Out of curiosity, is it a good idea to install packages manually and the verify from GrapheneOS with Appverify??

I don't use many apps as of today so it may suit my needs, though it always says that is present as a signature but not verified, I guess that it takes a lot of time to verify all the developers out there, right?
Anyway, so far so good.

Dumdum thank you for that, most of apps also run with containers, which in theory are isolated...
I wonder how a VPN app could work, I guess that at least they don't use containers, but a process in user-space, sad that there is no console/terminal stock app :D .

    steve66th If the apps you use are open source, I would advertise Obtainium to install them. Obtainium will install them, but also take care of updating them.

    steve66th I believe Obtanium works well with AppVerifier, you can share from Obtanium straight to it before installation, if I'm not mistaken.

    I am not sure if the devs of AppVerifier are concentrating their efforts on adding every single app to the internal database and keeping that updated (not that the hashes change that often but it does happen occasionally), I may be wrong though.

    You can obtain the hashes for apps from other places too, like from the developer or from a friend who has the app installed already, or even from this forum. I would be happy to give you the SHA-256 hashes of any app that you want to install, if I already have it installed. Though I don't think it would be appropriate to do that in this thread as that is pretty far off-topic from OP's original question.

    Out of interest though, would you mind explaining what you meant about apps running with containers and wondering how a VPN app could work? Not sure what you meant there. Sounds like you're used to how desktop OSes run. If you want a terminal app, there are some options, with the closest to a desktop experience being Termux, though there are some very big security issues with that one so I wouldn't recommend it unfortunately. I know there are others, but I'm not sure which is the best in terms of security.

      roamer4223 I was just wondering how VPNs work on Android, considering that most of the apps are containers, and unless you configure the VPN in the VPN software provided by the OS, it would be a just a container and it would suffer all sort of problems, like leaks.

      In theory, you need admin priviledges on a desktop to configure a VPN usually, and if you don't, you may expose yourself to leaks, especially in a multi-user environment, which is very common when using a smartphone, though this goes beyond the thread.

      • de0u replied to this.
        • Edited

        steve66th I was just wondering how VPNs work on Android, considering that most of the apps are containers [...]

        For many people the term "container" has one or another specific technical meaning which does not apply to Android systems. Android apps are not run in LXC or LXD containers, for example. It is unclear how using that term in this context adds clarity.

        Manna It's up to devs to add their apps on accrescent, and to maintain them.

        So if a developer decides to stop maintaining his app on accrescent I'll be stuck with an outdated app and not even realize it?

          Hb1hf

          That' s always the case regardless from were you get the app.

            xxx That' s always the case regardless from were you get the app.

            Of course I agree it is possible in all cases. But is it equally probable? Are devs equally likely to give up on maintaining their apps on a store with 3 billion users, one with 200 thousand users or one with 1000 users?

            duck1 If I understanding correctly, apps that go without updates for over a year or so will be deleted from the store. But how does that change the scenario I asked about? If the app is be removed from the store, the user will not be notified, they will just be stuck with an app that won't get updated. Right?

              Hb1hf But how does that change the scenario I asked about? If the app is be removed from the store, the user will not be notified, they will just be stuck with an app that won't get updated. Right?

              I guess yeah. Devs wouldn't have any reason to not maintain on a specific app store though. Don't know when that has ever happened.

                Hb1hf "Are devs equally likely to give up on maintaining their apps on a store with 3 billion users, one with 200 thousand users or one with 1000 users?"

                To me, this question could be argued in all sorts of ways with absolutely no way of answering clearly. For example, I could argue that devs who publish their app on Accrescent, are more likely to keep up the maintenance needed for Accrescent, rather than for the Play Store. Because I would say, devs who wish to publish on Accrescent are more likely to be invested in this app store and the goals of the team behind it. Not just the security and privacy enhancements for users, but for the devs that publish there too. Even the fact that Accrescent is far less well known than the Play Store implies that the devs who publish there are invested in it as they were either searching for a store that would meet their needs, or probably heard of it because they are involved with, or following, projects with similar aims, such as increasing privacy and freedom for users etc, etc...

                Since both mine, and your, points are pretty much based on assumptions about the motivations of the devs who publish on both app stores, I reckon... Well basically, it's pointless to speculate on.

                As to your main question, I have personally had apps that were installed by the play store, decide to no longer allow installations on devices that don't pass Play Integrity, despite remaining compatible.

                In these instances I do not recall being notified, but when I went to the app page in the Play Store, it did say, underneath the uninstall button, that "this app is no longer compatible" (I can't remember for sure, but I think it might have said it was no longer compatible with my device by choice of the developer, or something similar).

                In one case, the app in question was Netflix, and I decided to install Aurora Store to check if they were actually enforcing the Play Integrity, and they weren't. Ridiculously, the app worked absolutely fine when installed by Aurora (by spoofing the device as a Pixel with the stock OS).

                I don't know if it would be different if the app was abandoned by the dev. Perhaps Google would respond differently. I mean, isn't that what "Play Protect" is for?

                I would also be interested to know if Accrescent would have some way of notifying the user if an app was abandoned/stopped being compatible etc...

                  roamer4223 I should add for clarity, in the cases with apps, like Netflix, no longer allowing installations through the Play Store without the device passing Play Integrity - the app also stopped receiving updates.

                  Netflix ended up reversing that decision by the way, though as I don't use it anymore, I can't say for sure that they currently allow installations/updates on GrapheneOS via the Play Store. I hope they do, as not doing so is a stupid and pointless decision for so many reasons

                  duck1

                  Don't know when that has ever happened.

                  "Contact you" left accrescent after they stopped updating on it.
                  They'd also changed the app's signature, so updates wouldn't have worked.

                  There's no magic solution here.
                  It's up to developers to assume their responsibilities and not leave users without any information. The trust we give them is not limited to the app's code.

                    Manna "Contact you" left accrescent after they stopped updating on it.

                    Did they stop maintaining it in general or just publishing on Accrescent?

                    Manna There's no magic solution here.
                    It's up to developers to assume their responsibilities and not leave users without any information. The trust we give them is not limited to the app's code.

                    I agree

                      5 days later

                      treequell existing Play Store alternatives are fatally flawed.

                      How so?

                      I don't really understand the logic to implement Accrescent either - yes it's good to have a chain of trust from the OS to other apps, but helpful is it if there's only like ten of those other apps in total?

                      Why not have F-Droid in the Graphene App Store? It's massively well-established, mature in its own app development, and trusted by millions. (If the security issue is that users can add 3rd-party repos, well, that's a user decision just like using Play Store, isn't it? What is F-Droid's "fatal flaw"?)

                        lberrymage It's assumed that users will use system navigation (i.e. gesture or 3-button navigation) to navigate backward through the app, which is why there's no back button. We can reconsider this, but it is currently possible to navigate backward through the app.

                        I also vote to implement an in-app back button, for clearer navigation. If your repo has an issue open for this I'd be happy to comment there too. My experience, as a "digital native" and very tech savvy, is that lacking back buttons leads to confusion about where one currently is in relation to the rest of the app. I've used several apps that use your approach, like Neo Store and SystemUI Tuner, and in all of them I frequently exit the app accidentally because I thought the OS back gesture will take me to the previous screen in the app.

                        hemlockiv [how] helpful is it if there's only like ten of those other apps in total?

                        The Accrescent devs are deliberately limiting the number of apps while they build a scalable infrastructure, and add the features expected of an app store. They obviously expect to have far more apps in the future.

                        hemlockiv Why not have F-Droid in the Graphene App Store?

                        1) F-Droid signs most apps themselves, so you are trusting them in addition to the app developers

                        2) F-Droid has a history of sketchy behavior

                        I do not speak for the GrapheneOS team, but based on past comments, I think they would discourage people from using F-Droid for apps that can be obtained from elsewhere.

                          Probably9857 They obviously expect to have far more apps in the future.

                          Sure. It just seems weird that GOS, typically a very polished project, would push something in its alpha. And the apks that ARE included feel arbitrary. Why Clipious but not NewPipe, which is more mature and stable? Why Transcribro but not Futo Voice, which is more reliable? How many users need a chess clock?

                          Probably9857 1) F-Droid signs most apps themselves, so you are trusting them in addition to the app developers

                          Yes, they build and sign apps so there's one root of trust instead of dozens. The entire process is open-source. Beyond that, it's exactly the same trustworthiness of installing ANY precompiled apk. Unless you're building from source, you always have to trust that the apk's code hasn't been modified.

                          Probably9857 2) F-Droid has a history of sketchy behavior

                          Such as...?

                            hemlockiv It just seems weird that GOS, typically a very polished project, would push something in its alpha.

                            My sense is that Accrescent is doing a soft launch, but that the GrapheneOS developers believe that their app vetting and security processes are good enough that what is available should be trustworthy. I don't think the GrapheneOS project is "pushing" Accrescent, any more than they are "pushing" Android Auto or Markup.

                            hemlockiv And the apks that ARE included feel arbitrary. Why Clipious but not NewPipe, which is more mature and stable? Why Transcribro but not Futo Voice, which is more reliable?

                            From the outside it's hard to say. Are the NewPipe and FUTO Voice authors willing to have their apps vetted? Do those apps depend on features that Accrescent doesn't support yet? Asking the app authors and/or the Accrescent authors might be productive.