New manufacturer — theories and predictions

xxx

grapheine I hope it's a solid quality phone.

r134a

grapheine It should be, out of my head and in my own words, i think i remember reading that it will be a device from the premium segment. While that doesn't 1/1 correlate to quality in general, mostly it does.

Johnnyloans

Whoever it is, will grapheneos members be able to test for HW vulnerabilities/backdoors?

de0u

Johnnyloans That is a great question, but I suspect the answer is not known, because I suspect the terms of agreement are likely to be finalized close to an announcement.

phone-company

Is 101% Motorola ;)

xxx

phone-company So Lenovo one of the biggest.

subwoofer

Molasses I think the flat edges are a terrible design, they ad significant width to the grip required without adding to the screensize. Unless you have rightangled grooves in your palm that is.

Molasses

subwoofer

As others have already pointed out, we're most likely talking about Motorola's Signature Line here.

Since you dislike the flat edges of 9th and 10th Gen Pixels, you're in luck. They will most likely keep the same design for next year's model that will provide all necessary features for GrapheneOS support. There are a bunch of unboxing videos of the the first iteration on YouTube right now.

We can both agree though that a flat screen would be preferable for most people.

Johnnyloans
I was specifically referring to the Tensor G5 and the upcoming Linux Terminal, because AFAIK no other SoC supports native GPU virtualization.

[...] 10th gen added GPU virtualization support which will make virtual machines a bit faster and more secure vs. standard GPU acceleration

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1976402645821886537#m

Johnnyloans

Molasses

He virt is a requirement for the OEM.

"Hardware accelerated virtualization usable by GrapheneOS (ideally pKVM to match Pixels but another usable implementation may be acceptable)"

grayway2

It's the Motorola Signature with MTE support working only at the beginning of the next year.

https://www.androidauthority.com/motorola-signature-phone-launched-3630327/

Correct me if wrong but there will be no dedicated security chip like Titan M2 which is a massive downgrade from a security aspect.

At least, we'll have an alternative to Pixels if Google take the path of Samsung (bootloader)

Probably9857

grayway2 Correct me if wrong but there will be no dedicated security chip like Titan M2

A secure element is necessary to meet GrapheneOS requirements.

Whatever device it is, I guarantee it will have a secure element.

de0u

grayway2 It's the Motorola Signature with MTE support working only at the beginning of the next year.

https://www.androidauthority.com/motorola-signature-phone-launched-3630327/

Not if it lacks the Snapdragon Elite 8 Gen 5? https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115877674396254367

grayway2 Correct me if wrong but there will be no dedicated security chip like Titan M2 which is a massive downgrade from a security aspect.

I think once an announcement is made it will be possible to evaluate features. I don't see how it's responsible to make alarming claims like "massive security downgrade" before there is an announcement.

The only thing that seems legitimately "massive" right now is uncertainty. Though I guess maybe the speculation also qualifies as "massive".

Molasses

grayway2

No worries, high-end Snapdragon SoCs have their own secure element (Qualcomm SPU) integrated.

No, Trusted Execution Environments such as TrustZone and SGX are not secure elements. Apple SEP, Titan M2 and Qualcomm SPU are secure elements. That doesn't mean they all provide the same functionality or are on the same level for the comparable functionality that's provided.

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1970615567821480369#m

Snapdragon can likely avoid needing to provide a separate secure element and dealing with trying to find the best one because of their integrated SPU. We have a lot more confidence in Qualcomm security than other options but their licensing, secretive approach and NIH is painful

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1861962842154426657#m

Apple SEP is similar to Qualcomm SPU. It's a separate secure processor on the same SoC.

TEEs are not really in the same space at all because the regular CPU cores are not at all hardened against tampering and they have a ton of attack surface including endless side channels.

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1815809906357805567#m

Qualcomm Snapdragon has their TrustZone-based QSEE as the TEE and the flagships also have their Secure Processing Unit (SPU) on as a separate processor as part of the same SoC.

In addition to a lot of extra attack surface, a TEE lacks similar protection against physical attacks

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1815808829956796601#m

Probably9857

Probably9857 Whatever device it is, I guarantee it will have a secure element.

Though I guess that doesn't have to be a dedicated chip...

grayway2

Probably9857 I remember but don't remember when or where the official account said that some requirements could be abandoned during a time.

What GrapheneOS can do about this ? Only Apple and Google did the necessary steps to create that kind of chip and Motorola was not even shipping correctly security updates during that time.

grayway2

de0u Why would it lacks the Snapdragon Elite 8 Gen 5 ?

Motorola will eventually create a slightly different version of its Signature phone for GrapheneOS with the Snapdragon Elite 8 Gen 5 and MTE support once Qualcomm can manage to make it correctly working.

Watermelon

Probably9857 Though I guess that doesn't have to be a dedicated chip...

The secure element is by its definition a dedicated chip. That's what makes it more secure than the TEE that's integrated into the CPU.

Viewpoint0232 If those were still sandboxed and completely removable like a user-installed app I wouldn't even mind

I very appreciate GrapheneOS's stance in not forcing any choices of apps on users. They say it in various pages on the official website. I appreciate how the OS has a philosophy of restricting itself to be an OS rather than trying to take over my life by shoving unnecessary stuff on me. And even if they could be uninstalled, that'd still take more bandwidth and storage space on their servers.

de0u

grayway2 Why would it lacks the Snapdragon Elite 8 Gen 5 ?

I don't have a window into Motorola's decision-making process, but the cited article says "As for core specs, the Motorola Signature eschews the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 processor in favor of the less capable but still powerful Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 SoC". So regardless of why, "it" can't be that particular device.

grayway2 Motorola will eventually create a slightly different version of its Signature phone for GrapheneOS with the Snapdragon Elite 8 Gen 5 and MTE support once Qualcomm can manage to make it correctly working.

If so, perhaps the "slightly different version" will also have a secure element. Unless there is specific knowledge that it won't happen that way? If there is, sharing the specific information would arguably be more responsible than making alarmist projections about a "massive security downgrade".

brookie229

grayway2

Hopefully they will consider making an "a" version. I don't need or want a device costing me CAD $1500.

de0u

grayway2 Only Apple and Google did the necessary steps to create that kind of chip [...]

I'm not sure how that is known. For example: https://opentitan.org/

wqwwrea

I am curious if GrapheneOS made an in-house phone, would they be passed the strong & device integrity easily?

de0u

wqwwrea I am curious if GrapheneOS made an in-house phone, would they be passed the strong & device integrity easily?

I am unaware of any plan for the GrapheneOS project to make an "in-house" phone. A previous post in this thread may be relevant: de0u.

Passing Google's "integrity" threshold isn't a technical matter; it's a contractual matter. So far, being certified by Google requires shipping all of the Google apps (see "ii. MADA Requirements" here), which are closed-source. That would be a big change for the GrapheneOS project.

wqwwrea

de0u Thanks for the detailed explanation, and a polished writing skills over this topic.

I agree with your point that I also suspect GraphenOS team has enough leverage to to request for hardware features asked from communities or developers themselves. In that case, an "in-house Phone" is a fallacy.

In terms of Google's integrity, I wan't aware of MADE Requirements exist. Thanks for the citation. I will read it later!

Viewpoint0232

de0u So far, being certified by Google requires shipping all of the Google apps (see "ii. MADA Requirements" here), which are closed-source.

If those were still sandboxed and completely removable like a user-installed app I wouldn't even mind

« Previous Page Next Page »