Back

@ueeu @sailmates They're not alternatives until I can do banking and government authentication without Google Play.

@fsx @ueeu hi Frank, for banking apps, this is very dependent on the bank. Some banks have open API access and allow third parties to develop their own apps. And then some banks dont allow their app to run on rooted phones even if they have google mobile services. For non-android devices like sailfish os, the users keep a list on the forum about which bank app work: https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/banking-apps-on-sailfish-os/18438

@sailmates @ueeu Thanks. I'm tempted to try Sailfish OS for the next phone.

@fxnn Same goes for CalyxOS. Can highly recommend it.

@fsx @ueeu @sailmates @GrapheneOS

@paulk @fxnn @fsx @ueeu @sailmates No, that's not the case. CalyxOS has far less app compatibility than GrapheneOS and not all app functionality will work properly. CalyxOS also isn't a hardened OS and lacks remotely comparable privacy and security. Similar to /e/OS and LineageOS, it reduces privacy and security compared to AOSP, just not as much as /e/OS does. As an example, it's missing the full March 2025 Android and Pixel security patches. Weeks or even months of patch delays isn't safe.

@paulk @fxnn @fsx @ueeu @sailmates

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/113459782313987260 is a recent thread explaining why we use our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer approach instead. We still reimplement Google Play functionality ourselves, but we implement it in a way that's not tied to Google Play and then expand the compatibility layer to optionally or always reroute requests to it from apps if that's needed. We have much higher standards including privacy and security for the code we're adding.

@paulk @fxnn @fsx @ueeu @sailmates

https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point. Highly recommend looking at that as a starting point to understand how extremely different they are from each other. CalyxOS is in the same space as other non-hardened OSes like LineageOS, /e/OS and iodéOS. It's a common misconception that it's similar to GrapheneOS.

@GrapheneOS Thank you for your explanation. I tried setting up e/os on my fairphone4 but that refused to happen because of a "missing update", while the phone was fully up to date. Calyx was the next I found and that installed fine.

@fxnn @fsx @ueeu @sailmates

@paulk @fxnn @fsx @ueeu @sailmates /e/OS is much more insecure than CalyxOS but CalyxOS still lags significantly behind on privacy/security patches and still somewhat rolls back the security model compared to AOSP while creating new privacy issues. They're both in a much different space from GrapheneOS.

We can't support the Fairphone 4 because it doesn't have a secure element, proper driver/firmware patches, has insecure broken verified boot and is missing important security features we use.

@GrapheneOS At least I'm at the most secure level for FP4 then it seems. Unless I slap some Linux Mobile on it.

@paulk

> At least I'm at the most secure level for FP4 then it seems.

Not really.

> Unless I slap some Linux Mobile on it.

Android-based operating systems are mobile Linux distributions. Desktop distributions are far less private and secure than the Android Open Source Project. Most of those aren't providing proper privacy and security patches either, especially for the drivers and firmware.

@GrapheneOS @paulk

What would be the least bad OS on a FP security-wise in your opinion? (I'm aware that they're all problematic/flawed)?

@GrapheneOS @ueeu @sailmates

i just picked up a #Fairphone with #eos !

I'll use #graphene_os on my existing #Pixel

@nico198X @ueeu @sailmates Worth noting that /e/OS has atrocious privacy and security including months of delays for partial security backports and years of delays for full security patches. They don't keep the basic privacy or security model intact either.

Fairphone struggles to keep up with privacy and security patches themselves, but their own 2 OSes do keep the basic privacy/security model intact. We can't support those due to missing patches and security features (no secure element, etc.).

@GrapheneOS @ueeu @sailmates

i appreciate the information! thank you!

@nico198X @ueeu @sailmates Fairphone doesn't meet our minimum security requirements:

* SoC platform from 2021 in the Fairphone 5 that's still ARMv8.2 instead of ARMv9 so it lacks PAC and BTI, and Snapdragon still lacks MTE even with the latest flagship SoC
* no secure element
* 1-2 month delays for security patch backports
* at least 1 year of delay for yearly updates, often more, which means vendor code is built with an older Android version and newer OS versions rely on Treble compatibility

@nico198X @ueeu @sailmates It's also missing various smaller security features we need. Our overall requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. These are all industry standard features but nearly all Android devices are missing at least several. Most Android devices also have poor support for using non-stock operating systems which tends to be correlated with security, i.e. the devices closer to Pixel or iPhone security like Galaxy flagships disallow or cripple alternate OS support.