Comment by dredmorbius
20 hours ago
In fairness, an adversarial challenge can be useful in pointing out weaknesses (and possible mitigations) to a particular technical approach.
It's not clear that all of those objections are substantive or insurmountable.
"The USB port may have died" might be one possible response. (Not technically a lie, and hence defensible in court.) Or just silence.
Alternatively, some way of directing such probes to the decoy partition and presenting a sufficiently coherent impression of a valid partition might be another approach.
Much of this comes down to risks presented and costs of mitigation (or of getting mitigations wrong).
>"The USB port may have died" might be one possible response. (Not technically a lie, and hence defensible in court.) Or just silence.
That's about as convincing as "wow this phone just decided to experience catastrophic hardware failure after entering your totally-not-duress pin". Not to mention there's wireless adb.
>Alternatively, some way of directing such probes to the decoy partition and presenting a sufficiently coherent impression of a valid partition might be another approach.
That won't work because they'd notice the adb logs don't correspond to actions taken on the actual phone.
>Much of this comes down to risks presented and costs of mitigation (or of getting mitigations wrong).
Right, which is why grapheneos didn't bother implementing it, because it's a huge effort and it's not worth giving users a false sense of security (eg. thinking that the decoy works when it doesn't), and them getting sent to prison for it.