I am not liking this level of engagement you are doing. It feels suspicious and agenda based.

Attack the message rather than the messenger

You seem to do the opposite. I agree those people suck, but I don't agree that implies their work sucks.

I think you are the one favouring Graphene propaganda here, and attacking me on their behalf. This debatebro pervert behaviour of yours is not looking very good to me.

Out of the box means what you get right after installing the ROM. It's the set of defaults.

Getting those defaults aka flashing a custom ROM is too risky, can brick hundreds of dollars for people, and is not easy to do compared to basic ADB instructions.

Modifying app permissions and using a strong firewall can be done without root

It's still not going to get you everything GrapheneOS, DivestOS, or CalyxOS provide. A firewall isn't going to protect you from an app accessing files it shouldn't, memory exploits from an attacker, or fingerprinting with your MAC and IP address.

Custom ROMs provide a level of protection that users messing with permissions and firewall settings won't get. Here's how I see it, using the Pareto principle:

Those points you said here are incorrect. Performing those actions without root provide everything these fancy custom ROMs provide, except without bricking and other unverifiable risks. Not everyone can read source code. Moreover, you claiming Pareto's principle here is so far from reality, it almost feels dishonest and a dig at how I tend to utilise this principle. Non root hardening methods objectively net a user 99-100% benefits of a custom ROM, and that 1% differs for builds like LineageOS that allow rooting and further control, not locked user hostile builds like Graphene.

Either you ate up propaganda about privacy and security, or you have some fishy intentions here. Let's assume benefit of doubt. All your arguments are inclined in a particular direction, and first 3 of 4 points have zero logic in them.

He did all the development needed to be done.

I don't see how that's relevant at all. Linux was incredibly insecure, had very liked hardware support, etc until others joined.

Torvalds knows enough about security, among other elements, to create Linux kernel. Nobody will take you seriously with such arguments. Torvalds already has called "security" zealots "masturbating monkeys" aptly, which included Brad Spengler, madaidan and others. Micay and his minions love to shill grsecurity crap, and it sounds like the infatuation of a fresher CS university student. You sound infatuated towards Graphene.

Google partnership is avoided by other custom build makers like LineageOS for a reason

Yeah, cost. I don't know the requirements, but I know there's a trust system there. If you break the embargo and release early

There is zero cost paid by Micay, firstly, as far as money goes. Secondly, the requirements of getting embargo beta patches are not as simple as you think. You need some kind of affiliation with Google, or soul selling, to have that.

Perhaps those other projects just don't have the manpower, organization, or funds to get a partnership.

Are you claiming LineageOS team has less brain and power than Graphene, which is relatively barely any work of Micay? Or did LineageOS and other projects refuse to sell soul to Google?

Tor cares more about privacy and anonymity than security, and Firefox likely provides a stronger base for that. But security is another issue entirely.

Tor Project cares enough about security to make stuff like Graphene look like a meaningless joke. The Snowden guy you talked about himself used TailsOS during his work and while fleeing from US friendly extrajudicial countries.

I think I cannot take you seriously due to this point, and want to end this pervert debating. But let me see... I will tolerate this a bit more.

DivestOS

DivestOS developer banned me on behest of Micay's threat, that if I was not banned, Tad would have to remove Graphene patches and code from DivestOS, and Tad would be the target of Graphene social media army harassment. I think that level of soul selling does not allow me to take Tad's work seriously. It also proves Graphene is not openly licensed, but rather licensed based on Micay's personal whims, but that is another point.

There is legitimacy in his stuff like browser table, but the conclusion is outright wrong that Chromium is better. Firefox is much better than Chromium in that it has no leaks and works as intended, both on desktop and mobile. And his research concerns exclusively Android.

It risks bricking

That's not a security or privacy issue, and is essentially the same across custom ROM vendors.

It is, when a bricked phone does not even allow user to do anything, waste money and have privacy and security crippled anyway. When there is no phone, enjoy all that loads of privacy with no communication device. It sounds like a joke to me.

My guess is that this shutter sound issue is from upstream, and likely [only takes effect in Japan

This is not upstream but a Graphene only risk. It was inserted without community consensus. And this weird thing works everywhere. It was probably made to make Pixel+Graphene users have a target on their back and out themselves, but I refrain from claiming that since it feels too far fetched to me.

Android gives users and apps a lot more system features, so the attack surface is much larger. I'd have to look at the report

https://www.wired.com/story/android-zero-day-more-than-ios-zerodium/

Zerodium is a big security firm. And Android's zero days should cost lesser since there should be many of them, but it is the opposite. Android open model surpassed iOS obscurity model long ago.

Apple is sketchy because it's closed, Android is sketchy because it's run by an ad firm and tons of data is run through Google's servers (notifications, Play services, etc).

Disable GMS related packages. GSF seems to push messages locally, and only ping servers when there is some push notification. Probably this allows metadata leaking, so it is a concern for those paranoid about metadata. Android allows everything with or without root.

Every phone has proprietary hardware they won't open up, the most important of which is the modem. Even Linux phones have this issue. So I have to ask myself what Google gets out of screwing me with their security chip.

Google/Apple have one extra "security" proprietary chip, which processes your data. Also, Google is not an enemy in your threat model, it seems, if that is your question. Questions like this is the process called threat modelling, which I nudge people to work on first.

That said, if you know of a provably more secure device, I'm so ears.

This was from 2020. Huawei’s hardware according to BlackHat Pwn2Own 2017-2020, has been largely safe on par with “secure” Pixels. See page 5 of PDF for phonemaker brands. 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

You may ask what is Pwn2Own? This is an annual event in Black Hat annual hacker event. I am unsure if there is a newer one that happened since COVID. Pixel fares better than most Androids, admittedly, but is not bulletproof, and has NSA backdooring risk. I prefer Huawei phones without preloaded Google services, since Western intelligence agencies are in my threat model as hostile actors.

Nevermind, I looked 2023 Toronto Pwn2Own. Since Huawei does not have Google services, it probably was not tried by hackers as many western people would not use it over Pixel, Samsung, Xiaomi or iPhone. Pixel and iPhone fared decently, while Samsung fared the worst. Xiaomi was a bit better than Samsung at security, but behind the former two. https://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-s23-hacked-pwn2own-3379226/

I do not yet assume you have bad intentions, but the debating is getting too rubberbandy for me, considering this is way too usual stuff for me that I keep tabs on.