My GrapheneOS was cracked by Belgian police

b8r2

final What I can say is this: after the device was transferred to the Specialized Research Service (DGO) | Digital Research & Analysis (DRA), the classification of the accusations against me changed. I’m not claiming that anything on the device proves anything, only that the shift in charges happened after DGO/DRA took possession of it. That’s the factual sequence I was informed about, not an admission or confirmation of any wrongdoing.

b8r2

Quantum I wont get into how youve probably missed something to do with the duress pin.

Them getting info out of your phone later is only possible with shit OPSEC. What the police write down and how its layed out for your lawyer can also make it seem more dramatic for an end user.

stress does affect memory. But the point is simply that the device didn’t react when the duress PIN was entered, and later on the data was accessed once it was in the hands of the forensic team.

As for OPSEC: sure, anything is possible. I’m not pretending everything I did was flawless. I’m only describing the sequence of events from my side and how it was presented afterward. How the police write things up, and how that gets interpreted once it reaches lawyers or case files, can definitely make things look more dramatic or definitive than they actually were.

That’s why I’m waiting for full documentation before making any final judgment on what exactly happened.

b8r2

spacecdt I get why it might look strange from the outside, but discussing what happened with the device is one of the few things I can actually do while waiting for the formal documentation and next steps. I’m not here to debate the charges or the case itself only the technical side of what happened to the phone. People cope with stress differently, and talking through the technical inconsistencies helps me stay focused on something concrete instead of just sitting and waiting.

It has nothing to do with the accusations themselves, and I’m not here to argue about that. I’m only addressing the part I’m able to talk about.

phone-company

b8r2
The lawyer may inform the defendant of this. At least, that is the case in Germany.

b8r2

phone-company Allowed to inform and view only in person...

final

b8r2 Whatever findings they made were based on data that was present on the device itself, according to what I was later informed.

And the person is?

Lets nominate a couple people:

Your lawyer: They're not cyber security experts, they're following your own side of the story. They don't actually know that.
The authorities: They can and do make misleading claims to make you confess.

Who is this mystic with a crystal ball who has the answer to everything? The burden of proof to find any indicator is in you.

b8r2 later the data was accessed once DGO/DRA had possession of it.

Proof needed for this claim still. Don't waste my time. You have been willing to shower us with lots of random, inconspicuous documents that show nothing as proof before. You have extremely tight tunnel vision on a single device that you also have described not being so valuable in your case because you've rarely been seen with it. How would you be accused of any other way before they even knew about the device? Police are free to return you to them at any time. It doesn't indicate any device access at all.

b8r2

final And the person is?

Lets nominate a couple people:

Your lawyer: They're not cyber security experts, they're following your own side of the story. They don't actually know that.

The authorities: They can and do make misleading claims to make you confess.

Who is this mystic with a crystal ball who has the answer to everything? The burden of proof to find any indicator is in you.

There isn’t any “mystic” source. I’m not relying on a single person with perfect insight. I’m simply repeating what was communicated to me through the normal legal process: that whatever shift happened in the case timeline occurred after the forensic division received the device. That doesn’t mean they’re right, that they actually found something meaningful, or that I agree with their interpretation it just means that’s the point in the process where things changed.

I’m not claiming anyone has a crystal ball or absolute truth. I’m not claiming technical certainty. I’m only talking about the sequence of events I was told and what I personally observed with the device.

b8r2

final Proof needed for this claim still. Don't waste my time. You have been willing to shower us with lots of random, inconspicuous documents that show nothing as proof before. You have extremely tight tunnel vision on a single device that you also have described not being so valuable in your case. Police are free to return you to them at any time. It doesn't indicate any device access at all.

That’s simply not how the process works in Belgium. Maybe it’s different where you are, but here devices aren’t just handed back casually while an investigation is ongoing. Once a device is transferred to the forensic division, it stays in their chain of custody until their part is formally completed, regardless of whether it becomes “valuable evidence” later or not.

And regarding proof: everything I could share has already been shared on X. The issue isn’t that there was no reply—it's that a significant amount of what I provided was either ignored, dismissed without review, or responded to with assumptions instead of actually being looked at. Even the admin on X left multiple points unanswered when the details became inconvenient or didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

final

b8r2 That doesn’t mean they’re right, that they actually found something meaningful, or that I agree with their interpretation it just means that’s the point in the process where things changed.

Then don't claim your GrapheneOS device was actually compromised like it was according to your forum posts. You've been claiming they were compromised and now this is what you come up with as a response when you have been pressed.

I won't allow you to exhaust other people's time here on this forum. Thread locked. Turn yourself in.

blissartt

b8r2
You truly don't get it.
Auditor has not caused the error, that's for sure. But Auditor would have been useful to check if your GrapheneOS was clear. You cannot just say "it's official GrapheneOS", only Auditor can prove that.

final

b8r2 Maybe it’s different where you are, but here devices aren’t just handed back casually while an investigation is ongoing. Once a device is transferred to the forensic division, it stays in their chain of custody until their part is formally completed, regardless of whether it becomes “valuable evidence” later

I'm talking about You, your person, being returned to police custody. Not your device. I am a digital forensics examiner and I have discussed the chain of custody in depth and that devices can be seized indefinitely. People are free to read my post history.

b8r2 The issue isn’t that there was no reply—it's that a significant amount of what I provided was either ignored, dismissed without review, or responded to with assumptions instead of actually being looked at. Even the admin on X left multiple points unanswered when the details became inconvenient or didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

Everything was answered clearly. Responses don't need to be made for every tweet, especially when our past responses also solve them. Waste your time elsewhere.

final

@hemingway regarding your query, see: https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1997126386968903972

Nuttso

b8r2 Then release your lawyer from his duty of confidentiality and let him publish the passage stating that it was cracked. He can redact your sensitive data beforehand. If a Pixel, even without grapheneos in BFU mode with an alphanumeric PIN, is actually cracked in Europe, then there is reliable documentation for the court. I assume that your lawyer cannot distinguish between simple terms.

r134a

Not that my opinion matters, but initially i believed he believed what he told is true, but not necessarily making his claims true. He claims having seen the officer entering the duress pin/password? However most interrogations are face to face. Who said he didn't got baited into believing it was entered and the officer just did like he pressed some keys and proceeded to put it in the forensic bag, since there doesn't seem to be any reaction to entering a wrong pin from the officer.

However, my current feeling is that initually person didn't know what he was talking about, hence me believing himself believing telling his 'truth', however gradually there seemed to be a improvement in persons writing and knowledge in his reactions. I don't know why but something inside me got the feeling responses were being formed using AI. True or not? I don't know tbh but this sentiment popped up rereading persons post from start to finish here and on x.

Eirikr70

As I often do, I'll have a dissonnant opinion on that case. Since OP affirms that the Belgian police (not the Iranian or North-Korean police) has found evidence that they were guilty on their phone, I'm happy that they could break into it.
Let's clarify the point

I trust GrapheneOS to be able to protect our data,
I believe that whistleblowers and "good guys" can rely on it to do what is possible to protect them (to the extent of the physical brutality of the adversary),
but if the police of a democratic country can grab evidence against a murderer, whatever the OS and to the extent of the reasonable protection of the Human Rights, I applaud.

I know some people will argue that the Belgian State is a corrupt/authoritarian/surveillance/whatsoever State. Well, I wish all States were as corrupt/... as that one.

grayway2

Eirikr70 if the police can extract the data of real criminals who are using GrapheneOS Pixels without breaking the security of the device and operating system, it's ok (the suspect was videotaped typing his code or phone was unlocked)

If they use a sophisticated AFU exploit or access the data remotely with a undiscovered security flaw then it's bad. No matter if the guy is a criminal or not because at this level, literally everyone is in danger.

Blastoidea

My opinion is that this whole discussion is pointless.

No one involved, including OP seems to have a clue what happened, or what is going on.

It is all hand-waving.

I’m sorry if this annoys people, I’m not trying to be annoying.

Kiba

I am Belgian and have been working in security since 2012.

I worked for the police from 2016 to 2018, and during my training, reports were written using a version of Word dating back to 1990.

For the past few years, I have been working for another public service, and it is hardly any better. We are at a level where even having Wi-Fi in the offices is too much to ask for, and we have to share Ethernet cables.

We let a guy go without prosecuting him for several serious offenses because the chief didn't know where to sign the document and didn't do anything in time.

It's absolutely impossible that Belgium has the means to break Graphene OS. We're at a level where I'm already surprised that he was able to extract the contents of the phone even with the PIN code.

r134a

Kiba While certainly true for local police offices etc. I wouldn't say it is that bad though. I know someone who works at a branch of ccb, and they are certainly capable people in the field of defensive cybersec.

However not even close to the levels of say US, Israel, France etc. But he has to go regulary to the US and Israel for trainings etc.

grayway2

Kiba I read an article couple years ago about Belgian Police. They did not have enough hard drives to image the seized one.

CGG

Guys excuse me. This topic dont have anything solid for further investigation. This forum was created to share KNOWLEDGE about a specific topic, not for assumptions that nobody can prove. I understand that without evidences this post should be banished if no more information regarding the pure and simple fact the device was broken with contudent proof is exposed. Lets get over this. Close this. When someone come with sustainable proof despite telling its story life (which im not judging), it will be far more objective in terms of security Issue

CGG

Stop with this.

« Previous Page Next Page »