Question on the potential of a "GrapheneOS phone"

ceramics

Never gonna happen. What moderately serious manufacturer is even going to entertain manufacturing an extremely niche device? I don't know who the GOS team is talking with, but I just don't see it - Securing millions in crowdfunding? Releasing a device coming out with both quality and usability standards that doesn't get absolutely wrecked by the media/influencers/reviewers?

Forgive my skepticism, if you get to read this...

Having hardware was absolutely the way to go, don't get me wrong, but it's simply not realistic. Maybe it was during the smartphone boom, before all the supply chain issues and wars.. From now onward?.. When they started actively killing the security and privacy we had left?

Sounds more like how to bury the project for good to me.

DeletedUser433

Yes, I really doubt manufacturers would want to do it. Most people don't understand privacy so it is no more marketable than an iPhone

matchboxbananasynergy

DeletedUser433 We wouldn't be convincing an OEM to build what we want out of their own pocket. We'd be paying them to build something for us.

Eirikr70

matchboxbananasynergy How could GrapheneOS afford that expense ? I mean, we are just 250,000 users ...

grayway2

matchboxbananasynergy The question is are they any rich donators or investors enough interested to put millions of dollars on a GrapheneOS phone.

spl4tt

chinook implementing a comparably weak protocol from scratch

You can't say it's weak without showing us some evidence that proves this. mtproto has not been cracked until now afaik.
I really don't understand how people are just hating on the encryption protocol when there is literally no evidence of it being bad. Just because "it's new" doesn't mean it's bad. Can you show any audit, stating that it's actually worse than others?

Telegrams "problem" is, that it's a cloud service, not exactly a messaging service only. That means your messages are on their servers. Even if encrypted, telegram could have access to them. That is the only real "bad" thing. But that's also what allows telegram to be such a god damn good app compared to all others.

In my understanding, pavel is indeed a privacy friend, not an enemy. He literally has no reason to sell data at all. But I do agree that you should never have to trust a company, and you should always be on the safe side ofc.

chinook

spl4tt there's a difference between "has not been cracked yet" and "safe & secure design".

Don't. Do. Homebrew. Crypto.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

But there's also more, from the security analyst, in a slightly easier (for me) form: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf

DeletedUser433

If telegram cared about privacy they'd have made chats encrypted by default

Murcielago

Eirikr70

How i can't tell. But there seem to be serious considerations:

We already have ongoing work towards having hardware produced meeting our existing requirements and improving upon them beyond Pixels. This increases our existing focus and priority for that.

source: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114678123692316623

We had less knowledge about what it would cost and how to do it than we do now. We have connections needed to get it done now, although we really need Snapdragon to add MTE support. We would be happy with a minimally modified Snapdragon reference device as long as Snapdragon added MTE support. Snapdragon has a decent secure element (SPU) so we wouldn't need to deal with most of that ourselves. It's a realistic way we can do this by raising a few million dollars of funding._

source: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114676524580780750

DeletedUser433

I suppose there are celebs and other high profile targets with lots of money who would donate?

kittenzrulz123

Murcielago
Interesting, I didn't think they would be willing to make those compromises

kittenzrulz123

Afaik its absolutely not possible, not even theoretically. This is because the Google Tensor security chip is the only one that fits the GOS standards. Furthermore no other APU fits the strict GOS requirements on software support or hardware security requirements. Qualcomm would have to develop a custom processor which is not within the realm of even theoretical possibility. All of that on top of the cost of making a phone and distribution, additionally getting said phone approved by carriers.

argante

kittenzrulz123 Afaik its absolutely not possible, not even theoretically. This is because the Google Tensor security chip is the only one that fits the GOS standards.

Is this one not enough? I think the bigger problem is with integration, firmware, drivers etc.

Murcielago

kittenzrulz123

I'm not sure if I understood your answer correctly. Did you mean compromises in terms of hardware requirements?

They haven't changed AFAIK and I can't see that from the quotes I gave.

NXG-3D

Making a phone would be a fantastic end goal, but I think support for a privacy focused EU based phone manufacturer might be easier, faster and cheaper.

Would the Shiftphone 8 or the Farephone 6 be a suitable replacement?

Would really love one these phones to be the official GOS phone :) but I have no idea if these would meet the security requirements, I did see that CalyxOS have upcoming support for the ShiftPhone 8 and already support the Farephone 5.

Privacy and security are 1 part of the puzzle, but reliable and repairable are part of my equation for hardware choice these days, I already made the decision when I shifted to GOS and a Pixel, that I will never buy another iPhone again, and now that repairable phones are a thing once again, I will never buy a phone without a quick removable battery either, so I would really love to see GOS move to one of these types phones.

Dumdum

NXG-3D the Farephone 6 be a suitable replacement?

No
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1937866622515253344#m

DeletedUser299

I still have not seen anything to suggest an alternative to the Pixel, yes everyone has their own favorite nominee for the roll. If another phone was suitable I am sure GrapheneOS would be or have tested it and said so. G@@gle may face being broken up and I see the latest A16 problems being the result of an internal land grab for assets, prior to the split. The future for GrapheneOS may be difficult, but hopefully not impossible.

wizoatk

DeletedUser299 I still have not seen anything to suggest an alternative to the Pixel

Doesn't exist yet. Current plan:

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114769312784950979

Multiple OEMs have reached out to us about meeting our requirements and working with us. One of those is capable of meeting our security and support requirements in 2026 so it's our focus.

Jun 30, 2025, 12:45 AM

Dumdum

Dumdum
Another link
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114769301678409142

NXG-3D

Dumdum I wasn't aware this, excellent information

wizoatk Hopefully one of these OEM's make a phone that is repairable, as its another nice feature of the Pixel 8, its quite easy to repair compared to other phones on the mainstream market.

Panda-na

I am hoping that at some point they will add "post quantum cryptography" support for the firmware, to the list of requirements. Quantum computers are coming closer every day, and if they (bad actors) can compromise the signing key of firmwares, they can basically do whatever they want.

« Previous Page Next Page »