AOSP and Pixel Device Support

DeletedUser450

DeletedUser433 from what I have seen mostly is C

other8026

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

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.

JPN_Tales

I fail to see what is flawed with the logic that if there are no documented cases of a GrapheneOS Pixel 4a being successfully attacked to extract its data, then it can be considered secure.
All I am asking is for you to present a proven case of a successful attack if one actually exists.

Delaney

JPN_Tales whether there is a proven case of an attack or not is completely irrelevant. There is documentation of hundreds of known vulnerabilities detailing what is possible if exploited, that have been addressed in patches that the pixel 4a will not receive, and won't receive in the future. By your logic, the pixel 4a is secure despite not receiving patches to these documented vulnerabilities.

As another example, if a website uses password authentication, and the website does NOT hash user passwords, then there is a clear, well known security issue that anyone could take advantage of. By your logic, the website is secure in spite of this, because no one has taken advantage of it yet. That's not how it works.

Edit: wording

spl4tt

JPN_Tales lol. Of course there is no case of a cracked pixel 4, because people who get targeted, don't use devices like that, because THEY KNOW it's probably not safe anymore. Even if it already happened, how would you know?

Tbh, even a pixel 8 is probably not safe, that is why there are security patches every damn month. New holes are found and patched each month, and if those holes are not patched, like with your pixel 4, it is probably vulnerable, no matter if it's grapheneos or not. But in the case of the pixel 8, the holes just weren't used yet, because nobody knew them until now. Once people find it, it's already patched (Except when you're stupid and don't fucking update to the latest security patch for whatever reason)

MAYBE you're right, and your pixel 4 is fine for now. But because it wasn't patched for a long time, I wouldn't be so sure. There's a reason grapheneos is nagging you with that nasty "device unsupported" notification every day.

DeletedUser433

JPN_Tales I've already shown you the documentation, it is from an intelligence agency, all you need to do is read it.

JPN_Tales

Delaney

Are there any privacy researchers who have used those hundreds of known vulnerabilities to demonstrate, in a reproducible way, that it's possible to "take over administrator privileges" or "extract personal and sensitive data" from a Pixel 4a?
Or, are there any cases of the police successfully decrypting or hacking a Pixel 4a by exploiting these same vulnerabilities?
If any such examples exist, please present them.

Bimmy

Although I'm afraid we might drift offtopic, I still try to understand better. However, If the discussion about concrete exploitability of a Pixel 4a should last longer, I'd suggest splitting the respective messages and continue in a dedicated thread.

JPN_Tales

What kind of proof would you need to reconsider your position? Only a written document (maybe official court document) that describes an exploitation of a Pixel 4a?

JPN_Tales

Bimmy
I was just voicing my opinion because I was genuinely wondering why the GrapheneOS team puts so much effort and energy into preparing for future versions like Android 16, especially when no severe, easily reproducible security holes have even been found.
I feel any further discussion on this will just go in circles, so I'll leave it at that.

« Previous Page Next Page »