Why are iPhones considered better for privacy/security?

CalmBird

I couldn't find any actual information about why iPhones (with Lockdown Mode and Advanced Data Protection) are considered better for privacy and security compared to other phones other than a Pixel with GrapheneOS. The only thing I could find was this outdated post found on BeerIsGood's Mobile Security page, and "trust me bro" comments from @GrapheneOS like these. It's not like I don't believe it or anything (in fact, I do), but I would like to know exactly why the iPhones hardware and software (iOS) is considered more private/secure than alternatives. If anyone maybe has some insights or could link an article about this it would really mean a lot. Thanks in advance.

Lilac6044

CalmBird Slightly related, one of the things IPhone does better than pixels from a hardware perspective is face biometrics.
They use a dot projector, a flood illuminator, and an infrared camera to verify facial biometrics, whilst pixel phones only uses the front-facing camera. This is the main reason I believe GOS does not feature the ability to unlock phones with our faces.

Eirikr70

CalmBird iOS phones might be very secure, I leave it to experts. Anyway they call Apple to harvest data and you don't control that data. GrapheneOS gives the user the capacity to control to what extent data is transmitted to X or Y. For instance if you need Google Play, you can install it. You know that it will call home, but you chose so, and the amount of data it transmits is in your hands thanks to the sandbox and the user spaces.

WestQuester

CalmBird
Apple has so far been surprisingly strong on privacy. They end-to-end encrypt messages. They hash the user's ID on Apple maps so location data can be used to provide traffic information but not tied to any individual. They have a good track record of not divulging their users' information to law enforcement. That could of course change, but from a privacy standpoint they are currently (and surprisingly) very good. Security is supposed to be stellar as well. Of course all of this is somewhat taken on trust because you can't prove it.

Apple's app store is generally much more strict about privacy and information apps can collect as well.

One other thing I can think of off the top of my head is that all the apps and storage are designed to be sandboxed so apps don't communicate or share data back and forth, something I'm concerned about even on GrapheneOS. There are advantages to that common filesystem for sure, but there are some privacy disadvantages. I guess storage scopes could be used for every app but I don't know how to prevent the inter-app communication unless it's on various profiles. At some point you really are trading off convenience.

I like GrapheneOS (it's what I'm using right now) but if I want a nice camera, I'm using Google. If I want push notifications, I'm using Google. I have to use RCS messaging which means using Google. I like being able to deny network permissions to specific apps but I can't do that to all of them. Does Google steal my contacts list? Are they tracking who I call? Reading my texts? I don't know.

I use Signal for everyone I can, but most people simply won't use it and I can't cut them out of my life. So it is what it is. But once Google is on my phone, I don't know what they can take. With Apple I was able to completely get away from Google so I don't really like that I have to bring it back into my life.

c86

CalmBird

The high-level opinion is with Apple products the analytics go to Apple rather than an android phone sending analytics to whatever manufacturer (Samsung, Motorola etc) made the device along with Google for the OS. Apple also controls the OS updates to uniformly roll out whereas android device manufacturers are relied on to push updates to their devices. This results in uneven vulnerability patching across all android devices.

Apple also restricts apps to their own app store. This is opposed to android allowing users to load from whatever source they desire, thus opening the device up to possible malware.

CalmBird

Lilac6044 I believe (ultrasonic) fingerprint sensors have comparable security compared to Apple's Face ID. This is not something that makes an iPhones inherently more secure than alternatives.

grayway2

Lilac6044 i don't know for you but I have zero trust in Face ID. I tried it and sometimes you unlock the phone when you don't really want it.

Fingerprint without second factor pin is also dangerous.

One of the biggest threat is kids. They are literally grabbing your hand and fingers and try to unlock your phone. No prior warning.

CalmBird

Eirikr70 I know GrapheneOS is a better (or rather, the best) option for privacy and security. That wasn't the point of this post.

Lilac6044

CalmBird You are comparing two different biometric methods though. I am not arguing that Iphones in general are more secure, simple that their face ID is more secure than androids offering.

spiral

CalmBird

Face ID seems much more secure than fingerprint, in my opinion.

One example: your Pixel secured by fingerprint could be unlocked by fingerprint while you're asleep (or even after you've passed away), whereas Face ID on iPhone is set by default to require the user to look directly at the phone for it to unlock, making it much less likely to be unlocked without your explicit consent.

Of course, this is why GoS gives us the option to secure the fingerprint with a secondary passcode, which as far as I can tell mitigates the above scenarios.

CalmBird

WestQuester AOSP is indeed missing Storage and Contact Scopes which is a privacy improvement on Apple's front. Thanks for that one.

CalmBird

WestQuester off topic, which one you chose and trust is up to you. I suppose that with "Once I let them onto GrapheneOS" you mean Sandboxed Google Play Services, but they are sandboxed for a reason.

c86 is right about trusting only 1 company and having no delay in (security) updates. They also make their own hardware and have a really good track record. Android sideloading is optional though so that doens't really matter. I think the former is the most important part though and think that that is mostly what makes them more secure than alternatives. I was kind of hoping that someone that someone had a list like this but for iPhones, but maybe that wasn't realistic.

krysor

I think I saw a post by GrapheneOS saying iPhone is by default more secure (and private?) than the stock android (not sure whether they also meant the Google pixel phones). GrapheneOS is in a different league entirely however.

CalmBird

krysor Perhaps you're referring to this?: https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1861459225672601767#m. They do state that Pixels and iPhones have far more secure hardware and firmware than non-Pixel Android devices. But again, this is a baseless claim.

krysor

CalmBird not sure if baseless...

For example I've never seen Apple nor iOS claiming they support nor implement Memory Tagging Extension.

In the cellebrite thread posted in July 2024 it seemed like only the pixels from series 6 onwards with some 2022 patch were not vulnerable. Even the most recent iPhone however...

WestQuester

To kind of summarize what I was getting at above:
With Apple I have been promised that my data is private and secure. I'm taking that on trust but so far the track record has been really, really good, by design and in practice.

With GrapheneOS I have something that is even more private and secure and I don't have to rely on the company. But I give up a ton of convenience and features that Apple has, unless I start installing some of the Google stuff.

With Google I have a company that has all but sworn to do everything in their power to collect as much data on me as possible. Once I let them onto GrapheneOS, I don't know what's happening. Less than other Android systems for sure, but are there things I don't know about?

So which do you pick? The devil with the good track record, or the devil that you think you might be able to control? Or neither and give up a ton of usability and convenience?

fph

WestQuester With GrapheneOS I have something that is even more private and secure and I don't have to rely on the company.

I mean, you still have to rely on the company being trustworthy: they have root on your phone and can push updated with arbitrary code.

c86

CalmBird

In regards to your device support question, the minimum for Apple is the device being supported for updates. Once that ends, obviously you're definitionally insecure. I would say there is an onus on the user to understand chips provide more potential security as they update/evolve. Such as the Silicon Mac chips allowing for more security than their predecessors. Following this, I would say a user that can use iPhone but requires higher security would need to track said updates and make a decision when to upgrade device's earlier than their end of life.

To touch on ADP and and lockdown. The former obviously just moves the encryption key to the user for iCloud storage for several Apple services. The benefit is unreadable data for those services.

The latter provides additional security by removing some code and files from being executed on the device under a single toggle. GOS provides these benefits just with the OS among more (readable on their website). But they also allow individual toggles to restrict code execution (user choice or app specific) as desired. Ie. the Exploit Protection toggles, sensor toggles, Java vs Java JIT in Vanadium

CalmBird

I don't know if it's appropriate to ask this in the same discussion, but it might also be interesting to know how the hardware of newer iPhone generations compares to older generations, security wise? BeerIsGood, for example, says that the A14 Bionic chip and above supports memory tagging, the A15 Bionic chip and above supports JITBox and the newest A18 chip supports Secure Indicator Light (SIL). Are there any other improvements other than these?

c86

CalmBird

Perhaps this will provide more data for your queries

https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

CalmBird

CalmBird
Is Apple's new C1 modem (found in the iPhone 16e) any more secure than their older Qualcomm modems? I suppose yes, since they make it themselves, but I can't find anything about this.

CalmBird

c86 thanks for the link. I still don't know the actual data about iOS, but this still is helpful for comparing.

c86

CalmBird

These guys do a lot of security research and development towards Apple and are on my feeds along with GOS devs

https://mysk.blog/

DeletedUser421

CalmBird I’m guessing that they can at least fix flaws faster, because they wont have to wait for Qualcomm to send out security updates. I assume that’s how it works most of the time, but I don’t know for sure.

I imagine that their switch away from Broadcom WiFi will have a larger impact, because all iPhone 17 models and iPads will supposedly switch to Apple WiFi, whereas only 17 Air will get the Apple C1 modem.