Comment by dns_snek
1 day ago
> Hardly true, if they permitted Lineage and so on.
GrapheneOS have written about (in)security of LineageOS:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
1 day ago
> Hardly true, if they permitted Lineage and so on.
GrapheneOS have written about (in)security of LineageOS:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I have read the first comment in your link and just replied to it. Pretty sure it's incorrect as I've seen a LineageOS device in September with a September security update level, and you can see in Gerrit[0] that the version string bumps are merged every month, with the commit messages including which CVEs were fixed. New images are built weekly[1].
What I think happened is that GrapheneOS assumed the blog post meant that those updates happened at the time of the post, while the post is actually announcing things that were done in the last few months.
[0] https://review.lineageos.org/q/subject:%22release:+Bump+Secu...
[1] https://download.lineageos.org/devices/frankel/builds
That's just a string, it doesn't mean that you actually have all the latest patches:
> Most non-Google-certified operating systems are setting an inaccurate Android security patch level by ignoring the non-AOSP portion of the patches. GrapheneOS doesn't do that but most of the other AOSP-based projects not being certified by Google are doing it. OEMs were caught doing it too but it's not clear if it was intentional in most cases as it is with the alternate operating systems.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49768635
I'm sure they're completely unbiased source. But seriously, the real question is whether lineage is more or less secure than the stock ROMs that are currently allowed.