Daniel Micay just can't stop winning. He's currently OBLITERADING /e/OS developers. First LineageOS, then CalyxOS, now /e/. Seems like GrapheneOS will be the last one standing.

quick rundown on /e/os and graphene?

>>105954482
About their drama? No clue but Graphene is the most secure phone OS we currently have available, /e/OS is a fork of lineage which did some further degoogling.
Noteworthy about eOS is its pre-installed software. Namely, their awful launcher and ambiguous software store. The biggest drawback for Graphene is their reliance on google pixel phones which makes it harder to install graphene and lets some schizos run wild with theories about how this is controlled opposition, comes directly from israel to circumcise your kids etc.

>most secure OS
>on a device required by law to have hardware backdoor
LOL never buying your baseband chipped personal spying+tracking device faggot.

>>105954540
cite the law in question (you won't)

Which is the least jewish? That's the one I support.

>>105954482
Graphene is where all the actual code for this shit comes from.

>>105954375 (OP)
> criticise his slop
> NOOO YOU'RE PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME!
> I AM THE VICTIM!
most pathetic fucker i've ever seen in OS world. he really thinks he's a genius for taking an operating system he didn't code and customized the fuck out of it, that any baboon can do with a rooted android using stock ROMs. he has never recovered since louis rossman shit on him.

Last I heard the graphene cuck was having a meltie, what changed if any?

>>105954872
>nobody is personally attacking this lunatic schizoprenic fucker that didn't even do anything impressive
uh-huh

>>105954925
> really is this new to the world daniel the schizo
follow the thread, fatty.

>>105954925
he did impressive by actually taking some measures of security seriously that noone cared to do before. but that's it. and he lies about the final product being totally secure (its security depends on proprietary components)

>>105954897
He claimed to have stepped down from the project but just stopped using his personal account and now has melt downs and attacks from the generic Graphene logins. He's a fucking idiot

>>105954507
>Quick rundown
>No idea
Why even post

>>105954931
case in point

>>105954945
>and he lies about the final product being totally secure
he doesn't. you cannot show me any source for this claim.

>>105954948
>He claimed to have stepped down from the project
Wrong. He stepped down as head of GrapheneOS. Not from the project altogether.

>>105955213
>he doesn't. you cannot show me any source for this claim.
>>105954610

>>105955229
what does the head developer do differently from other devs

This makes me happy I never bought any smartphones.

>>105955245
I accept your concession.

>>105955257
It's about trust. Because Rossmann was scared Micay would put something malicious into the OS to get back at him. Now they are building the OS from source independently and verifying that it's the same. So nobody can put anything into the releases that's not in the (open) source.

>>105955287
>I accept your concession.
more like I have no single argument while also being able to type 900 words graphene shilling on my another post to counterargue some trivial shit

>>105955329
>daniel micay claims that GrapheneOS is totally secure
<show proof where he does so
>here is a completely unrelated post
<that's not proof
>you have no argument
???

the glowies are not sending their best today

>>105955229
The weird thing with Graphene is that no matter where you go on the internet Daniel is there to abuse anyone who criticises it. Very abnormal behaviour Daniel.

>>105954375 (OP)
buy an ad

>>105955499
heavily focusing on protecting users against attackers exploiting unknown (0 day) vulnerabilities means exactly that. There are no constraints in this sentence so he means exactly that grapheneOS has high risk threat model where there are corpos against you, that also have posession of your firmware encryption keys for root of trust, because they are the ones manufacturing your blackbox proprietary platform. it's straight out a lie to claim you're trying to secure against unknown vulnerabilities when your platform doesn't even have a clear trust. It's also hypocrisy to seethe on internet when someone make a slightly untrue statement about your project when you're telling bullshits like this on your actual website.

>>105955548
>no matter where you go on the internet Daniel is there to abuse anyone who criticises it
Weird, isn't it. Almost as if GrapheneOS was one of the most popular Android OSs and it's in fact not Daniel "abusing" you, but random users calling you out on your bullshit.

>>105954482
its a honeypot by google to socially engineer privacy seeking people into one heavily monitored dataset instead of having to be pulled painfully like teeth out of the aggregate of normalfag data

>>105955640
meds

>>105955632
Strawmanning again, I see.
Micay never claimed absolute guaranteed security from each and everyone for all time. He's very clear about minimizing attack surface and giving you the best attempt at security to the best of current knowledge.

And even if someone would break the secure element (if by magic encryption keys for root of trust or a backdoor or a security vulnerability) that helps very little. Because decryption keys are not stored in plain text, but derived using your passphrase/PIN. In a high-level threat model you use a strong passphrase and turn off your phone whenever not in use. So they can exploit the OS and hardware all they want, they won't get your data without the passphrase.

>>105955732
>Strawmanning again, I see.
you really like to use that word where it's not appropriate
>Micay never claimed absolute guaranteed security
have you not read my post, at all? I mean you have to be a retard to not see the point here.
saying that you heavily focus on preventing unknown vulnerabilities with paranthesising the 0-day like as if it's not enough to just tell 'unknown', messages that you really give a shit about security. And without any constraint stated in the same sentence, it means they have a high risk threat model. It's deceiving the end user at best. They seem to be so serious about this project and go into endless discussions online over the tiniest slightest untruths but yet they omit their actual threat model on their website and say they are against 0-day vulns as a whole. Bullshit.
>And even if someone would break the secure element (if by magic encryption keys for root of trust or a backdoor or a security vulnerability) that helps very little. Because decryption keys are not stored in plain text, but derived using your passphrase/PIN. In a high-level threat model you use a strong passphrase and turn off your phone whenever not in use. So they can exploit the OS and hardware all they want, they won't get your data without the passphrase.
I don't know what kind of retarded thing you heard from them but this is not true. The manufacturer of the platform has total control over it. They can unlock your bootloader remotely (like Xiaomi do in request). The hardware is secure vault only against you and not against them.
>Because decryption keys are not stored in plain text, but derived using your passphrase/PIN.
wtf? holy shit. Did you enter your (unexisting) passphrase the first time you bought your phone so that it could verify its firmware and bootloader? Actually try to learn how things work at that level like firmware and bootblock integrity

>>105954897
Nothing, he has a melt every few days about everything.

>>105955635
No it's actually just Daniel. He does it across Reddit, hacker news, GitHub comments, YouTube , basically anything with a comment section he is there to attack anyone who criticises the shitty software.

Anti-Graphene shills are glowies earning a paycheck or assblasted bikeshed Android fanbois (Lineage, Calyx, /e/OS) seething. I'm going to stay winning on GrapheneOS and Qubes OS you losers!

>>105955877
Remember when he said calxos developers were trying to have him assassinated ? Lmao
Micay is a fucking mental case that needs to an hero

>>105955903
And is this "Daniel" in this thread with us right now?

>>105955908
>Anti-Graphene shills are glowies
how funny the opposite is true with the muh sekurity crowd consisting of people like grapheneos and signal shills and they collectively praise and discredit same things and even have their own blogs where they dicksuck each other. btw signal is literally being runned by glowies with actual 'ex'-glowies in their board.

>>105955855
Oh, I am definitely seeing your "point".

>>105955935
Still exclusively driving GrapheneOS.

>>105955976
youre now going to pretend hes moving his goalpost but I've been watching and its stayed rock solid.

>>105955976
I accept your concession.

>>105955966
>graphene
>signal
You are a jew. Sorry Mr. Room 8200, I have spread Graphene to 7 new users last week. That's 7 more mexican cartel members you fags can't hack and send to CECOT. Eat shit and die pecker head.

>>105955979
That's good because mentally ill schizos need to stick together

>>105955995
Graphene and Cwtch. Signal is glowware, if you have to voice or be itoddler friendly there's simplex. Otherwise Cwtch is Tor based and multiprofile.

>>105956007
>Cwtch
Why would anybody use that over briar

>>105955988
>daniel said X
<no he didn't
>here he said Y
<that's not X
>but you could actually assume that when reading Y that he actually means X
that is of course ignoring all the steps in-between where I already called you out on your dishonesty.

>>105956017
Go to bed Daniel

>>105955995
I'm a 3rd wordler living in a bumfuck nowhere so I have no incentive to damage nor care about you. but you do... so think about it again
>>105956017
it's better for you to stay silent at this point.

>>105956051
>smug pepe
>"no u"
aight, the glowie has officially no more retort

>>105955213
>case in point
surprised you didn't say "not an argument" "i accept your concession" or some other reddit buzzwords.
>>105955287
oh wait he did. that's sad.
> Because Rossmann was scared Micay would put something malicious into the OS to get back at him.
no. it's nobody trusts a mentally unbalanced schizo with security software.
>>105955732
>Micay never claimed absolute guaranteed security from each and everyone for all time.
that was the entire premise of the operating system. to claim isn't, years after the fact to defend your intellectual bankruptcy is hilariously comical. no amount of damage control is going to save your favourite lolcow or his trash operating system people are incredibly wary of installing.. and that's only because daniel is an untrustworthy schizo cunt.

>>105956111
>that was the entire premise of the operating system
No it wasn't, because that's obviously impossible. It was always about being as secure as it can be, while still keeping it usable for everyday operation. It's even explicitly mentioned not to rely on the secure element throttling for high threat-models as it may get broken in the future. To instead use a strong passphrase for this purpose.
And it has been and still is the best choice for a private and secure phone.

>ANOTHER GrapheneOS thread
>resident (((glowie))) appears
>the same glownigger that made 30+ anti-grapheneOS threads in the last two weeks (notice the grapheneosjak / modified screenshot posts in the archives)
>always ad hominens or just straight up lying
>notice how (((they))) never ever recommend a better alternative with sources
>just shit like "use chinkphones duh!"
>retards fall for this glownigger bait EVERY SINGLE TIME
I WILL NEVER STOP USING GRAPHENEOS, FUCKING FEDS!
Stop falling for these low tier baits, fucking gorillaniggers. Check the archives before responding to glowniggers.

>>105956215
>>notice how (((they))) never ever recommend a better alternative with sources
This probably is the biggest sign that it's a complete retard at work here. I genuinely don't believe the feds could employ someone like this for their psyops. Couldn't they even train an AI?

>>105956191
>No it wasn't, because that's obviously impossible.
not it's not impossible, lying grapheneos shill. look at maqp/tfc. It's completely possible to counter glowies with however much mindpower to hack you by doing it through the most fundamental way. Also Heads+Qubes even makes it non-trivial to do evil maid.
>It was always about being as secure as it can be, while still keeping it usable for everyday operation.
that's not what they claim in their website by saying 'we le protect against 0-day vulnerabilities' while also not mentioning any threat model whatsoever.
>>105956215
I don't know what you're talking about. I opened several semi-joking anti-grapheneos threads much before than this and no obvious glowie strongly agreeing with me ever showed up. I have only seen a few people that have come up to threads relating grapheneos, trvthnvke and leave
>notice how (((they))) never ever recommend a better alternative with sources
it's only retards asking the obvious. there are no alternatives for mobile platform, it's a lost cause.

>>105956354
They do protect against 0-day-exploits by hardening. By padding address spaces. By zeroing memory. Exploits which in other cases might be able to access vulnerable memory might achieve nothing on GrapheneOS. It's clear that it doesn't protect against any and all 0-day -exploits, but against some of them. and this strategy does appear to be working as cellebrite till can't crack GrapheneOS.

>>105956420
>cellebrite till can't crack GrapheneOS.
In BFU only, they discussed this in the forums. (which is still better than 99% of other android phones desu)

>>105956420
as you correctly said, it's hardening. and it works only against certain threats. it's definitely not "heavily focusing on protecting users against attackers exploiting unknown (0 day) vulnerabilities" with no mention of threat model.
I know you want to justify them with these excuses but any person that would have spurted this much misinformation against them would be lynched by them to oblivion. I'm just calling them lying hypocrites, not dismissing the actual security work being done.

>>105956481
>as you correctly said, it's hardening. and it works only against certain threats.
It's what they themselves say
>it's definitely not "heavily focusing on protecting users against attackers exploiting unknown (0 day) vulnerabilities"
how so? What more should they do?

>with no mention of threat model.
It works for many threat models. Indeed, you can choose how far you want to take it yourself. By choosing what software to install. What connectivity to enable and automatically turning it off when not in use (bluetooth, nfc, wi-fi). Disabling 2G and/or 5G connectivity. Auto-reboot timer (between a minute and multiple days). Different modes for disabling USB.

>I know you want to justify them with these excuses but any person that would have spurted this much misinformation against them would be lynched by them to oblivion. I'm just calling them lying hypocrites, not dismissing the actual security work being done.
There is no misinformation by the GrapheneOS team.

>>105955640
>honeypot
with this move it's more like they're there to choke out all earnest alternatives for privacy androids then fud any left standing. I predict their pleas to google to sign their os for locked bootloaders will soon be answered (but only for graphene)
graphene should be viewed the same way one would systemd, but if it were actively destructive and harmful to not just the community, but its own users too.

>>105956905
>There is no misinformation by the GrapheneOS team.
there is. and the rest of your post suggests me that you might just be one of them.
again, when they are gonna seethe about the slightest things on the internet, they should start by looking at their own website.

>>105957016
this might actually be true, Idk. The anti-FOSS and anti-user attitude is "very" common among their community even though grapheneOS itself is an open project. You would be surprised to see how negatively they look at the FOSS community.

>>105957081
that is the first ick in any software, when the project is doing what its people vocally oppose.

OSS drama is the gayest shit on the internet even including all the gay porn websites and forums

>>105956009
I like briar, but its one downside is all your contacts know your device's bluetooth address, as it has to be part of your briar profile information that is exchanged. Briar is good, but it needs a switch to spoof that address as 00:00:00:00:00:00 and disable BT transport with that contact.

>>105956215
I am redoubling my pro-Graphene shilling on discord and other forums now in response to the shilling. ALL NATO GOVERNMENTS MUST FALL!

>>105958617
>but it needs a switch to spoof that address as 00:00:00:00:00:00 and disable BT transport with that contact.
Ok yeah that's a legitimate criticism I've had too. I'd prefer focusing on fixing briar before switching to Cwtch but I respect your decision.

>>105954375 (OP)
What the heck os e/os?

my boy daniel doesn't miss.

>>105954375 (OP)
/e/ has their own OS now?

>>105954585
Patriot Act