Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8 • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#251

Post by strcat » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 2:52 PM UTC

Tharre wrote: post #162

neobrain wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a security/privacy perspective the fairphone is on the worse side of options unfortunately. Compared to Pixel phones this is without a doubt true, but how does it compare against your average mid-range Android device? Do those typically have any of the features you mentioned?

Very roughly, and assuming mid-range is around 400-500 bucks like the fairphone: - Memory tagging is still pixel exclusive for now, but it's part of ARMv9 so it should be available on more devices in the future unless they disable it - Most devices now have a secure element, though the exact capabilities vary - Baseband isolation - no idea really, most chipsets should support IOMMU (or SMMU as ARM calls it) but is no…

Memory tagging isn't Pixel exclusive anymore. Fairphone doesn't lack baseband isolation since it's a standard Snapdragon feature. Fairphone is worse than many OEMs at providing the standard security features and patches. Repeatedly using publicly available signing keys meant for testing for signing their OS is one example which has hopefully been fully addressed for the latest device.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#252

Post by strcat » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #222

erremerre wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The curious thing is that being GrapheneOS open source, I would think that somebody could potentially create a ROM for them, even if it is not as secure as GrapheneOS would like. However, absolutely nobody has done it yet...

AXP.OS (axpos.org) is LineageOS-based (formerly DivestOS-based), but includes security backports from GrapheneOS and CalyxOS. No doubt it is less secure than GrapheneOS, but surely more secure than LineageOS, and supports bootloader relocking on some devices.

It's not a security upgrade over current AOSP overall and is definitely not a port of GrapheneOS to other devices. Someone could make a partial port of GrapheneOS to other devices but this is not that.

> but includes security backports from GrapheneOS and CalyxOS

It has a small portion of the GrapheneOS features, similar to DivestOS before it. However, it's not preserving or restoring the standard security reduced by LineageOS as much as DivestOS did. DivestOS was not a strict upgrade over AOSP either.

CalyxOS isn't a hardened OS in the same space as GrapheneOS. It doesn't have similar exploit protections or privacy features. That's a misconception about it. They also haven't provided the June 2025 patches yet.

https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

> but surely more secure than LineageOS

This doesn't imply it's as secure as AOSP though despite having additional security features. Starting from LineageOS as the baseline and adding more problematic changes makes it much messier than it just being AOSP with added security features. Android 16 is required for full Android privacy/security patches and the current privacy/security improvements. Soon there will be Android 16 QPR1.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#253

Post by mhb » Sun, Aug 03, 2025, 10:57 PM UTC

crinkly wrote: post #96

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative really better overall. We upgraded to a samsung fridge last year from two consecutive cheapo-chinese-local walmart-brands and it was worth every penny. It will pay itself in energy savings in less than two years.

Mine cost me a whole fridge of food which was the energy savings gone. Which was my last Samsung product.

And my Samsung dryer shook itself to an early grave. Wasn't an uncommon problem, apparently. Last one for me.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#254

Post by karambanoonoo » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 6:34 PM UTC

strcat wrote: post #250

karambanoonoo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean Graphene plans to support phones from other manufacturers than Google?

Yes, but they need to meet our official requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices We're working with a major Android OEM and it's going well so far. It's still in an early phase where they've assigned a small amount of resources to it to determine everything which needs to be done and then make the case for a much larger investment of resources. We expect that to happen and for it to go well.

Amazing. I just wish there was a device with an IPS display supported (for PWM flicker sensitive folks).