31–40 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a huge exaggeration, honestly. I don't think there are any outstanding vulnerabilities in any of the OnePlus T devices that can run PMOS.
This is not at all what I wrote. I wrote that with proprietary drivers, you're always at the risk of being vulnerable with no recourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not at all what I wrote. I wrote that with proprietary drivers, you're always at the risk of being vulnerable with no recourse.
Right...and I wrote that's not really an issue as time goes on as drivers stabilize.
I can imagine that after a really long time, most vulnerabilities might be found, but I don't believe I will live long enough to see that for relevant drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right...and I wrote that's not really an issue as time goes on as drivers stabilize.
Never heard anything about "driver stabilization" before, and couldn't find anything confirming that it exists. In my understanding, the longer some piece of software is used, the higher the probability that a vulnerability can be found. I can imagine that after a really long time, most vulnerabilities might be found, but I don't believe I will live long enough to see that for relevant drivers.
I don't know that it's a known phrase, I find it odd you searched for it as I would have thought the meaning would have been obvious. Bugs are found generally within the developer mandated lifespan of the device, more bugs are found closer to release with less being found over time.
There might still be vulnerabilities, but that would be just as true for open source ones, because in both cases no one is really looking for them.
Can you find any unpatched vulnerabilities for any of the OnePlus devices that PMOS runs on? I doubt it. They may exist, but they may exist i your Librem also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never heard anything about "driver stabilization" before, and couldn't find anything confirming that it exists. In my understanding, the longer some piece of software is used, the higher the probability that a vulnerability can be found. I can imagine that after a really long time, most vulnerabilities might be found, but I don't believe I will live long enough to see that for relevant drivers.
> Never heard anything about "driver stabilization" before, and couldn't find anything confirming that it exists. I don't know that it's a known phrase, I find it odd you searched for it as I would have thought the meaning would have been obvious. Bugs are found generally within the developer mandated lifespan of the device, more bugs are found closer to release with less being found over time. There might still be v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Never heard anything about "driver stabilization" before, and couldn't find anything confirming that it exists. I don't know that it's a known phrase, I find it odd you searched for it as I would have thought the meaning would have been obvious. Bugs are found generally within the developer mandated lifespan of the device, more bugs are found closer to release with less being found over time. There might still be v…
Stastistically, vulnerabilities should exist in both OnePlus and Librem. However, as the latter has free drivers, anyone will be able to fix them, whereas for OnePlus you have to hope that the vendor helps you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stastistically, vulnerabilities should exist in both OnePlus and Librem. However, as the latter has free drivers, anyone will be able to fix them, whereas for OnePlus you have to hope that the vendor helps you.
Right, so you're just going off vague generalizations and possibilities. There's an entire army of people looking for vulnerabilities in this area, and they haven't found any. Until you can show a vulnerability for the devices I mentioned, you don't have much of a point.
Why are you so sure? Not everybody shares vulnerabilities with the world. Some people keep them for themselves or sell on the black market. I doubt OnePlus offer a reasonable payment for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so you're just going off vague generalizations and possibilities. There's an entire army of people looking for vulnerabilities in this area, and they haven't found any. Until you can show a vulnerability for the devices I mentioned, you don't have much of a point.
> and they haven't found any Why are you so sure? Not everybody shares vulnerabilities with the world. Some people keep them for themselves or sell on the black market. I doubt OnePlus offer a reasonable payment for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and they haven't found any Why are you so sure? Not everybody shares vulnerabilities with the world. Some people keep them for themselves or sell on the black market. I doubt OnePlus offer a reasonable payment for that.
Because it's not a high target device. Valuable targets are not using outdated OnePlus devices. There might not be money to be made, but there is reputation to be earned by discovering a new vulnerability. I doubt a vulnerability in some old 6T hardware would be worth much, while disclosing it and padding a resume would be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not a high target device. Valuable targets are not using outdated OnePlus devices. There might not be money to be made, but there is reputation to be earned by discovering a new vulnerability. I doubt a vulnerability in some old 6T hardware would be worth much, while disclosing it and padding a resume would be.
People who use non-mainstream systems and rely very little on proprietary software are automatically more interesting. They may have something to hide.
I don't think you have much of a point at all, but I also don't see this discussion going anywhere interesting so I'll leave it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who use non-mainstream systems and rely very little on proprietary software are automatically more interesting. They may have something to hide.
I think that's a massive case of confirmation bias and exaggeration. People that use GrapheneOS are significantly, substantially more of a target than someone using a librem out of principle. I don't think you have much of a point at all, but I also don't see this discussion going anywhere interesting so I'll leave it at that.
I don't dispute that. However, if you take into account that Google (who create Pixel devices) is a part of Prism, GrapheneOS users could likely be targeted in another way.