Pixels are by far the most secure Android devices and currently the only ones competing with the security of an iPhone. They have a minimum guarantee of 7 years of support from launch which is a long time from now. There are several generations of upcoming Pixels already in development and testing. - ThreadSky

grapheneos.org • 38 days ago

Pixels are by far the most secure Android devices and currently the only ones competing with the security of an iPhone. They have a minimum guarantee of 7 years of support from launch which is a long time from now. There are several generations of upcoming Pixels already in development and testing.

Comments

grapheneos.org•38 days ago

We don't have a reason to support insecure devices where we can't provide users with proper protection from basic commercial exploits widely used around the world.

We'll also continue working towards having our own hardware in partnership with an OEM. They need to be able to make a secure device.

cutedark.bsky.social•31 days ago

But aren't Samsung devices also on the same level? They also get 7 years of updates and get them just as quickly as Google devices.

grapheneos.org•31 days ago

> But aren't Samsung devices also on the same level?

No, they don't meet our security requirements.

> They also get 7 years of updates and get them just as quickly as Google devices.

Those aren't the same kinds of updates. Partial security backports aren't the Android full security patches.

grapheneos.org•31 days ago

Samsung devices do not meet all of the security requirements listed as https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. No hardware memory tagging, no reset attack mitigation and other missing features. They also have a much weaker secure element which has been exploited by companies like Cellebrite already.

grapheneos.org•31 days ago

Android has a new monthly, quarterly or yearly release each month. The monthly security backports to older releases are a backport of most High and Critical severity patches to Android 12, 12L, 13, 14 and 15. Those are no the full security patches. Our requirements list is clear about what's needed.

grapheneos.org•31 days ago

Samsung also doesn't provide serious non-stock OS support. They cripple their devices if you unlock them including disabling many security features. They burn an efuse which permanently cripples it. Even if you go back to the stock OS and lock the device with it again, security features are missing.

cutedark.bsky.social•30 days ago

Does this also apply to the latest S25 series? I can't imagine that these above 1000 € high-end devices can't keep up with the security of Pixel 9 or iPhone 16...? And as far as I know, Google and Samsung co-operate better on updates than any other Android device manufacturer?

grapheneos.org•30 days ago

Samsung flagships are missing several of our security requirements including hardware memory tagging. Their secure element also isn't only the same level as Pixels or iPhones. Cellebrite is successfully bypassing Samsung's secure element to do brute force attacks, unlike iPhone 12+ and Pixel 6+.

grapheneos.org•30 days ago

Samsung doesn't provide any serious support for using another OS. They cripple their devices if you use another OS including disabling a bunch of security features. Samsung hardware is the next most secure Android hardware after Pixels but it's completely ruined if you don't use the stock OS.

cutedark.bsky.social•30 days ago

They even got post quantum crypto, sth the Google pixel don't have.

https://www.sammobile.com/news/galaxy-s25-post-quantum-cryptography-other-security-features/

grapheneos.org•30 days ago

That's not true. Pixels have post-quantum cryptography for disk encryption and the encryption used between the SoC and secure element. AES256 is post-quantum cryptography. There's post-quantum cryptography in Chromium for TLS (HTTPS, etc.) and that's being used by Vanadium for servers with it.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply