You don’t recommend Google pixels and yet you recommend CalyxOS which uses only pixels.
There exist people who have purchased a Google Pixel already, and may ask me for help with achieving better privacy. I am not going to tell these people to sell off their Pixel, unless 5 Eyes is a threat adversary for them.
. I’d would be more honest if you refuse to suggest both OS because they both use pixels
Your version of honesty is not realistic, and does not help people in reality.
You refuse to admit that titan M it’s not a black box even if I prove you that google will rewards anyone who can find an exploit, of course that means that is not a black box.
Sorry but that is not what being closed source hardware means. Learn about software and hardware testing in an academic manner, as I did during my degree. And this argument “just hack it 1337 haxorman else shut up” is reductio ad absurdum, it is a dumb argument.
Every Phones comes with closed source components, you have to deal with.
“Every phone comes with closed source hardware so one more closed source hardware layer does not matter.” “They are taking our camera permission, let us give them microphone permission too, why does it matter?”
Your logic is utterly flawed. Please learn about how to reduce attack surface. Titan M is not some kind of open TPM chip that you can customise or disable.
You suggest huawei over pixels for no reason despite you know that install a custom os on huawei destroy completely the security model of android. Moreover, huawei delays security updates and lacks long time supports.
Verified boot working as intended assumes hardware comes from a non compromised source. This seems unlikely to be confirmed, especially with American companies that at this point have baked in backdoors left and right, otherwise they have hacked security enclave chips. You can trust USA as much as you want, but I will be your enemy if you try to shill that to others blindly.
You can read closed source line by line, it’s called reverse engineering. Open source it’s an ideology, it’s about freedom, which is good , but it’s not equal to security and privacy, it’s just a misconception.
Yup, you are an anti FOSS shill most likely. Closed source analysis can only be done via blackbox testing, and closed source is not transparent.
If open source is not equal to privacy or security, then by that logic closed source everything sure as hell is pure malware.
Your source doesn’t counter what I linked about huawei. National Bureau of Asian Research have some kind of interesting against China and so they are spread misinformation about huawei, right? But did you actually linked some article that counter the NBAR research? No
Are you recommending people to rely on 5 Eyes/Anglosphere think tank funded research as your counter points against Chinese companies? I proved how the leading people of NBR are directly linked to French military. This is purely a dishonest maligning attempt with no academic rigour.
You falsely accuse me to be something that I’m not because you can’t counter the source I linked.
I prove each and every point I made, and countered your arguments. You cannot get away with staying in denial mode, when everything is clear as day. You are the one shilling closed source over open source ideology. You are the one who cites madaidan’s FUD as authentic information, and then ignore counter proofs. You are the one spreading misinformation about open source workings. You are the one using think tank articles to prove your points. Your comments partially look like advertisements for GrapheneOS at this point. I am not doing any of this.
There exist people who have purchased a Google Pixel already, and may ask me for help with achieving better privacy. I am not going to tell these people to sell off their Pixel, unless 5 Eyes is a threat adversary for them.
Your version of honesty is not realistic, and does not help people in reality.
Sorry but that is not what being closed source hardware means. Learn about software and hardware testing in an academic manner, as I did during my degree. And this argument “just hack it 1337 haxorman else shut up” is reductio ad absurdum, it is a dumb argument.
“Every phone comes with closed source hardware so one more closed source hardware layer does not matter.” “They are taking our camera permission, let us give them microphone permission too, why does it matter?”
Your logic is utterly flawed. Please learn about how to reduce attack surface. Titan M is not some kind of open TPM chip that you can customise or disable.
Huawei’s security, according to BlackHat hackers, is same as that of Pixels. https://github.com/secmob/TiYunZong-An-Exploit-Chain-to-Remotely-Root-Modern-Android-Devices/raw/master/us-20-Gong-TiYunZong-An-Exploit-Chain-to-Remotely-Root-Modern-Android-Devices.pdf
Verified boot working as intended assumes hardware comes from a non compromised source. This seems unlikely to be confirmed, especially with American companies that at this point have baked in backdoors left and right, otherwise they have hacked security enclave chips. You can trust USA as much as you want, but I will be your enemy if you try to shill that to others blindly.
Yup, you are an anti FOSS shill most likely. Closed source analysis can only be done via blackbox testing, and closed source is not transparent.
If open source is not equal to privacy or security, then by that logic closed source everything sure as hell is pure malware.
Are you recommending people to rely on 5 Eyes/Anglosphere think tank funded research as your counter points against Chinese companies? I proved how the leading people of NBR are directly linked to French military. This is purely a dishonest maligning attempt with no academic rigour.
I prove each and every point I made, and countered your arguments. You cannot get away with staying in denial mode, when everything is clear as day. You are the one shilling closed source over open source ideology. You are the one who cites madaidan’s FUD as authentic information, and then ignore counter proofs. You are the one spreading misinformation about open source workings. You are the one using think tank articles to prove your points. Your comments partially look like advertisements for GrapheneOS at this point. I am not doing any of this.