Blastoidea Absolutely, if one is in such a setting then using 'unauthorized frequency' is the least of one's worries. I meant this in a more general sense, to convey the idea that using non-cell RF might be a better solution. Out of band radio mods are trivial, and other countries actually have more open spectrum than we have in the US anyway.
Using GrapheneOS as a base for a consumer product
One time pad communication ( number stations ) are still used today.
- Edited
Skyway
In the ham bands?
(I hope not)
Thanks for a creative idea but switching our entire stack and plan is not feasable
I still have a question about profiles. If I set up multiple user profiles: can I require a password when the user wants to switch between profiles?
Also. Can I put a profile at rest so that the data is removed from memory and encrypted?
[deleted]
pixpot I only ever use one profile but from what I heard on here each profile is encrypted with the password you set for it. And each user profiles data is put at rest when you end its session.
- Edited
pixpot yes you can and should protect individual profiles by passwords or pins. When you delete a profile, you'll get a warning and all the data will be inevitably lost since the decryption key is wiped (if I understand it correctly the data is technically still there until overwritten, but nobody will be able to read it).
Be aware that after reboots and updates you'll always have to unlock the owner profile before accessing any user profile. So you can't just set up a user profile for your clients and not give them access to the owner profile.
Edit: Typos
N1b aware
N1b Be aware that after reboots and updates you'll always have to unlock the owner profile before accessing any user profile. So you can't just set up a user profile for your clients and not give them access to the owner profile.
And this is by design?
Allowing a user to only acces the user profile would allow us full control of the users abilities to "make a mistake". Is locking down the owner profile something that could be implemented/is being discussed or is it to integral to AOSP to be changed, or are there any other technical reasons this is not doable?
It's on my wishlist that owner is treated as sudo, and the other users are treated as regular linux users. Then on the other hand there is the question of who manages sudo, and if done by remote = oh no. Solutions could be explored with enough donations.
pixpot It's how AOSP works. It could potentially work differently, but currently doesn't. It might change upstream, but who knows.
matchboxbananasynergy So its not possible to change downstream, in GOS?
pixpot Theoretically? Everything is possible. In reality, however, it would likely be a gigantic change to make; not for the faint of heart.
The reason why you have to unlock Owner before using other profile after a reboot is being Owner houses config options and settings that other profiles use. You can't keep Owner at rest while using other profiles, so you have to do the first unlock after a reboot to get it out of the "Before First Unlock" state.
Changing that would be fundamentally changing how user profiles work at their core and would be a gigantic change to port to other Android versions in the future. Like I said, theoretically possible, practically impossible.
Is there a documented list of what apps (and maybe services) that are prebundled with GOS and their perspective functionality?