▲ -17 ▼ Know Your Threat Level: GrapheneOS vs. SovereignOS — Which One Should You Actually Be Running? (www.youtube.com) submitted 4 weeks ago by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/privacy@programming.dev 10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 16 points 4 weeks ago (6 children) GrapheneOS permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) Alias BackdoorOS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Ah yes I'm sure there's a better alternative /s These don't prove your point. They're not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 3 weeks ago Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) Alias BackdoorOS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Ah yes I'm sure there's a better alternative /s These don't prove your point. They're not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 3 weeks ago Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Ah yes I'm sure there's a better alternative /s These don't prove your point. They're not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 3 weeks ago Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Ah yes I'm sure there's a better alternative /s These don't prove your point. They're not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 3 weeks ago Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Ah yes I'm sure there's a better alternative /s These don't prove your point. They're not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] IceFoxX@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent [–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] degen@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* This is why I just yell everything out the window like a truly rational person permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pmk@piefed.ca 1 point 3 weeks ago If you say "GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.", is it fair to single it out as the "BackdoorOS"? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can't trust any software because of Ken Thompsons "Reflections on trusting trust". So is your point that phones/computers can't be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 3 weeks ago Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone? permalink fedilink source parent