the proper alternate OS support, MTE and the monthly/quarterly updates.
Each month, there's a new Android release which are distinct from the partial backporting of privacy/security patches to older versions. It's not monthly security releases but rather monthly performance/security/feature releases with separate backports of all Critical/High severity patches to older versions. Android 14 and Android 14 QPR1 are older versions of Android, and there are security backports to Android 14 separate from the monthly releases. This is currently fairly exclusive to Pixels. Samsung is getting much better at doing the security backports and are reducing delays for major updates but they're still acting as if the monthly/quarterly releases don't exist.