Pixel 11 doesn't meet the GrapheneOS security standards and may be skipped

grayway2

Don't panic ! We can skip the Pixel 11. The last 3 generations are good enough. The Pixel 10 is much more affordable.

The decision to not support the Pixel 11 series is the best decision. MTE helps to prevent arbitrary kernel code execution. It's also a useful feature to prevent forensic companies to achieve successful AFU extractions.

We still have years of security updates with the Pixel 8, 9 and 10.

GrapheneOS is not only Pixels. Don't forget about partnership with Motorola. Google might bring back MTE for the Pixel 12 and we should have the first Motorola's grapheneOS phones ready to be shipped at this time.

xxx

FunkTastic You're right. But the 10a will be around 1Y from now.

wizoatk

Re: Pixel 11; GrapheneOS writes (concisely):

we didn't say there's no chance of partial support but it lacks MTE and we can't recommend it
[...] we could support the Pixel 11 if we decide we want to

de0u

grayway2 The decision to not support the Pixel 11 series is the best decision.

The project (commendably, to my thinking) made an announcement about a problem. A decision may be weeks or months out.

r134a

My 2 cents, i think it remains important to understand the business structure of GrapheneOS. It is a nonprofit organization rather than a commercial business.

Some reasoning in this thread seems to make sense when it would be applied if GOS was a commercial business, not so much to a nonprofit.

I think it is safe to summarize GrapheneOS mission and purpose in 2 words: Security & Privacy. As a nonprofit they don't necessarily need to grow user base etc. To put it bluntly, they have no obligations towards it's users, neither are its users entitled to anything. Some business perspectives i've read aren't really relevant.

It's core as a nonprofit are Security and Privacy, for everyone. If they wish not to allocate valuable resources to a device that does not align with their mission. So be it.
I actually admire this project its 'stubbornness' regarding this. They stay true to their values, they don't deviate. "For everyone" remains true as well. Everybody could get a cheap secondhand device that supports GOS. If somebody isn't in the position to pay top dollar for a new supported device, there certainly are options. If both of the above still can not satisfy someone, that is honestly not a GrapheneOS problem.

While i certainly do understand the disappointment of many, especially those who bought the device already... Let's be honest, it's quite selfish and dishonest to expect GrapheneOS to support the 11 series because of pricing differences in the market out of their power, if the device would not meet their standards and align with their mission.

Adxm

Why not allow users to install GrapheneOS on the Pixel 11, but show a warning beforehand explaining the security implications, with a 10 second countdown before they can click something like : "I understand the risks and acknowledge that the lack of MTE results in weaker security." GrapheneOS would already provide significantly better security than Stock Android. The lack of MTE is a drawback but completely dropping Pixel 11 support would prevent many users from switching to GrapheneOS, especially those who get a Pixel 11 through promotional deals or simply want to upgrade to the latest device. A warning explaining the security implications of the missing MTE, combined with an explicit confirmation, would seem like a better compromise than removing compatibility altogether

Edit: And this way users won’t be misled about their actual level of security compared to older, more secure models. They’ll be fully aware that the lack of MTE results in a larger attack surface

de0u

r134a I don't think it's necessary or productive to declare that contrary opinions are "selfish" or, especially, "dishonest".

Unless perhaps there is information that some people encouraging Pixel 11 support are pretending to be users but are actually paid representatives of some Pixel vendor?

de0u

Adxm Why not allow users to install GrapheneOS on the Pixel 11, but show a warning [...]

Supporting GrapheneOS on the Pixel 11 would require substantial developer work that could be spent on something else.

Also, many people click on anything.

And some people wouldn't even be aware of the issue until they had unboxed the device.

Adxm

de0u That’s why I suggested a mandatory warning with at least a 10 second countdown, so users actually have time to read it instead of blindly clicking through

Also, someone installing GrapheneOS is usually already concerned about privacy and security, so they’re more likely to pay attention to the warning and understand the trade offs than an average person.

And dropping Pixel 11 support could leave many users without the option to use GrapheneOS on their newer device, maybe not immediately but at least in some time

de0u

Adxm That’s why I suggested a mandatory warning with at least a 10 second countdown, so users actually have time to read it instead of blindly clicking through.

A warning would not address either:

Substantial developer resources that could be spent on something else,
Some users would not see the warning before unboxing (and thus incurring a re-stocking fee).

de0u

Adxm Dropping Pixel 11 support could leave many users without the option to use GrapheneOS on their newer device, maybe not immediately but at least in some time.

To be clear, there is no "dropping", because at present there is no Pixel 11 support.

It is still not clear whether Pixel 11 support is feasible. The project announced a serious problem; the project did not announce that everything is fine except for that serious problem (or, if that was announced, I missed it).

r134a

de0u I don't think it's necessary or productive to declare that contrary opinions are "selfish" or, especially, "dishonest".

:( That seems unfair, that's not really what i said, or at least not what i intended. The terminology "contrary opinions" seems a much broader umbrella as to what the terms "selfish & dishonest" were aimed at. They were aimed at the expectance of support because of pricing differences in the market when the project would potentially decide otherwise. That is literally what i said. I don't feel the broad terminology "contrary opinions" does that justice. Then again, English isn't my main language. Perhaps u perceived it like that, but it certainly was not my intention to label contrary opinions as a whole selfish and dishonest, and i still don't believe i said that. What i said might perhaps be contrary to other opinions, perhaps without productive value, but i stand with what i said.

Adxm

de0u I understand that a warning doesn’t solve the developer workload and I’m not suggesting that it does. My point is that if Pixel 11 support is technically feasible, a warning could be a reasonable way to let users accept the security trade offs rather than excluding the device entirely. I just think that if support is feasible, it could be worth considering given the number of users who may eventually move to Pixel 11.

And yes I understand there is currently no Pixel 11 support. I was referring to the possibility of supporting it in the future

Syberkonda

I have to wonder why Google dropped MTE support on Tensor after highlighting it a few years ago and pushing Qualcomm and others to support it.

If the reason why Google dropped it was because most of the stock OS was not using it, and neither were many third party apps, what's stopping Qualcomm and Mediatek from dropping it in the future to save costs? What incentive do they have to keep supporting it if Google themselves seems to be backing away from it after pushing for it to become a core part of Android for so long?

Or maybe this is all a big miscalculation from Google and Qualcomm is going to be able to differentiate themselves by supporting MTE somehow... but I have to wonder how many companies will actually implement it widely outside of Motorola. Google could easily stop supporting MTE out-of-the-box in Android and leave it to third parties to develop it, which would probably be costly.

de0u

Syberkonda It is possible it was just a glitch. Maybe (though I am skeptical) it will be fixed in a month or two. Maybe there was a last-minute bug in the silicon (it happens!) and it'll be fixed for the 11a.

I suspect we'll know a lot more in a week or two.

de0u

Adxm understand that a warning doesn’t solve the developer workload and I’m not suggesting that it does. My point is that if Pixel 11 support is technically feasible, a warning could be a reasonable way to let users accept the security trade offs rather than excluding the device entirely.

But there are at least three issues.

A warning that pops up on the screen after the user has already unboxed the device will not save many such users who do not want the risk they just learned about from a substantial return fee. For those users that warning will not be a reasonable anything.

Cellobright

Adxm if you have mandatory warning:

Users who already saved up for a Pixel 11 series and now has one suddenly regrets their purchase, thinking there is something wrong with the device, which is counterproductive
Many will just click through because memory tagging this, memory tagging that, eh, but also remember that they could have jumped from a Pixel 6/7 series to a Pixel 11 and back then it was not a feature

But the thing is it could be those who already intend to install GrapheneOS buy Pixels as said in device support list, not choose a Pixel and see if GrapheneOS supports it, so maybe we will not see much affected. It was certainly the case when I first got into GrapheneOS.

Or maybe it's up to major guides (PrivacyGuides et al) to relay the lack of MTE in Pixel 11 back to their readers and tell them to buy a 10/10a and then create a "Why is Pixel 11 series not supported?" inside GrapheneOS FAQ section.

But then, I heard some (right in this discussion) traded in for a Pixel 11 or their faulty Pixel 10 series phone got upgraded to a 11 series, and that just puts them in a dilemma of resell for downgrade or live without a GrapheneOS as secure as last gen phone.

Quite a tough decision.

de0u

r134a The terminology "contrary opinions" seems a much broader umbrella as to what the terms "selfish & dishonest" were aimed at. They were aimed at the expectance of support because of pricing differences in the market when the project would potentially decide otherwise.

I don't know how many people might have bought for that reason. At least one user has explained that the Pixel 11 modem, which it was hoped might work better than the Pixel 10 modem, does. I don't think that user belongs in a "dishonest" bucket, and I still don't think it is productive to declare a "dishonest" bucket without clear evidence that actual dishonesty is in play to a significant extent.

Some people do seem to want the GrapheneOS project to support Pixel 11 devices, if feasible, even without MTE, if MTE can't happen. It seems there are multiple rationales. One rationale may be "I already bought one", but it seems there are others.

I think it is better to hear proposals and concerns than it is to label some people as "dishonest".

fizzics

I am hoping there will be some definitive news on whether or not the pixel 11 will be supported within 13 days haha... that's my return window.

My use case of Graphene might be a bit different from other users, but I use it mainly for removal of bloatware, security and other things are a secondary concern to me.

I will say the only benefit of the 11 is that the modem is much better for my location, on the 10 I was getting pretty bad connectivity.

de0u

fizzics I am hoping there will be some definitive news on whether or not the pixel 11 will be supported within 13 days haha... that's my return window.

I think the Pixel 10 was up in the air for months? Obviously this situation has a very different causal structure, but I don't see how to be confident this will resolve in 13 days in particular.

Though it might be possible for the project to decide "no" more quickly than "yes".

I will not be surprised if we learn something from Google within this next week.

« Previous Page Next Page »