by strcat | 2025-07-25 21:23:16+00:00
> CalyxOS, which not only suffers from the same "problems" you criticize in GrapheneOS, but is also inferior in every way when it comes to security and privacy?

CalyxOS lacks the current driver/firmware patches and isn't a hardened OS with similar privacy and security patches. There are plenty of worse options but people are better off using an iPhone.

Hardware and firmware is closed source in general and the complexity of that dwarfs a few dozen closed source driver libraries used on top of open source kernel drivers. Pixels have those libraries built with debug symbols and they're not hard to review. It's not obfuscated code and you're given the function names, etc.

Those few dozen mostly quite small libraries being open source instead of closed source with debug symbols would be nice and is something we want. With an OEM partnership, we can have access to the sources and build them with hardening even without those being open source yet. We can likely include debug symbols just as Google did for the most part on Snapdragon Pixels. Convincing a company like Qualcomm to open source those would be ideal, but it's far from being at the top of a rational list of privacy and security improvements which could be made.

> This does not make sense at all.

You can see he's once again making a baseless claim that I'm schizophrenic, delusional, etc. in his post here as he has done many times before. There's also the baseless claim that I believe wild conspiracy theories. It's not me making unsubstantiated claims about backdoors and proposing approaches to prevent it which disregard the hardware and firmware to focus on the OS having reproducible builds, which would not stop malicious changes hidden at a source code level. I don't think Hacker News should permit baselessly claiming someone is schizophrenic. It's not reasonable discourse, and neither is linking what's clearly harassment content from a Kiwi Farms as happens here regularly. I've never claimed GrapheneOS prevents hypothetical backdoors and certainly wouldn't claim reproducible builds (which we have) can somehow we used to prevent it for the OS.

We can make more use of the reproducible builds but enforcing anything based on it requires early access and more resources to fix reproducibility issues early to avoid delaying security updates. It will not avoid trust in the OS developers and the projects it uses itself. It can only reduce trust in the build infrastructure and people involved. Open source does not prevent backdoors. The small amount of closed source library code for supporting a modern smartphone SoC, etc. is also quite insignificant compared to the overall hardware and firmware complexity. Reviewing those libraries is also quite doable. Open source is not a hard requirement to review something, particularly with debug builds for most of it and no obfuscation. When we find bugs in this code with MTE, we get nice tracebacks with the function names due to the debug symbols. It's hard for us to make our own fixes for it, but not impossible. We would prefer if they were open source, but it's FAR from the most pressing issue and is something SoC vendors could quickly solve if convinced to do so.