this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1065 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
75902 readers
3141 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Shame there is no Graphene OS support for it
The biggest downside of Fairphone IMO is that they don't maintain their hardware support in LineageOS and for the retail product then branch development off, add a bit of custom branding and adapt whatever Google requires these days. It would greatly improve custom ROM support in general.
And it doesn't support US bands for TMobile
For 4G. 5G is fine.
T-Mobile supports these bands:
5G: n2/41/71/258/260/261
5G,ER: n25
4GLTE: B4/5/12/71
4GLTE,ER: B25/66
2G,GSM: B2
Fairphone 5 supports these bands:
5G: n1/2/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/41/48/71/77/78
5G,ER: n66
4GLTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/20/28/32/38/40/41/42/48/71
4GLTE,ER: B66
It looks like the Fairphone 5 covers T-Mobile's 5G Frequency Band 1 frequencies (bold), but Frequency Band 2 is not covered (italic).
Regarding 4G, the Fairphone 5 covers all LTE networks (bold) except for extended range band B25 (italics).
It covers some, but not all.
Was thinking the same thing. Not Graphenes fault though but a failing of OEMs to provide what’s necessary.
It has CalyxOS support though. A decent alternative.
Agreed. I was debating between CalyxOS and GrapheneOS, and I ended up w/ GrapheneOS because I ended up picking the Pixel 8 due to the long software support cycle. If I picked any other phone, I would've ended up w/ CalyxOS.
Both are great projects.
Indeed. I am currently waiting for Calyx to be released for my phone, it's a Moto g84, and support seems to be coming along nicely.
I probably would have picked a pixel if I could, but they are not available for sale in my country.
no other manufacturer than google ever will have graphnene os support. their requirements cannot be met unless you are a tech gian, and with exceptionally good connections to the hardware manufacturers
Fairphone brand is basically saying to everyone "Hey look at our generic Android phone with everything you need from Google, including AI stuff and data collection" and when you ask if you can have a privacy friendly features they basically say "Nope, we just do a phone with replaceable parts, that's all. Don't ask for more"
And it would be such good marketing strategy "replaceable parts + privacy"
At least someone commented CalyxOS supports it which seems to be a good alternative to GrapheneOS
You could always go for /e/os though
Edit: Didn't know it was this bad...
/e/os is a security dumpster fire. It's even worse than stock Android. Stay away from it.
Can you explain?
No offense, but that's not what a security dumpster fire is. Security updates are important, of course, but they are also not the biggest deal.
In fact, I bet that the vast majority of users (on Android or otherwise) are lagging way behind in updates anyway.
That is not the only issue, it's just one of the more major ones that shouldn't be dismissed like it's nothing. Another major one is the unlocked bootloader. You can take a look at all the Android ROMS here.
I think people should treat carefully when changing the OS of a mobile device. Changing your OS to something less secure just because you want to shove it to Google and Apple is not enough to warrant it. Better to stay with something safe that you know than with something insecure like /e/OS.
Luckily we have Graphene so you can actually switch to a more secure and private OS that is not made by an American corporation hungry for data.
/e/OS has official builds for the fairphones, you can re-lock the bootloader there, afaik. At least according to this: https://doc.e.foundation/devices/FP5/install
You can also buy the phone directly with /e/OS pre-installed & closed bootloader, from what I read on the fairphone website.
I am not dismissing it, I am saying that is not as big as you make it to be. Most users lag behind in updates anyway, besides using minimal and trusted applications, the outside exposure to exploitation is relatively small, for a device without a public address. I am not the one APTs are going to use the SMS no-click 0-day against.
Similarly for the bootloader issue. The kind of attacks mitigated by this are not in most people threat models. They just are not. As someone else wrote, it's possible to relock the bootloader anyway with official builds (such as my FP3). But anyway, even for myself the chance that my phone gets modified by physical access without my knowledge is a fraction of a fraction compared to the chance that someone will snatch the phone in my hand while unlocked, for example (a recent pattern).
If these two issues are what prompts you to call a "security dumpster fire", I would say we at least have very different risk perceptions.
We do. I can't in good conscience recommend it as an alternative to friends or relatives when even stock Android has improved security. I can't speak for your social circle, but all the people I know update their phones accordingly. Maybe they delay the update for a few days, but they don't stay months with their phones like that. Fairphones improve the situation a bit since you can lock the bootloader, but the substantial delay in security updates is still a major risk.
I don't get why anyone would choose /e/OS over Graphene if they had the option. Graphene offers the highest security and privacy, it works wonderful and most banking apps support it. /e/OS just has the advantage of supporting more models, but if you can get a Pixel what's the point?
I definitely wait more than a week to update for example. The marginal security risk is completely irrelevant for me compared to the operational risk of a buggy update. N-1 is a common practice for updating software in fact, unless there is absolutely a great reason to upgrade.
Also, I want to be in your circle, because most people I know if the phone doesn't update automatically they probably won't even think of updating their phone (or their computer) at all.
For me the reason is simple, I don't care about the advanced threats that would be mitigated by GrapheneOS enough to buy a pixel and migrate. I already own a FP3 and that's what I am going to use until it breaks.
I might consider Graphene in the future, but having to buy a Google phone (even a used one) already pisses me off, compared to a FP (or similar). eOS also tries to be a "noob-friendly" distribution, that you can buy phones with and you never have to mess with the phones, which means people who don't have the skills or don't want to mess with their phones might trade the risk with ease of operation, and it might be the right choice for them.
That's fair. I can get behind that.
You're not the only one. I loathed that I had to go back to Google to switch to Graphene, but life's a compromise most of the time.
Graphene does that well too. I've been using it for a few weeks now and I never had to look up guides like I'm doing for Linux.
good on you for asking the question. OP does not know what he is talking about
Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example. In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a "googled" phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.
I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.
So your argument is repeating a cliché? OK.
I don't need to convince you, but I explained my reasoning. Maybe make some practical examples, show some CVEs that - if left unpatched - severely impact the privacy (or the broader security) of the average users.
Also, as anybody who works in security knows, security is not a binary, and securing often means paying a price (in usability, in Euro, in comfort, in performance, whatever). In my mom's threat model there is no the APT leveraging a 0 day to breach her worthless phone, there are opportunistic scammers who send her emails. There is also google and the like harvesting her data to sell her shit (hence a deGoogled phone with bootloader unlocked is more important than a Google phone with bootloader locked, for example).
In my threat model there might be some more resourceful attackers (because believe it or not, a financial org trusts me with securing their infra). However, as I also said, a much simpler and cheaper attack that recently has made the news is just to snatch the phone unlocked from my hands on the street, rather than exploiting an android CVE. This is why for example I have app pins for signal, email and everything that supports it, and I need to authenticate at every use. I also store all my TOTP on my yubikey, rather than keeping them on the phone (even with PIN), so my phone is not good as a 2FA device.
What you call blasé is actually just a way I personally assessed the risks and decided to invest accordingly. People whose threat model involve the bots who spam emails do not have to invest in security like if the NSA is after them. Updating android a month later is not going to be even a "low" risk for most people, especially if they adopt the much more important practice (IMHO) of not installing every shitty app under the sun. If you think otherwise, make concrete examples perhaps. Using a cliché is not really building your credibility here.
Gotcha, you are the classic person who is unnecessarily confrontational, but that dashes at any actual confrontation, because ultimately you have nothing to say. Your history shows this clearly.
We can all live without toxic people like you.
Thanks for the answer. How does it compare against other Android forks in terms of security update speed?
Also, isn't Fairphone once also criticised for falling behind on Android security updates or was I misremembering this?