/e/ is the direct opposite of a privacy or security focused OS. It doesn't provide bare minimum standard privacy and security patches while setting an inaccurate Android security patch level. It lags many months behind on patches even on devices where they're the least behind. It's typically years behind on kernel, driver, firmware and major OS updates. It doesn't keep the standard privacy and security protections intact and lagging behind on OS updates means not having the current ones. It sends user data to OpenAI and other third parties without consent.
/e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed providing strong privacy and security mainly benefits criminals and claim devices doing it are mainly used by criminals. Here's one example of many:
An iPhone is a hardened device with drastically better privacy and security than an /e/ device. It would fall under the claims from /e/ and Murena about hardened devices.
/e/ has drastically worse privacy and security from the Android Open Source Project or especially and iPhone. It's not a step up from standard AOSP. It lags many months behind on many High/Critical severity patches, years behind on overall patches and rolls back the privacy/security in a bunch of ways. It includes many invasive services.
It has many default enabled highly privileged Google services including downloading Google Play executables such as droidguard and running those with similar privileged access as they have on a Google Mobile Services OS anyway.
Insinuating that real privacy /security is for pedophiles and criminals is primarily what supports my conclusion.
It doesn't matter what your marketing says, what's important is what your devices do, and /e/ is much less secure or private than iOS.
Attacking GrapheneOS which makes real progress at privsec.
Thinking that badness enumeration is effective for improving privacy while ignoring real solutions like improving the app sandbox and adding more permissions.
Adding Google services and giving them extra privileges. GrapheneOS ships with zero Google services by default.
Fairphone doesn't design or make their smartphones. The devices are designed and made by a large ODM. It's entirely feasible to use a modern SoC with current generation security features and provide proper updates. Their ODM isn't doing it to cut costs.
Fairphone quickly stops providing Linux kernel updates and has months of delay for Android userspace backports along with driver/firmware backports. The delay for yearly updates typically starts at a year and gets longer as devices get older and they've always skipped the quarterly updates.
Using a modern SoC, properly configuring it, using proper signing keys (Fairphone has repeatedly used publicly available sample private keys) and providing proper updates is most of what's needed to meet the requirements. That's entirely doable by the few OEMs designing their devices in-house such as Motorola Mobility. Samsung and Google along with many of the ODMs making devices for Nothing, Fairphone, etc.
them supporting e/OS suggests otherwise
/e/ is the direct opposite of a privacy or security focused OS. It doesn't provide bare minimum standard privacy and security patches while setting an inaccurate Android security patch level. It lags many months behind on patches even on devices where they're the least behind. It's typically years behind on kernel, driver, firmware and major OS updates. It doesn't keep the standard privacy and security protections intact and lagging behind on OS updates means not having the current ones. It sends user data to OpenAI and other third parties without consent.
https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using...
https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/co...
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
/e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed providing strong privacy and security mainly benefits criminals and claim devices doing it are mainly used by criminals. Here's one example of many:
https://grapheneos.social/deck/@GrapheneOS/11635397373214317...
An iPhone is a hardened device with drastically better privacy and security than an /e/ device. It would fall under the claims from /e/ and Murena about hardened devices.
It seems to me that /e/ is opposed to privacy and security.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2066908368560656652#m
It's interesting how you are able to conclude that.
e/OS is clearly a step up from default Android
/e/ has drastically worse privacy and security from the Android Open Source Project or especially and iPhone. It's not a step up from standard AOSP. It lags many months behind on many High/Critical severity patches, years behind on overall patches and rolls back the privacy/security in a bunch of ways. It includes many invasive services.
It has many default enabled highly privileged Google services including downloading Google Play executables such as droidguard and running those with similar privileged access as they have on a Google Mobile Services OS anyway.
Insinuating that real privacy /security is for pedophiles and criminals is primarily what supports my conclusion.
It doesn't matter what your marketing says, what's important is what your devices do, and /e/ is much less secure or private than iOS.
Attacking GrapheneOS which makes real progress at privsec.
Thinking that badness enumeration is effective for improving privacy while ignoring real solutions like improving the app sandbox and adding more permissions.
Adding Google services and giving them extra privileges. GrapheneOS ships with zero Google services by default.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2040887784253141142#m
This German security researcher maintains a comparison table showing the differences between mobile OSes.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security.
What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.
Fairphone doesn't design or make their smartphones. The devices are designed and made by a large ODM. It's entirely feasible to use a modern SoC with current generation security features and provide proper updates. Their ODM isn't doing it to cut costs.
Fairphone quickly stops providing Linux kernel updates and has months of delay for Android userspace backports along with driver/firmware backports. The delay for yearly updates typically starts at a year and gets longer as devices get older and they've always skipped the quarterly updates.
Using a modern SoC, properly configuring it, using proper signing keys (Fairphone has repeatedly used publicly available sample private keys) and providing proper updates is most of what's needed to meet the requirements. That's entirely doable by the few OEMs designing their devices in-house such as Motorola Mobility. Samsung and Google along with many of the ODMs making devices for Nothing, Fairphone, etc.
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...