Comment by ramon156

> I'd never use GrapheneOS since I don't trust the project

Fair enough, you choose what you trust.

But personally, I have never seen a technical claim from GrapheneOS that was wrong or misleading. But I have seen many claims from /e/OS that were technically wrong or misleading. So I trust GrapheneOS more.

Then there is the drama, and all sides annoy me when they behave like this. But I have seen drama coming from all sides.

> GrapheneOS claims to be a lot more secure

That's not just a claim, this is an objective fact. GrapheneOS has a excellent track record when it comes to security, they have made several patches that got upstreamed to Android, etc.

/claims/

> GrapheneOS claims to be a lot more secure, having additional hardening.

GrapheneOS has been heavily analyzed by privacy and security experts who say it provides far better privacy and security. There's a large amount of real world evidence showing GrapheneOS very successfully defends against commercial exploits tools. /e/ has been heavily criticized for having poor privacy and atrocious security by many experts. /e/ doesn't keep up with basic privacy/security patches and misses many important standard protections.

> keep in mind that it is not an independent comparison

That's not true. It's an independent comparison and the site compares a lot of other software. Contributors to many of the projects compared by it submit issues to it which doesn't many it not an independent comparison.

> In regular use, main difference will be that /e/OS comes with access to the alternative cloud service that project provides.

GrapheneOS users have many cloud services available including suites from Proton and others. Murena services have poor privacy and security overall due to neglecting server security, updates and more. Their speech-to-text service being a thin wrapper around OpenAI sending this sensitive user data to them rather than doing it locally as our SpeechServices app does similarly to Apple (even Google has that as an option):

https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using...

> It uses the default FOSS solution microG for google api compatibility

Their approach with microG gives highly privileged access to Google apps/services by default. GrapheneOS doesn't include sandboxed Google Play by default and they're installed as regular apps. microG doesn't change the fact that the apps are using closed source Google libraries, which are still present with microG and have strictly more access to user data on /e/ than GrapheneOS with sandboxed Google Play. Sandboxed Google Play is an entirely opt-in feature people need to install. /e/ has microG set up where it downloads closed source Google Play components it runs with privileged access as the default.

> /e/OS sets on AppLounge to install and upgrade both play store or F-Droid apps

This is a strange merger of Aurora Store, F-Droid and more. It's very misleading and confusing for users.

> /e/OS is also not my favorite since it feels like it is developing slowly, having had issues with outdated software versions - though it does work well in practice. Have a look at iode for an alternative.

Neither /e/ or iodéOS keeps up with updates to Android, Chromium, firmware, drivers or the Linux kernel. Both mislead users with an inaccurate Android security patch level. iodéOS lags far less behind /e/ and doesn't have nearly as many privacy violating services and added privacy/security flaws but neither is a privacy or security hardened OS. Neither keeps the privacy or security of standard AOSP intact.

[dead]

[dead]

> I had a Fairphone 3, and after 5 years, /e/OS was outdated by 4 years w.r.t. the manufacturer updates

Mine is running /e/ and reporting Android 13, which appears to be the last one Fairphone support. /e/ said it was too difficult to support 14 with the kernel involved. It's had continual security updates apart from the Android version.

Edit: Murena make it clear which phones are officially supported and which have "community" support.

> If your phone is not supported by GOS, you should look carefully and compare between /e/OS and Stock Android.

If you have an iPhone that's still supported, you have strong privacy and security. If you have a phone that's not an iPhone and not supported by GrapheneOS then you likely have a phone with atrocious privacy and security regardless of OS choice. If people can afford to get a secure device with years of proper support remaining then they should do that rather than using an insecure device with a sidegrade for privacy and security using a problematic AOSP fork. LineageOS is far less problematic than /e/. If people want to switch the OS to something else due to the OEM abandoning it or to avoid Google Mobile Services they should use at least use LineageOS which is less of a privacy and security downgrade from OS. LineageOS does not fully maintain the privacy and security of AOSP or fully keep up with updates but it's a lot less bad than /e/. Most alternate OSes are forks of LineageOS to reuse their work on hardware support and nearly entirely make privacy and security worse, not better, so why not use the upstream project instead?

> I had a Fairphone 3, and after 5 years, /e/OS was outdated by 4 years w.r.t. the manufacturer updates. In other words, Stock Android coming from Fairphone was more secure than /e/OS on that Fairphone.

It's important to note that an alternate OS depends on the OEM for firmware and in practice much more than that including kernel and driver updates. It's theoretically possible to replace the kernel and drivers with much different ones but it's not done in practice by alternate AOSP-based operating systems. If the device is abandoned by the OEM then you aren't going to have a secure device.

/e/ lags far behind on standard privacy and security updates everywhere but misleads users with an inaccurate Android security patch level along with many inaccurate privacy and security claims. LineageOS is much better than the fork of it by /e/ and does much less to mislead users, although it still has the inaccurate Android security patch level and many people still wrongly believe they're getting patches they aren't after the OEM dropped support.

> /e/OS focuses on privacy (i.e. reducing data leakage to adtech)

/e/OS literally sends STT data straight to OpenAI...

/e/OS uses priviliged MicroG, which connects to Google for some of its functionality

/e/OS doesn't keep up with updates properly, making its security suffer, making yoru phone easier to compromise, increasing the likelihood of amongs other things sandbox escabes which open up possibilities to data leakage.

> GrapheneOS recommends running all the proprietary Google apps in a locked "sandbox"

They don't recommend this. The user can choose to do so.

> but obviously Google still gets to see everything you do in their apps

Indeed, obviously. So, obviously, also the case on any other OS.

> e/OS tries to provide [largely but not entirely FLOSS] alternatives (e.g. their own Maps app, their own email, their own calendar) that make your phone usable out of the box without Google software.

You can install apps you need on GrapheneOS providing those alternatives yourself. Android has a large FOSS app eecosystem.

Much of the things /e/OS bundles for services are just using Nextcloud and their services have been very unreliable in the past, making people unable to access their data for months. Also, Nextcloud isn't end to end encrypted.

GrapheneOS also makes their own apps, like Vanadium, PDF viewer and Secure Camera.

> but obviously Google still gets to see everything you do in their apps

Well, the actually scary part of google services is that they have this quasi-elevated access in your phone where it can do a lot of stuff ordinary android services just can't do. E.g. google maps' location sharing works this way (but don't quote me on that).

GrapheneOS managed to "put it back into the bottle", and it runs as a regular android service anyone could write, with the same rules applying. So you have much more control on what you allow it, and this will also limit what data apps relying on google services can leak about you.

[dead]

> security hardening first and foremost (above usability or compatibility).

Right. Something that GrapheneOS boosters often fail to mention. It's not like those guys at Google are just idiots and don't know how to make a hardened allocator. Android uses a different hardened allocator that is much, much faster and uses less space. GrapheneOS is slower and uses more memory.

I have been a user of /e/OS for 5 years, and also of GOS and would like to share my opinion on this:

> it's worth noting that the GOS community is absurdly toxic to anyone doing anything privacy-related that isn't under the banner of GOS

What I have seen (and I am not involved in any of those projects) is that GOS does care a lot about security, has a higher quality in that regard than anything else, and tends to be blunt about "inferior" projects communicating about security.

Not that they couldn't improve their communication style, but usually when they call out technical limitations of other projects (e.g. /e/OS), they are right. And I mean the technical arguments. Then I have seen a bunch of drama, but to be fair I have seen those other communities show toxic behaviour towards GOS just as much as the opposite.

It feels like it is GOS vs "the others", because the others don't criticise each other, and GOS bluntly criticises when they see claims they find are wrong (I have seen claims by /e/OS going from misleading to downright wrong).

On my particular phone, after 5 years with /e/OS, the Fairphone updates were outdated by 4 years. In terms of security I would have been better with the Stock Android. It depends on the phone of course, because /e/OS tends to claim that they support everything and they just can't. Even on a phone that /e/OS supports well, GrapheneOS is superior, period.

But I agree, I could do without all the drama. I guess my point is that it goes both ways.

> /e/OS (and similar "non-LineageOS" ROMs really)

LineageOS is degoogled unless you install google apps as a deliberate choice, so I don't really see any advantage or /e/OS or Murena over it.

It's a misconception that GrapheneOS is focused on security over everything else. It's a privacy project and privacy depends on security so it heavily focuses on both. It also provides major privacy improvements on a technical level rather than only avoiding privacy invasive apps and services. Privacy involves a lot more than which apps and services are bundled with the OS, contrary to how most supposedly private phone options are marketed.

> Securitywise it's hard to argue against them, although GOS tends to sacrifice usability in favor of security, which leads to odd decisions.

GrapheneOS doesn't make any major usability sacrifices for security. Privacy or security features with usability compromises are either opt-in or opt-out.

> Worth noting however is that usage of GOS is also seen as a signal in and of itself for the authorities that you may have something unsavory to hide

GrapheneOS is far more widely used than most alternate mobile operating systems and there's a lack of basis to claim that it's widely seen in the way you're describing in a way that other operating systems are not. In fact, they're largely conflating other operating systems with GrapheneOS because it's the most widely talked about and known about. They're calling devices GrapheneOS devices which aren't running it. In many cases it's not even a fork of it.

> have said that the OS is popular with organized crime

This is completely unsubstantiated and not evidence has ever been provided. On the other hand, it's known that law enforcement in Europe has widely sold devices to organized crime which they marketed by claiming they were based on GrapheneOS:

https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/146/

Using portions of our code doesn't make something GrapheneOS and marketing is also a different thing than reality. Most of what's claimed to be GrapheneOS in this context is not GrapheneOS but rather trademark infringement by forks or even non-forks.

> /e/OS (and similar "non-LineageOS" ROMs really) instead focus more on de-Googling.

Nope, /e/ always connects to multiple Google services regardless of configuration and gives highly privileged access to them. GrapheneOS doesn't connect to Google servers by default and avoids giving privileged access to installed Google apps via our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer.

> They're still generally security focused.

No, that's definitely not the case. /e/ has absolutely atrocious security and fails to provide even basic security patches and protections. This is also part of why it provides poor privacy due to lagging far behind on privacy patches in addition to security patches along with being missing important standard Android privacy and security protections due to being far behind and not having it all set up. /e/ doesn't provide comparable privacy features to GrapheneOS Storage Scopes, Contact Scopes, Sensors toggle and far more not only the security features. /e/ isn't just not a security hardened OS, it's also not a privacy hardened OS. LineageOS has better privacy and security than /e/. AOSP has better privacy and security than LineageOS.

> Because of this, they usually have better depreciation timelines

/e/ doesn't provide proper updates for any devices. Many of the devices they support aren't getting driver and firmware updates from them even when they're available. They lag far behind on kernel, Android, Chromium (including WebView) and other updates too. They support many devices without kernel, driver and firmware updates available but they're usually way behind even when they are. /e/ simply doesn't care about providing basic privacy and security so they continue having people buy and use highly non-private and insecure devices lacking basic patches.

> Finally, it's worth noting that the GOS community is absurdly toxic to anyone doing anything privacy-related that isn't under the banner of GOS. It's extremely maximalist, tends to get very upset at other projects whenever they get attention (see sibling reply to this, where they pretty much melted down because an outlet dared to recommend a Fair phone+/e/OS) and the projects official channels have generally encouraged this sort of behavior. It doesn't really damage the software itself, but it's worth considering.

No, completely backwards. The massive amount of false marketing, misinformation and harassment engaged in by the /e/ project and community is what's toxic. The founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena openly spreads content from Kiwi Farms and neo-nazi sites. He directly engages in harassment towards the GrapheneOS team. Here's him supporting authoritarians smearing GrapheneOS by replying to threads about it linking to harassment content based on fabrications on a neo-nazi conspiracy site:

https://archive.is/SWXPJ https://archive.is/n4yTO

The communities of several projects including /e/ have heavily engaged in spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS including fabricated stories about our team. They've even taken it to the point of repeated swatting attacks aimed at killing our team members. There are relentless raids on the GrapheneOS community platforms including our chat rooms where Child Sex Abuse Material, gore and endless harassment towards our team members including fabricated stories and harassment content from Kiwi Farms and elsewhere is posted.

People should review https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm which is a third party maintained comparison between AOSP-based operating systems which addresses many of the misconceptions you have about how GrapheneOS compares to AOSP, /e/ and other operating systems. You're not at all correct about what's provided by /e/ which fails to keep up with basic updates or provide the standard protections.

We can provide large amounts of further examples of the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena participating in this harassment.

The attacks towards us including your libelous claims about us here are what's absurdly toxic.

> It's extremely maximalist

It isn't but rather is very pragmatic and focused on usability, robustness and compatibility alongside the major focus on privacy. The focus on security is to protect privacy because it depends on it.

[dead]

I like GrapheneOS but they fail to understand in this post that the #1 security concern an android user face is the lack of privacy.

Sure they have hardened everything but realistically, that's not the main threat for your average user.

Their top contribution to android is the sandboxed Google Play, by far.

Read the rest of the thread here. The blanket statement is a bit short-sighted (some people might even say 'vastly')