AOSP and Pixel Device Support

Bimmy

DeletedUser299 I suppose its their ball, and we can't play anymore [...] I see a feature/dumb phone with T9 text [...] on the horizon for me.

Reading recent developer messages on mastodon, I'm not sure if I want to see it that dark. Google dealt a blow to custom OS development, but even if key decision makers at google would like to, they can't close, manipulate and unpublish everything FOSS already in the world.

They can however make new Pixels unattractive or even completely unsuitable in the future. That's true. (IMHO, the worst-case would probably be hard-wiring and disabling the OEM unlock option and continuing every bit of development closed source.) I think they'd ultimately hurt themselves badly by such a course, but ... bad business decisions have been made many times in history, admittedly.

In this regard I support GOS looking for future alternatives.

And if everything fails and doom is on the horizon, we can still go back to your dumb phone and T9. ;-) Or -- I hope you don't mind a little "humour" -- if it's real apocalypse, we might strive for a nice community somewhere in a non contaminated place that still has water and can find/cultivate taste food. People in communities always had to support one another.

DeletedUser370

JPN_Tales Isn't it enough to just stay on Android 15 Q2 and keep receiving updates? I believe there should be no difference in terms of security.

Each new Android release contains privacy and security enhancements. You can check out each version's release notes to get an impression of which.

Bimmy

Clarification to my above side note on DivestOS. When I wrote ...

Bimmy To some extend, the developer of discontinued DivestOS (cp. above, https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/23080-aosp-and-pixel-device-support/19 ), attempted this herculean task.

... I meant that DivestOS attempted to integrate as much of current patches into older OS branches.

In conjunction with the paragraph before my self-quoted one, it could be misunderstood as if DivestOS had originated as a fork of GOS, which it wasn't. Actually, the base of DivestOS had been LineageOS although enriched with some GOS code and, as said, the attempt to reintegrate as many security fixes as possible into the older OS branches - sometimes providing hundreds of fixes for ancient Linux kernel versions etc.

spl4tt

DeletedUser433 I don't think the OS itself is written in Kotlin. That's just the apps.
I think Android itself is written in C afaik?

other8026

spl4tt There's a lot of Java, Kotlin, C++, and some Rust.

argante

DeletedUser299 I see a feature/dumb phone with T9 text and a battery life of weeks, on the horizon for me.

If you mean Punkt MP02, because it appeared in a thread on this forum recently, I can tell you more. It's an Android phone, but an old version. It's no longer updated. So it will never be a secure phone. You can't install any other apps on it than Pigeon (Signal for MP02) plus two other, but unnecessary apps. I use this phone as a dumb phone - only for calls and receiving text messages. Pigeon/Signal is only for family and friends, where I know that their phones are also not secure. MP02 also serves as a mobile LTE router. This phone is often turned off. Next to it I have Pixel 9 Pro with GOS. And this phone is secured. So I use these two phones, but for different things. If I had to have only one phone, it would be Pixel with GOS.

DeletedUser299

argante
I had two of the MP02 phones, both returned under warranty claims, and I hasten to add all without argument. The original MP02 is no longer supported, however the new MP02 second generation does get updates. I feel £250 - £300 depending on colour is too much. A Nokia 4G feature phone ( £40 ) is the way I will go. Its about keeping G@@gle out of my affairs not hiding from the NSA etc.. The only 2 reasons for me having the Pixel, is GrapheneOS and ease of texting over the T9 predictive torture.

DeletedUser450

DeletedUser433 from what I have seen mostly is C

other8026

JPN_Tales There's no way to get all security updates without updating to the latest Android version.

Edit: also see this response from the project account when someone said they don't want to update to Android 16 right away: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/23124-grapheneos-version-2025061300-released/12

JPN_Tales

other8026

For example, let's say a state authority, like the police, were to get their hands on my Pixel 4 (running GrapheneOS), which can no longer receive the latest updates. Even if they tried every possible attack on it, it would be impossible for them to decrypt it.
I genuinely don't understand why everyone has this misconception that you're insecure if you're not always on the latest version.

kjerehea

If Google made future Pixels completely closed source, what would that mean for Sandboxed Play Store and Play Services?

Could Aurora store still allow working APKs to be downloaded?

Would it also nuke any app that required Google Play Services?

GrapheneOS

kjerehea

If Google made future Pixels completely closed source, what would that mean for Sandboxed Play Store and Play Services?

Nothing, and it wouldn't stop us being able to support them. We increasingly want to have devices made for us by an OEM / ODM so we can have more firmware and software control. AOSP 16 no longer making it nearly as easy to support Pixels as before takes away one of the disadvantages to having our own devices and in fact turns it into an advantage since with an OEM / ODM making a device for us, we'd have official device support code to use.

Would it also nuke any app that required Google Play Services?

No.

r134a

GrapheneOS AOSP 16 no longer making it nearly as easy to support Pixels as before takes away one of the disadvantages to having our own devices and in fact turns it into an advantage since with an OEM / ODM making a device for us, we'd have official device support code to use.

While it certainly as of now comes with difficulties, i get the feeling that this whole thing will result in a blessing in the long run if the project is able to manage these difficulties and succesfully proceeds further more independent.
Given all this works out, the only thing i could be a bit worried about is supply chain attacks, how does one protect against these kinds of attacks in practice?

wildturtle

GrapheneOS I know that in the past the efforts to search for an OEM to produce the Graphene phone stopped because they would like to be paid upfront (which makes sense). I wonder if going to the kickstarter route would help with the funding, in this particular case? Fairphone started their campaign in the Oneplanetcrowd crowfunding platform and they manage to fund 2.5 million euros (initial the goal was just for 1 million!)

PintOfGuinness

GrapheneOS Per https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114670995130379882 from June 12th:

We're going to be moving forward under the expectation that future Pixel devices may not meet the requirements to run GrapheneOS and may not support using another OS.

If still running a Pixel 6 or 7 today, would it be best to upgrade to the current Pixel 9 to take advantage of the (still) long support life (2031) now, ahead of the Pixel 10, since the 9 is still widely available (and more often than not, available at a notable discount)? Namely, because future Pixel device compatibility now has to be taken with a grain of salt.

CueHD

GrapheneOS We increasingly want to have devices made for us by an OEM / ODM so we can have more firmware and software control.

Please include removable storage in your design.

DeletedUser433

JPN_Tales but this appears to contradict what you said

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-july-2024-documentation

argante

JPN_Tales I genuinely don't understand why everyone has this misconception that you're insecure if you're not always on the latest version.

There is also a common misconception that security is a state. Security is not a state but a process. Your Pixel 4 could have been in a state when it could be considered secure. However, new vulnerabilities are discovered from time to time and then your Pixel 4 can no longer be considered secure. Security is therefore a process in which a key element is responding to new threats, e.g. you receive security updates.

Franco

JPN_Tales genuinely don't understand why everyone has this misconception that you're insecure if you're not always on the latest version.

I see at least one reason for this: if some vulnerabilities are not patched, it could allow an attacker to exploit them to gain access to the device.

I came across an example of this (not related to GoS): https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/06/12/cisa-releases-cybersecurity-advisory-simplehelp-rmm-vulnerability

-> Ransomware actors are targeting customers of a [...] software [...] through unpatched vulnerabilities that could lead to information disclosure, privilege escalation, and remote code execution.

If the phone contains unpatched known vulnerabilities, it would make it easier for an attacker to succeed.

argante

JPN_Tales For example, let's say a state authority, like the police, were to get their hands on my Pixel 4 (running GrapheneOS), which can no longer receive the latest updates. Even if they tried every possible attack on it, it would be impossible for them to decrypt it.

Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn't know came along and did it.
-- Albert Einstein

other8026

JPN_Tales That's not really how it works. There are security fixes every month. The Pixel 4 hasn't gotten any firmware or driver updates in years now. I think approaching 3 years now. It's not running the latest OS with latest security updates. There's a reason GrapheneOS developers prioritize getting those updates out as quickly as possible.

Also what grapheneOsLover111111 said.

JPN_Tales

other8026
To be precise, I use a Pixel 4a and a Pixel 8, both running GrapheneOS, of course.
For instance, are there any concrete examples where an entity like the police, or a state-level adversary with significant resources, has successfully attacked a Pixel 4a and extracted its data?
If no such cases exist, I believe that serves as proof that the Pixel 4a is, in fact, secure.

DeletedUser433

JPN_Tales have you checked the link?

Delaney

JPN_Tales If no such cases exist, I believe that serves as proof that the Pixel 4a is, in fact, secure.

That is literally an argument from ignorance. You have no idea what you're talking about.
See here

GrapheneOS

JPN_Tales JPN_Tales JPN_Tales Pixel 4a is no longer secure and should not be connected to networks. It has remotely exploitable vulnerabilities unpatched including ones used to exploit devices in the wild.

Exploiting devices via USB using tools from companies like Cellebrite is hardly the only form of security that matters. They HAVE bypassed the brute force protection of the Pixel 3 through Pixel 5a. That doesn't mean disk encryption doesn't work or that they can exploit GrapheneOS on it. They will be able to develop that capability and it's far easier than on the supported devices.

Pixel 4a is unsafe to use. You're using a no longer maintained legacy fork of GrapheneOS based on our last Android 13 QPR3 based release. We highly recommended against using it since the end-of-life date years ago. We recommend not to use our extended support and then legacy extended support releases, which are over now and have been for a while beyond emergency updates.

« Previous Page Next Page »