← Back to context

Comment by grapheneos

12 hours ago

microG uses many of the same closed source Google services, downloads and runs closed source Google Play binaries with Google access and exists to provide compatibility with closed source Google libraries used by apps. Using microG doesn't change that you're using closed source Google code on the client side and also on the server side for many of the services. It also still uses closed source Google Play code itself, including downloading and running droidguard which is highly obfuscated and dynamically changes on a regular basis. That code gets access to all the permissions and privileged access being given to microG including the Location permission and all the special privileged app access which is doesn't get when a user installs sandboxed Google Play on GrapheneOS.

microG has a poor privacy and security track record. They've repeatedly had severe privacy and security issues which are publicly discovered and then go unfixed for years. One of those which involved leaking location data to apps which weren't supposed to have access to it was documented on their wiki but yet not addressed for years. There are still privacy holes in the location implementation, although the most severe issue was fixed.

GrapheneOS does provide open source reimplementations of Google Play APIs including location. It provides those as OS libraries running in the apps using them instead of an extra service. That means location data access is restricted by the standard sandbox and permission model rather than needing to reimplement it in a service. Reimplementing it in a service means mistakes or failure to keep up with the modern permission model can create privacy holes, which has happened with the microG location service repeatedly and taken years to address.

> GrapheneOS does provide open source reimplementations

The sad thing about GOS is that, despite whatever technical merits it may actually claim, the sheer toxicity of its community is enough to drive many interested users as far away as possible.

Case in point: this very comment by "grapheneos" predictably lambasting MicroG in great detail and then - without a hint of irony - giving GOS props for doing things the "right" way.

Your message would go so much further if for once you considered how it is being conveyed.

Edit: just came across several other essays-as-a-comment in this thread, further vindicating the sentiment.

  • GrapheneOS project members and our community posting accurate information in response to inaccurate attacks and our project and team. You're pushing fabricated stories and other falsehoods to mislead people about GrapheneOS and harm it.

    Here's one of the main corporations behind microG smearing hardened devices as being for criminals and pedophiles, which they have done repeatedly:

    https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie...

    https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116353973732143171

    That's only a small portion of it. There's a massive amount of this and much more from microG developers and multiple corporations supporting it including vile personal attacks and spreading of harassment content by the CEO of Murena and many others involved in it.

    • > You're pushing fabricated stories and other falsehoods to mislead people about GrapheneOS and harm it.

      I'm commenting on what I see as a consistent pattern of behaviour. An observation that is only increasingly apparent with every one of these (frankly) unhinged responses. To wit: I observe that you lambaste MicroG before, and here in response you double-down with even harsher rhetoric.

      Graphene is highly regarded on the technical merits, with a notable uptick in stories on HN to this effect of late - why would you constantly and unrelentingly sully that like this?

      Please do not respond with a list of grievances, re MicroG (or others) - I'd genuinely like a specific response to my very unambiguous and direct question.

      2 replies →

  • We were pulled into this conversation by people who were attacking GrapheneOS. We didn't want to participate in this conversation. GrapheneOS doesn't recommend or support microG. The topic of this entire post has nothing to do with us.

    Look at ForHackernews' comments and you'll understand why we counter them.

    What's toxic about responding to people attacking GrapheneOS?

    • For this specific comment in question, this is easily falsifiable: the top-level-comment was about signature spoofing, there was no mention of Graphene at all.

      > What's toxic about responding to people attacking GrapheneOS?

      You're making my point for me. Which, to be clear, I find sad because I want GrapheneOS to succeed, but that's really hindered by this behaviour.

      1 reply →

    • No one "attacked" you about anything. I observed that you don't recommend MicroG (the topic of this thread) and noted that you discourage people from rooting their devices and suggest installing proprietary GApps instead of libre software like MicroG.

      Why do you consider it an attack to accurately summarize your own opinions?

      8 replies →