>Traditional desktop hardware, firmware and operating systems are far less secure than an iPhone/Pixel and iOS/AOSP.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114908889880074227

>>106161874 (OP)
Ah yes, a third party OS provider for phones telling people that phones are more secure. How convenient. Of course the driver blobs, that he has no idea of, are far more better written than those on traditional hardware! Manufacturers are just that nice to us on phones even though there's no laws stipulating it!!

>>106161932
>>106161874 (OP)
Also the idea that phones get more up to date firmware is a joke when after 2-3 years vendors straight up stop supporting them with the exception of a few like Samshit and Apple that will at least give security updates up to 5

Windows 11 may have TPM, Secure Boot and Pluton but they have AI-hallucinated security vulnerabilities in the code. Windows gets "security updates" every month yet it still gets ransomwared. "The Maniac is in the Mailbox".

>>106161874 (OP)
What?
Why is he assuming that the laptop drivers haven't been patched for those issues?
Is he stupid?

>the guy who makes modified phone OS has a bias
k

>>106161874 (OP)
> recommends using mobile device with proprietary security chips
> "they're totally safe and we should ignore them" - daniel the talentless schizo.

>>106162136
> makes
strong word for a reskin and debloat, that anyone can do to any android os, if they have root access.

>>106161874 (OP)
he's not wrong though...

>>106162155
everything he wrote is unfounded nonsense. this is why he is a lolcow and is the reason why anons keep making lolcow threads about this cringe os.

Safety is associated with lack of freedom. Which way white man?

>>106162179
wrong. you can have the best of both worlds, but it just so happens their flavor of (((safety))) means forcing you into their wholly-controlled markets where they can rent-seek you freely.

Also why is it that Xbox is more secure than Windows? It can only mean that Microsoft wants Windows to be pirated vs pirating Xbox games.

>>106162136
Bias or alternative reality?

>>106161932
>>106161966
GrapheneOS stops supporting once the security updates stop coming in. So, not sure what point you're making you fucking retards.

>>106161874 (OP)
They also shill iphones for some reason:

>An iPhone is the next best choice for a private and secure smartphone.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private/3

At least I can securely use admin rights on my own computer without the whole security model falling down lmao
enjoy your locked bootloaders

>>106162329
> for a private and secure smartphone
>private
I can't take them seriously anymore, this is such a blatant lie that I'm not even going to discuss it.

>>106162179
Only glowfags want this association.
Maybe in the real world, you can argue:
>oh yeah? But you don't have the freedom to murder people! If everybody would have that freedom, you would be less safe, chud!
But in electronics and software, less freedom pretty much always, without fail, leads to less safety.
In the context of Graphene OS, we have a decade of Titan M vulnerabilities that wouldn't have been an issue if it would be OpenSource, or if you wouldn't have that chip in the first place.

>>106162329
>>106162429
Both of you are colossal morons.

>>106162155
sure, lets cut his post down:

>No, it's not safe
wrong
>It will have a ton of unpatched vulnerabilities
less than a new device
>including for WiFi
what?
>Bluetooth
glowfag bullshit nobody should use
>and the GPU
nobody cares about memory vulnerabilities on a GPU, GPUs are an extremely stupid target
>Firmware updates are important
What is more important, is to cut down the amount of firmware blobs you use.
The radio firmware on a Pixel 7 is 50 MB, the firmware for my laptops Wifi is 500 kB
>security standards and expectations for mobile are far higher than desktops
wrong
>Traditional desktop hardware, firmware and operating systems are far less secure
wrong

>>106162329
>>106162429
This pic was always right

lmao'ing @ this guy
PCs had TPM, Secure Boot, and SELinux years before phones.
The only edge phones have is their Orwellian app stores and sandboxing, which PCs can do too.
And even then, Facebook spent years exploiting the fact that apps could bind to localhost without firewall prompts, as long as they had internet permissions.
Absolute joke.

>>106161932
>DUDE THEY LIKE SHOT... LE LASERS AT SOME CHIP IT'S SO SECURE
Yes this is seriously what they claim. I once made the mistake of listening to some podcast with the chief retard and they spent half an hour gushing about how secure it MUST be because they shot lasers at some TPM chip or something.

>>106161874 (OP)
Yes that's correct. See:

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/

Wait I forgot that /g/ is now full of tech-illiterate underage tourists kek.

>>106162668
>((Whonix dev))
Don't make me tap the sign >>106162595

>>106162626
keeek and just as I say this 4 CVEs on Gigabyte motherboards.
fucking asians just can't make proper software.

>>106161874 (OP)
>mitigations=off
>no microcode updates
>old bios
>x11
>short password
>echo permit nopass keepenv :wheel > /etc/doas.conf
anything more i could do to make my computing even comfier?

>>106163677
install windows xp

>>106162725
>>106162595
>shartypedo "meme"
I'm doing everything on the right now.

>>106162668
>madaitrans
brb installing windows 10s on all my servers for maximum SECOOOREEETEYYY

>>106163947
why quotes around meme

>>106161874 (OP)
The thing phones are secure from is the user. They're "safe" and "secure" by taking as much control and freedom away from the user as possible.

>>106161874 (OP)
desktopcels... our response?

>>106161874 (OP)
still not buying jewgle hardware

>>106162051
>Is he stupid?
Yes.

>>106162668
This site has a "security and privacy" guide that gives poor advice with respect to encryption. Bitlocker and File Vault are proprietary and can therefore be assumed to have backdoors. Veracrypt should be preferred on all platforms due to the fact that it is not only open source, but also supports hidden volumes for deniable encryption.

>>106163340
>dude, trust me! smartphone internals are safe and free from hardware-level vulnerabilities
>the CEO of my favorite trustworthy mobile brand just confirmed it to me!

>>106161874 (OP)
>>106162668
Thanks, but I'll continue to use Firefox on my Linux desktop.

True. Desktop/server OSes don't run apps in sandboxed and capped down JVMs like J2ME/Blackberry/Android. Android and iOS are not completely secure though, they still allow running native C/C++ apps. Still better protected than your average corporate machine.

Can any tech literate anon with intelligence equivalent to AI confirm that smartphones are more secure than PC?

>>106165910
Depends on your threat model, and how much you're willing to sacrifice usability for security.

The number one threat model is the United States government. As such, it does not make sense to use software and hardware that they are able to inject backdoors into regardless of technical superiority in other areas. For this reason I don't use my phone for anything that matters. If you don't care and the government (which is foolish, even if you think you are currently not a problem for them), then the sandbox model offered by phones will help protect you against ordinary criminals much better. Provided you don't deliberately break the sandbox.

>>106161874 (OP)
Is the baseband not a thing anymore? Sounds like more graphene bullshit.