- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ca
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15995282
Real unfortunate news for GrapheneOS users as Revolut has decided to ban the use of ‘non-google’ approved OSes. This is currently being posted about and updated by GrahpeneOS over at Bluesky for those who want to follow it more closely.
Edit: had to change the title, originally it said Uber too but I cannot find back to the source of ether that’s true or not…
You must log in or register to comment.
This makes me want to use GrapheneOS more. If the dataminers don’t want you to use it then it must be doing something right.
Too bad it only runs on Google’s phones…
It’s only officially supported on google phones because sadly those are the only ones that are not modified to fuck which makes installing and supporting other OS’es way too much work.
Giving google money once for a device is not a problem from a privacy or security standpoint.
That’s correct, but not the reason grapheneOS chooses only pixel phones. It’s the level of hardware security features.
Also unlockable and presumably has well working builds. It’s not just graphene, but just about every Android project it there that’s best supported on pixels. Other manufacturers have a crazy variety of locking schemes and required tools. Each one is a nightmare to support.
For GrapheneOS, it’s primarily that it’s re-lockable. That’s why other unlockable phones aren’t supported.
The GrapheneOS install process sets new OS signing keys so you can lock the phone again and get full verified boot. However, most manufacturers haven’t implemented this feature.
Yes, that cuts the list down even more.
What do you get, app/feature wise for verified boot vs. Play integrity app? Does it increase the amount of apps that work on it?
No, Play Integrity intentionally checks if it’s a Google-approved key. Android itself has an API to check verified boot and gives info on the signing key - most devs just want to know verified boot is working.
I feel Play Integrity has a short life ahead of if competition authorities realise how exactly it works. “Anti-competitive” is the first thing policy-minded folks think when I explain the API to them.
I would guess that it allows to detect tampering if you have to give your phone to the security officers and they do or don’t do something with it without you present. I heard of such occurrences on the border, but this happens in other places and countries, too. Not sure if locked bootloader would help, though
Wish they’d at least support Fairphone.
If Graphene reached out to them I bet Fairphone would even actively work with them to make it an official OS option.
Fairphone would need to substantially modify their hardware to make that work
In the EU almost every phone has an unlockable bootloader, there just isn’t any roms or custom recoveries for a lot of them.
Right? Have to pay google for the privilege
Your options are:
Apple phone
Bloated android phone like Samsung etc.
Chinese android phone (xiami etc)
Google phone with Android
Google phone with graphene. This still looks like the best of those options.
Or no phone? I guess people are hardcore enough that will be the option.
Edit: I stand corrected.
Fairphone? Swiftphone? eOS? Linuxphone? PostmarketOS etc?
Is swiftphone its own thing or did you mean shiftphone? I kinda want the shiftphone 8 myself even if they only ship to neighboring countries of mine.
There’s always package forwarding. I’m about to find out how bad an idea that is.
Ah sorry, you’re right. I meant shiftphone.
All of these are insecure as hell. Linux phones especially https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
Fairphone also really fucked up: They signed their own OS with the publicly available (!) AOSP test signing keys. These guys really don’t know that they’re doing, and I would trust their hardware or software whatsoever. And no, installing a custom ROM doesn’t solve this. Considering how bad their security practices are, we genuinely have to assume that there are security issues with the device firmware as well.
/e/OS is based on the already insecure LineageOS, and it weakens the security further, so it’s not a good option either.
None of the options you mentioned can be compared to GrapheneOS. It’s currently the best option if you value your privacy and security. You don’t have to give Google money either, since you can just buy a used device, which is also cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Google also makes repairing their devices pretty easy for consumers and even works with iFixit. Here’s a Mastodon post I recently saw about that: https://social.linux.pizza/@midtsveen/113630773097519792
An used Pixel, assuming I can find one in my country, still costs four (4) times what I need to shell out for a in-market Lineage compatible phone.
Theoretical security is cute, but it has to be adjusted to practical feasibility. The most secure computer in the world is useless to you if you can’t boot it up.
Security-wise you’re better off using whatever OS comes with your device (as long as it gets updates) than downgrading to LineageOS. At least most smartphone vendors (except for Fairphone) manage to ship their Stock OS with a locked bootloader and somewhat working Verified Boot.
I use cheap motorola phone with lineage OS, add that to your options
I don’t think LOS has any privacy/security improvements over the stock android?
(IIRC) it’s even worse than stock because you can’t lock the bootloader after installation.
Though if your phone isn’t getting official updates, it’s probably safer with LOS.
There’s also the Lineage-based DivestOS that attempts to keep up with more security updates, and relocking the bootloader in phones that support it.
Yeah, I myself am using CalyxOS, because DivestOS doesn’t support the Fairphone 5 unfortunately. CalyxOS also has relocking.
Physical access is game over anyway?
Not with GrapheneOS, since you can entirely disable the USB controller from the settings on a driver level, making it impossible to connect the phone to a forensic data extraction device. GrapheneOS also has a convenient auto-reboot feature, which (together with their patches to the Linux kernel and Fastboot recovery OS to include memory zeroing) erases the encryption keys from memory, putting the device in BFU state and requiring the PIN/password to unlock. This is additionally secured by the Titan M2 secure element, which makes use of the Weaver API and drastically throttles brute-force unlock attempts. https://grapheneos.org/faq#encryption
Yup, it’s definitely worse https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#lineageos
(IIRC) it’s even worse than stock because you can’t lock the bootloader after installation.
That’s a problem with the phone manufacturer, not with Lineage.
LineageOS itself drastically weakens security even compared to stock AOSP, for example by exposing root access or deploying insecure SELinux policies
This is very bad news, because this means any app that wants your data could do the same.
On the other hand, it makes it easy to find which apps aren’t to be trusted with your data.
Also very obvious when an app or website have an US and an EU version. You just know they buttfuck the Americans because no rules.
Even Apple had to make two versions of iOS.
Maybe graphene will find a way into duping those apps to think you have a regular android phone?
Err, you could firewall an app from your data in Private Space or Shelter for older Android versions. That should work on any Android device.
Fuck both of these companies. Never used McDicks app in the first place. Spyware bullshit.
The mcdonalds app is a scam to get you to agree to their arbitration clause
Care to elaborate? I’m curious.
Never mind. I found an article pretty quick. Thanks for the heads up anyway. :)
Funny that news nowadays is citing tik tok and reddit comments
https://www.thedailymeal.com/1431937/mcdonalds-app-terms-waive-rights-trial/
Just to be clear, they banned all custom roms, not only graphene.
Most ROMs like LineageOS and CalyxOS drastically weaken the security of Android, so that would actually make sense. GrapheneOS has far better security than AOSP, the Stock Pixel OS, or basically every other version of Android that you would find pre-loaded on a device. https://grapheneos.org/features#exploit-protection
Most ROMs like LineageOS and CalyxOS drastically weaken the security of Android
Source?
Graphene shills have been banging on this point for donkey’s ages. Reality is that many people use phones that are out of OEM support and many OEM ROMs are bundled with questionable software (Oppo, Samsung etc.) There are some decent criticisms to be made about LineageOS, but others to be made about Grapheme, like its Google-suggestive configurations, which is quite bad for security and privacy. Graphene says this is all optional and not part of the OS, but doesn’t include any equivalent F-Droid installer.
Webapps everything you can like I do with Firefox and ublock origin. Fuck these assholes.
Not for Revolut. App only.
They do have a web app, it’s just very feature limited https://www.revolut.com/blog/post/introducing-the-revolut-web-app/
Like you can’t even pay people money kind of feature limited
not really. services make the mobile site unusable. example:
- facebook: nags you to use the facebook app with popups and large banners
- facebook messenger: does not even let you to log in
Fuck Facebook. I left that shithole in 2015.
I’ve done so similarly, but I can’t tell that to everyone I know if I don’t know an alternative that doesn’t have their friends
Time to switch away from Auth I guess. Not even using GrapheneOS cause I have a Samsung phone, but this is not acceptable
I wish aegis had a UI like that… I prefer it to Aegis “Normal” view. They’re almost the same but ente is a little better
same. i wish i could run graphene or something similar on my moto G stylus. I wish my Pixel 6, 7 and 6a didnt all have defects. the 7 was my favourite.
FYI, grapheneOS devs added a list of apps to their wiki:
https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide#apps-banning-grapheneos
Is this not a sign of the true intentions on both sides of the dilemma here!?!?
Let us go to the end. We cannot afford to carry on in fear of these bans. Let the lines be neatly placed and the sides chosen wisely. If sustained profits are desired, the walled-gardens must come down.Vote with your dollar and vote again with your data. Wary, but never afraid is the motto privacy comrades!
Agreed. Leave immediately to other services, and tell them why you’re leaving. It might not make a dent, but you’ll be doing the right thing at least.
Lol I spent a week going back and forth with Revolut support in august. I could sign into the app but it would always ask me for a “selfie” verification and every time support would say its a super dark selfie.
Eventually I decided to try a stock ROM and it just worked and I realised what was happening so I transferred all of my money out and deleted my account.
Most local banks here are terrible at making apps, some even require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking, so hopefully they wont follow suit anytime soon
require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking
To be fair this actually provides a very high level of security? At least in my experience with AIB (in Ireland) you needed to enter the amount of the transactions and some other core details (maybe part of the recipient’s account number? can’t quite recall). Then you entered your PIN. This signed the transaction which provides very strong verification that you (via the PIN) authorize the specific transaction via a trusted device that is very unlikely to be compromised (unless you give someone physical access to it).
It is obviously quite inconvenient. But provides a huge level of security. Unlike this Safety Net crap which is currently quite easy to bypass.
Those little boxes are just a bit of hardware to let the smartchip on the smartcard do what’s called challenge-response authentication (in simple terms: get big long number, encode it with the key inside the smartchip, send encoded number out).
(Note that there are variants of the process were things like the amount of a transfer is added by the user to the input “big long number”).
That mechanism is the safest authentication method of all because the authentication key inside the smartchip in the bank card never leaves it and even the user PIN never gets provided to anything but that smartchip.
That means it can’t be eavesdropped over the network, nor can it be captured in the user’s PC (for example by a keylogger), so even people who execute files received on their e-mails or install any random software from the Internet on their PCs are safe from having their bank account authentication data captured by an attacker.
The far more common
two-way-authenticationedit: two-channel-authentication, aka two-factor-autentication (log in with a password, then get a number via SMS and enter it on the website to finalize authentication), whilst more secure that just username+password isn’t anywhere as safe as the method described above since GSM has security weaknesses and there are ways to redirected SMS messages to other devices.(Source: amongst other things I worked in Smart Card Issuance software some years ago).
It’s funny that the original poster of this thread actually refuses to work with some banks because of them having the best and most secure bank access authentication in the industry, as it’s slightly inconvenient. Just another example of how, as it’s said in that domain, “users are the weakest link in IT Security”.
You had me until banks are secure. Most banks use 2FA over SMS. All banks in the EU require a phone number for PSD2 requirements.
With GPG and TOTP support, its been easier to secure s Facebook or google account better than 99% of bank accounts
I literally said 2FA over SMS is not secure because of weaknesses in the GSM protocol.
It’s still more secure than username + password alone, but that’s it.
Sure, but afaik all EU banks require a phone number so they can send OTPs using your phone for transaction auth. This is a mandate of PSD2.
My disagreement is with your last paragraph. Because of this regulation, banks are horrendously insecure. If I refuse to enter a phone number when signing up for a bank account, I literally cannot get a bank account in Europe. That’s insecure despite the user, not because of the user.
It think you’re confusing security (in terms of how easy it is to impersonate you to access your bank account) with privacy and the level of requirements on the user that go with it - the impact on banking security of the bank having your phone number is basically zero since generally lots individuals and companies who are far less security conscious than banks have that number.
That said, I think you make a good point (people shouldn’t need a mobile phone to be able to use online banking and even if they do have one, they shouldn’t need to provide it to the bank) and I agree with that point, though it’s parallel to the point I’m making rather than going against it.
I certainly don’t see how that collides with the last paragraph of my original post which is about how the original thread poster has problems working with banks which “require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking” which is an element of the most secure method of all (which I described in my original post) and is not at all 2FA but something altogether different and hence does not require providing a person’s phone to the bank. I mean, some banks might put 2FA on top of that challenge-response card authentication methods, but they’re not required to do so in Europe (I know, because one of the banks in Europe with which I have an account uses that method and has no 2FA, whilst a different one has 2FA instead of that method) - as far as I know (not sure, though) banks in Europe are only forced to use 2FA if all they had before that for “security” was something even worse such as username + password authentication, because without those regulations plenty of banks would still be using said even worse method (certainly that was the case with my second bank, who back in the late 2010s still used ridiculously insecure online authentication and only started using 2FA because they were forced to)
Transmitting an OTP to the user is a security risk.
Banks in the EU are, in fact, forced to implement 2FA using phone numbers as part of “dynamic linking” requirement of PSD2, which makes more secure methods of 2FA (like TOTP) not allowed
In Germany they’re called TAN generators if you want to learn more
Crazy how the response is to completely gaslight you about what the real issue is
That’s pretty typical when its a low level machine learning algorithm that flagged the account. Usually the support rep legitimately doesn’t know, and you’ll get stuck in an infinite loop
Banks seem to be hit or miss, happy that mine works. Would rather switch Banks than use a stock Rom, though.
All the Uber stuff works in Browser, both eats and their fake taxi stuff.
Not having a subtle reminder to eat at McDonald’s is probably better for you.
Honestly, if your app could be a website, and includes services not on your website, fuck you, I’m gonna go to the competition.
So, uh, the next version of GrapheneOS will probably come with some Android OS version spoofing tech that solves this - if there isn’t something on F-Droid already.
No it won’t. Or at least they said on BlueSky that if there had been a work around for this they would have solved it already.
What aboit downloading thw app feom Aurora Store? I think that would solve most of the problems
How would that change anything?
I mean remote attestation is cryptographically secure (unless there’s some temp implementation vulnerability).
Use the websites whenever you can. That’s what I do at least. Although I had to stop using Lyft entirely, because they stopped supporting rides from their website apparently. And that leaves just Uber. I actually left my bank for a similar reason. It supported my phone just fine, and it worked without Google Play Services, but the website wouldn’t let me do everything that the app would, and the app required that I have Aurora Store to download their banking app from the Google Play Store, and I wanted to get away from that, so I switched banks so that I could use the bank website instead. From what I can tell, you run into this kind of stuff a lot with FinTech apps. But if you use older banks, like Discover or Wells Fargo or things like that, they tend to work better. Maybe because they’re not up with the newest technology, LOL.
Yeah Revolut is also the kinda app that is almost only a mobile app, not much you can do with their website, last i checked.
lol, I’ve observed the same.
Fancy “Digital Wallet” thingy is absolutely decked out in Root detection, meanwhile my older, physical bank’s app doesn’t give a fuck.I’ve never too fond on the idea of a 100% digital bank so no loss for me!
Apparently, they don’t need my business. Acceptable.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the shittiest companies are those, who enforce Google’s broken and monopolistic “Play Integrity” API. Revolut has connections to Russia, McDonalds supports the Israeli genocide in Palestine and Authy has always just been a massive piece of shit, not even allowing users to export their TOTP seeds. These are three companies I would NEVER even consider using anyway.
And “Play Integrity” API actually does NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING for your security as an end user.
You use an outdated, unpatched Android version with multiple severe, publicly known exploits on an insecure device?
Google doesn’t give a single fuck.
You use the newest version of Android with all the patches applied on Google’s own hardware, with a locked boot loader and a hardened operating system?
That’s not allowed by the “Play Integrity” API.
It’s only purpose is to serve Google’s monopolistic business interests.Hear hear!
fuk em keep using it
If you log out of your account it’s said you can’t log back in.
take your money over to their competitors