Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LineageOS 23

lineageos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: LineageOS 23

#161

Post by strcat »

sandreas wrote: post #92
microtonal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google promises 7 years of support for their newer devices, but most vendors don't. Unless you have a Pixel 6 and your security update goes missing? (Didn't get the July security update and the October update is still missing? https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1o2bhur/where_... )

Promises... I tend to not trust promises as long as there is another Option. And I'm a happy graphene OS user.

There were no Android or Pixel security patches for either July or October. It's not a break of any promise. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45562792 provides links to the bulletins and a comparison to a device marketed as supposedly providing long support.

Re: LineageOS 23

#162

Post by fsflover »

strcat wrote: post #146
fsflover wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust smartphones with open schematics. Not because it's impossible to hide a backdoor but because it's harder.

Open schematics for a PCB don't make it any harder to hide a backdoor. You're talking about devices which still have an entirely closed source SoC with all of the real complexity. The products you're repeatedly marketing here use a bunch of low end components with very poor security including lacking ongoing patches for vulnerabilities and basic standard security protections. They're falsely marketed as open but are…

> They're falsely marketed as open but are actually closed source hardware

This is just a strawman: Nobody claimed they were open hardware.

> Open schematics for a PCB don't make it any harder to hide a backdoor.

This is like saying that FLOSS doesn't make it harder to hide a backdoor. Of course it does.

Re: LineageOS 23

#163

Post by sotix »

strcat wrote: post #157
sotix wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read that they changed their stance, but for a long time, they were against implementing RCS and said users should be using another tool like Signal. That ignores real world scenarios where users ended up using SMS rather than RCS, which was encrypted with Google messages. Of course, there's more nuance to the discussion, but I found myself a few years ago having gone from encrypted messaging on an iPhone by d…

GrapheneOS never had a stance against implementing RCS and has supported RCS at an OS level for years. The issue was that the only available RCS app in practice is Google Messages and it requires privileged access for Google Play services, which goes against the sandboxed Google Play approach. We worked around it by making it so that the access granted to Google Messages when it's set as the SMS/MMS/RCS app also appl…

I appreciate the response and how you're proactive about following things! That's great to know RCS is now possible on GrapheneOS. That's very pragmatic.

For now, I have switched back to iOS due to a significant majority of my contacts using iMessage, so I'm back to encrypted chats again. Hopefully the future of RCS changes things while America struggles with using a unified messenger. I dream of using a dumb phone with RCS.

Re: LineageOS 23

#164

Post by Denatonium »

kuon wrote: post #99
laktak wrote: post #58

I'd love to see a hybrid phone with an embedded stock android for banking, pay and government apps and a regular LinageOS or Linux OS that runs on a separate partition/hw/vm. Like "gluing" two phones together - just better ;) It would be great to run an open OS but having to carry a separate phone for banking/paying is not really a viable option.

All my banking apps works fine under lineage. The only app that does not work is McDonald. I have not investigated very far, maybe it is possible to make it work.

The only app I use that actually cares is Craigslist of all things. The app doesn't do anything that the mobile website doesn't.

Re: LineageOS 23

#165

Post by AbraKdabra »

pndy wrote: post #77
AbraKdabra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Samsung Tablet and Samsung's version for said tablet is a giant mountain of crap, full of bloatware, so I installed LineageOS on it. Also my old phone and my old old phone run LineageOS because I'm just logged in to Google on my {current_phone}.

Can you tell which tablet is that? I'm lurking around and wondering if I should pick Samsung one once iPad battery dies out

Tab A7, old and not worth it even for a low price, too sluggish even with LineageOS but definitely better than stock of course.

Re: LineageOS 23

#166

Post by microtonal »

strcat wrote: post #160
microtonal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google promises 7 years of support for their newer devices, but most vendors don't. Unless you have a Pixel 6 and your security update goes missing? (Didn't get the July security update and the October update is still missing? https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1o2bhur/where_... )

There were no Android or Pixel security patches for either July or October. Android July 2025: https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2025-07-01 Pixel July 2025: https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2025... Android October 2025: https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2025-10-01 Pixel October 2025: https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/pixel/2025... Not shipping an…

You are the expert, but do we know? Isn't it possible with the new three month embargo that they did ship some of the December patches, but don't list them in the notes because they'll only be released publicly and in AOSP in December?

Re: LineageOS 23

#167

Post by Borealid »

strcat wrote: post #156
ysnp wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be "more secure" to have a per-application firewall that blocks particular apps from outbound traffic over certain networks or to certain destinations. This prevents a malicious app from consuming roaming data. LineageOS can have that, at the owner's preference. Graphene explicitly forbids it. Not sure what is meant by forbidding it? GrapheneOS provides per-app network access control via a user-controllabl…

They're referring to the leaky network toggles in LineageOS for different kinds of networks. GrapheneOS won't include that because it doesn't work correctly and gives people the false impression that it's going to stop apps communicating over those networks when it only stops most (not all) direct connections. LineageOS has the same Seedvault backup system with the same limitations. There are few limitations left sin…

No, I'm specifically referring to iptables-based firewalls (like AFWall), which Graphene does not allow the user to create and Lineage does (via root access).

These are not an android VPN provider and allow blocking traffic based on the combination of source app AND DESTINATION SERVER ADDRESS.

Re: LineageOS 23

#168

Post by Borealid »

strcat wrote: post #155
Borealid wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's define "more secure" as "preventing a particular behavior that is against the device owner's conscious or unconscious wishes". It would be "more secure" to have a per-application firewall that blocks particular apps from outbound traffic over certain networks or to certain destinations. This prevents a malicious app from consuming roaming data. LineageOS can have that, at the owner's preference. Graphene explic…

> LineageOS can have that, at the owner's preference. Graphene explicitly forbids it. That's not true. You can use apps like RethinkDNS providing local monitoring and filtering of connections while still supporting using a VPN on either LineageOS or GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS fixes 5 different kinds of outbound VPN leaks which are still present on LineageOS, which is quite relevant to this. There are no known outbound VP…

As an example of something lineage allows me to do which graphene forbids: Lineage allows me, the owner of my phone, to use an app of my choice to serve as a location provider.

Graphene requires that I use google services (sandboxed) and does not PERMIT me, the owner of the device, to choose otherwise without compiling my own fork.

Re: LineageOS 23

#169

Post by [deleted] »

ysnp wrote: post #112
Borealid wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's define "more secure" as "preventing a particular behavior that is against the device owner's conscious or unconscious wishes". It would be "more secure" to have a per-application firewall that blocks particular apps from outbound traffic over certain networks or to certain destinations. This prevents a malicious app from consuming roaming data. LineageOS can have that, at the owner's preference. Graphene explic…

> It would be "more secure" to have a per-application firewall that blocks particular apps from outbound traffic over certain networks or to certain destinations. This prevents a malicious app from consuming roaming data. LineageOS can have that, at the owner's preference. Graphene explicitly forbids it. Not sure what is meant by forbidding it? GrapheneOS provides per-app network access control via a user-controllabl…

[deleted]

Re: LineageOS 23

#170

Post by fsflover »

strcat wrote: post #148
nunobrito wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly.

They're talking about devices known to be extraordinarily insecure, which are still closed source hardware with closed source firmware. Having schematics for the board does not avoid trusting the hardware. It's still a closed source SoC and the same for the other components such as the SSD, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, etc. but those components are much less secure without proper updates and security protections. The…

> extraordinarily insecure

So you are just attacking another FLOSS community with false [0] claims. This is suspicious.

[0] You can't say "extraordinary insecure" without specifying a threat model. For some threat models, GrapheneOS is less secure, e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45556788

Also, if I explicitly don't trust Google with anything, GOS is extraordinarily insecure for me until a new vendor appears.

Post reply on HN