cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15995282

Real unfortunate news for GrapheneOS users as Revolut has decided to ban the use of ‘non-google’ approved OSes. This is currently being posted about and updated by GrahpeneOS over at Bluesky for those who want to follow it more closely.

Edit: had to change the title, originally it said Uber too but I cannot find back to the source of ether that’s true or not…

  • zako@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the problem here is not the banks or apps, the problem is Google Play Integrity API, which is supposed to enforce to run apps in secured phones and it is used to ban secured ROMs such as GrapheneOS and it allows to run apps on outdated phones without security patches.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK McDonald’s, I will not use your most cost effective ordering method. I guess I will just have to order my 10 individually custom cheeseburgers at the counter instead. I might have to have e the order read back, and change my mind about a few burgers.

  • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This makes me want to use GrapheneOS more. If the dataminers don’t want you to use it then it must be doing something right.

          • ryannathans@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Someone installing graphene os for security shouldn’t be trusting random second/third/etc hand hardware lol

              • Telex@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hypothetically the hardware could have been modified, but that would take some insane level of a determined attacker to be fabricating modified pixels just to sell them on the used market.

                • Anivia@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, this would only be a concern for targeted attacks by state actors, in which case not even buying new would be safe.

                  Thinking about it, in such a scenario buying used may even be safer

      • Realitätsverlust@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s only officially supported on google phones because sadly those are the only ones that are not modified to fuck which makes installing and supporting other OS’es way too much work.

        Giving google money once for a device is not a problem from a privacy or security standpoint.

        • Samsy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s correct, but not the reason grapheneOS chooses only pixel phones. It’s the level of hardware security features.

          • Telex@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also unlockable and presumably has well working builds. It’s not just graphene, but just about every Android project it there that’s best supported on pixels. Other manufacturers have a crazy variety of locking schemes and required tools. Each one is a nightmare to support.

            • orange@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              For GrapheneOS, it’s primarily that it’s re-lockable. That’s why other unlockable phones aren’t supported.

              The GrapheneOS install process sets new OS signing keys so you can lock the phone again and get full verified boot. However, most manufacturers haven’t implemented this feature.

              • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                What do you get, app/feature wise for verified boot vs. Play integrity app? Does it increase the amount of apps that work on it?

                • orange@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, Play Integrity intentionally checks if it’s a Google-approved key. Android itself has an API to check verified boot and gives info on the signing key - most devs just want to know verified boot is working.

                  I feel Play Integrity has a short life ahead of if competition authorities realise how exactly it works. “Anti-competitive” is the first thing policy-minded folks think when I explain the API to them.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand, it makes it easy to find which apps aren’t to be trusted with your data.