Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
If people want an insecure device not meeting the baseline security requirements, then what they want isn't GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS isn't going to roll back our firmware/hardware security standards by 5 years to below Pixel 2 standards or even earlier than that. Missing the point.
1
Replying to
GrapheneOS requires high quality hardware/firmware and device support code meeting requirements for it. If you want us to support a non-Pixel device, it's on you to find a device meeting the requirements. We don't think there's currently a non-Pixel device coming close to that.
1
Replying to
Please read twitter.com/grapheneos/sta in addition to the information in the FAQ at grapheneos.org/faq#device-sup. If you filed an issue about this kind of thing it would just be tagged as a question and closed. It's not an actionable feature request and definitely isn't a bug.
Quote Tweet
We're hopeful the recent attention will help us with finding hardware partners with aligned goals. It's a requirement for the devices to be at least as secure as a Pixel. That includes a modern mobile SoC and a comparable secure element to the Titan M implementing the same APIs.
Show this thread