That is not the only issue, it’s just one of the more major ones that shouldn’t be dismissed like it’s nothing. Another major one is the unlocked bootloader. You can take a look at all the Android ROMS here.
I think people should treat carefully when changing the OS of a mobile device. Changing your OS to something less secure just because you want to shove it to Google and Apple is not enough to warrant it. Better to stay with something safe that you know than with something insecure like /e/OS.
Luckily we have Graphene so you can actually switch to a more secure and private OS that is not made by an American corporation hungry for data.
I am not dismissing it, I am saying that is not as big as you make it to be. Most users lag behind in updates anyway, besides using minimal and trusted applications, the outside exposure to exploitation is relatively small, for a device without a public address. I am not the one APTs are going to use the SMS no-click 0-day against.
Similarly for the bootloader issue. The kind of attacks mitigated by this are not in most people threat models. They just are not.
As someone else wrote, it’s possible to relock the bootloader anyway with official builds (such as my FP3). But anyway, even for myself the chance that my phone gets modified by physical access without my knowledge is a fraction of a fraction compared to the chance that someone will snatch the phone in my hand while unlocked, for example (a recent pattern).
If these two issues are what prompts you to call a “security dumpster fire”, I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.
If these two issues are what prompts you to call a “security dumpster fire”, I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.
We do. I can’t in good conscience recommend it as an alternative to friends or relatives when even stock Android has improved security. I can’t speak for your social circle, but all the people I know update their phones accordingly. Maybe they delay the update for a few days, but they don’t stay months with their phones like that. Fairphones improve the situation a bit since you can lock the bootloader, but the substantial delay in security updates is still a major risk.
I don’t get why anyone would choose /e/OS over Graphene if they had the option. Graphene offers the highest security and privacy, it works wonderful and most banking apps support it. /e/OS just has the advantage of supporting more models, but if you can get a Pixel what’s the point?
I definitely wait more than a week to update for example. The marginal security risk is completely irrelevant for me compared to the operational risk of a buggy update. N-1 is a common practice for updating software in fact, unless there is absolutely a great reason to upgrade.
Also, I want to be in your circle, because most people I know if the phone doesn’t update automatically they probably won’t even think of updating their phone (or their computer) at all.
For me the reason is simple, I don’t care about the advanced threats that would be mitigated by GrapheneOS enough to buy a pixel and migrate. I already own a FP3 and that’s what I am going to use until it breaks.
I might consider Graphene in the future, but having to buy a Google phone (even a used one) already pisses me off, compared to a FP (or similar). eOS also tries to be a “noob-friendly” distribution, that you can buy phones with and you never have to mess with the phones, which means people who don’t have the skills or don’t want to mess with their phones might trade the risk with ease of operation, and it might be the right choice for them.
Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example.
In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a “googled” phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.
I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.
I don’t need to convince you, but I explained my reasoning. Maybe make some practical examples, show some CVEs that - if left unpatched - severely impact the privacy (or the broader security) of the average users.
Also, as anybody who works in security knows, security is not a binary, and securing often means paying a price (in usability, in Euro, in comfort, in performance, whatever).
In my mom’s threat model there is no the APT leveraging a 0 day to breach her worthless phone, there are opportunistic scammers who send her emails. There is also google and the like harvesting her data to sell her shit (hence a deGoogled phone with bootloader unlocked is more important than a Google phone with bootloader locked, for example).
In my threat model there might be some more resourceful attackers (because believe it or not, a financial org trusts me with securing their infra). However, as I also said, a much simpler and cheaper attack that recently has made the news is just to snatch the phone unlocked from my hands on the street, rather than exploiting an android CVE.
This is why for example I have app pins for signal, email and everything that supports it, and I need to authenticate at every use. I also store all my TOTP on my yubikey, rather than keeping them on the phone (even with PIN), so my phone is not good as a 2FA device.
What you call blasé is actually just a way I personally assessed the risks and decided to invest accordingly.
People whose threat model involve the bots who spam emails do not have to invest in security like if the NSA is after them.
Updating android a month later is not going to be even a “low” risk for most people, especially if they adopt the much more important practice (IMHO) of not installing every shitty app under the sun.
If you think otherwise, make concrete examples perhaps. Using a cliché is not really building your credibility here.
You could always go for /e/os though
Edit: Didn’t know it was this bad…
/e/os is a security dumpster fire. It’s even worse than stock Android. Stay away from it.
Can you explain?
Every other version of Android gets security updates out within a couple weeks of release at most.
/e/OS users are lucky if they get them within a couple months.
No offense, but that’s not what a security dumpster fire is. Security updates are important, of course, but they are also not the biggest deal.
In fact, I bet that the vast majority of users (on Android or otherwise) are lagging way behind in updates anyway.
That is not the only issue, it’s just one of the more major ones that shouldn’t be dismissed like it’s nothing. Another major one is the unlocked bootloader. You can take a look at all the Android ROMS here.
I think people should treat carefully when changing the OS of a mobile device. Changing your OS to something less secure just because you want to shove it to Google and Apple is not enough to warrant it. Better to stay with something safe that you know than with something insecure like /e/OS.
Luckily we have Graphene so you can actually switch to a more secure and private OS that is not made by an American corporation hungry for data.
/e/OS has official builds for the fairphones, you can re-lock the bootloader there, afaik. At least according to this: https://doc.e.foundation/devices/FP5/install
You can also buy the phone directly with /e/OS pre-installed & closed bootloader, from what I read on the fairphone website.
I am not dismissing it, I am saying that is not as big as you make it to be. Most users lag behind in updates anyway, besides using minimal and trusted applications, the outside exposure to exploitation is relatively small, for a device without a public address. I am not the one APTs are going to use the SMS no-click 0-day against.
Similarly for the bootloader issue. The kind of attacks mitigated by this are not in most people threat models. They just are not. As someone else wrote, it’s possible to relock the bootloader anyway with official builds (such as my FP3). But anyway, even for myself the chance that my phone gets modified by physical access without my knowledge is a fraction of a fraction compared to the chance that someone will snatch the phone in my hand while unlocked, for example (a recent pattern).
If these two issues are what prompts you to call a “security dumpster fire”, I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.
We do. I can’t in good conscience recommend it as an alternative to friends or relatives when even stock Android has improved security. I can’t speak for your social circle, but all the people I know update their phones accordingly. Maybe they delay the update for a few days, but they don’t stay months with their phones like that. Fairphones improve the situation a bit since you can lock the bootloader, but the substantial delay in security updates is still a major risk.
I don’t get why anyone would choose /e/OS over Graphene if they had the option. Graphene offers the highest security and privacy, it works wonderful and most banking apps support it. /e/OS just has the advantage of supporting more models, but if you can get a Pixel what’s the point?
I definitely wait more than a week to update for example. The marginal security risk is completely irrelevant for me compared to the operational risk of a buggy update. N-1 is a common practice for updating software in fact, unless there is absolutely a great reason to upgrade.
Also, I want to be in your circle, because most people I know if the phone doesn’t update automatically they probably won’t even think of updating their phone (or their computer) at all.
For me the reason is simple, I don’t care about the advanced threats that would be mitigated by GrapheneOS enough to buy a pixel and migrate. I already own a FP3 and that’s what I am going to use until it breaks.
I might consider Graphene in the future, but having to buy a Google phone (even a used one) already pisses me off, compared to a FP (or similar). eOS also tries to be a “noob-friendly” distribution, that you can buy phones with and you never have to mess with the phones, which means people who don’t have the skills or don’t want to mess with their phones might trade the risk with ease of operation, and it might be the right choice for them.
So an OS that boasts about the “privacy” it offers… Doesn’t need routine and consistent security updates?
Sure thing bud, keep going on like you know what you’re talking about.
Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example. In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a “googled” phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.
I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.
That’s concerning to hear from a supposed “security engineer”.
If you really are, you should be familiar with the age old adage, “no security, no privacy.”
But even then, you seem very blasé about security, so again, really don’t trust you know what you’re talking about.
So your argument is repeating a cliché? OK.
I don’t need to convince you, but I explained my reasoning. Maybe make some practical examples, show some CVEs that - if left unpatched - severely impact the privacy (or the broader security) of the average users.
Also, as anybody who works in security knows, security is not a binary, and securing often means paying a price (in usability, in Euro, in comfort, in performance, whatever). In my mom’s threat model there is no the APT leveraging a 0 day to breach her worthless phone, there are opportunistic scammers who send her emails. There is also google and the like harvesting her data to sell her shit (hence a deGoogled phone with bootloader unlocked is more important than a Google phone with bootloader locked, for example).
In my threat model there might be some more resourceful attackers (because believe it or not, a financial org trusts me with securing their infra). However, as I also said, a much simpler and cheaper attack that recently has made the news is just to snatch the phone unlocked from my hands on the street, rather than exploiting an android CVE. This is why for example I have app pins for signal, email and everything that supports it, and I need to authenticate at every use. I also store all my TOTP on my yubikey, rather than keeping them on the phone (even with PIN), so my phone is not good as a 2FA device.
What you call blasé is actually just a way I personally assessed the risks and decided to invest accordingly. People whose threat model involve the bots who spam emails do not have to invest in security like if the NSA is after them. Updating android a month later is not going to be even a “low” risk for most people, especially if they adopt the much more important practice (IMHO) of not installing every shitty app under the sun. If you think otherwise, make concrete examples perhaps. Using a cliché is not really building your credibility here.
good on you for asking the question. OP does not know what he is talking about
Thanks for the answer. How does it compare against other Android forks in terms of security update speed?
Also, isn’t Fairphone once also criticised for falling behind on Android security updates or was I misremembering this?
It’s literally the worst.
Also correct, though I am not particularly familiar with Fairphone. Seems like they are down to bimonthly updates, if that.