JayJay The report referenced, raises more questions than answers. While it documents the data that was successfully extracted from the phone, such as images, application traces, and cached media, it repeatedly avoids specifying how that access was achieved. There is no mention of the device being unlocked, no reference to forensic tools or technical methods, and no explanation of how encryption or GrapheneOS protections were bypassed. Certain data (like Signal messages) were manually reviewed from what was visible on screen, suggesting that full access to decrypted app data was not obtained. The method of access remains unexplained throughout the report. The report does not say whether the device was unlocked at seizure, if a PIN was recovered by other means, or if the phone was powered on and already accessible.
Phrases like “information has been extracted,” “manual examination,” “available content,” and “filenames recovered” do not prove that encryption was bypassed or that an exploit was used. Much of the Signal content was accessed manually, which often just means filming or browsing an already unlocked phone, not bypassing the OS or defeating encryption.
The most technical detail is a file paths /data/media/0/pictures/ and cached app data (not encrypted), suggests standard user level access, not privileged access from an exploit. Signal chat logs were not extracted via forensic dump but recovered through manual review, likely while the phone was in an unlocked state.
Unless there is concrete documentation of a successful technical compromise for example, an attack chain, forensic tool being used, memory dump method, etc.... the idea that a secure GoS phone was bypassed remains unproven and speculative.
All we’re really seeing here is evidence that a phone was accessed, however, not how it was done. All of this has been basically already been covered in replies above.