I always disliked that GrapheneOS uses bootloader re-locking as an excuse to not support more phones.It just feels like trying to convince someone to use Secure Boot because of "security". When infact its the first thing I disable when installing Linux, and keep disabled. I surelly dont need it on my PC, and certainly wont on my phone. So this sounds pointless.This is a security theater, just like secure boot on PCs, you as linux users should understand, its the first thing you disable on any PC you want to install Linux on, you keep it disabled because it exists to stop you from using arguably much more secure alternative OSes.Locked bootloaders on Android are the exact same thing, they exist to stop the user from having control of their own hardware, not to actually secure your device.
>>106750556Well that's their security hard line that and the security chip. Just use another rom.
>>106750556secure boot works perfectly fine on fedora and runs dkms modules without any issue
My understanding is an unlocked bootloader lets anyone tamper with the unencrypted partitions over usb.You can't decrypt the data partition but you can install a keylogger or flash a custom recovery image and dump everything to another device to decrypt later. Without a signed key there's no way to detect if the malicious software is supposed to be there or not.
>>106750556if you think secure boot isn't security for a fucking MOBILE phone then you're a fucking retard
>>106751012Being fucking retarded is the thing the anti graphene shills and graphene devs have in common.
>>106750556>Look mom, I reposted it again!>>106744123
>>106750556you already posted this today
>Look, Ma, I posted it again!!
>>106750556Whats the point of relocking your bootloader if all your information is encrypted anyways?And why can't GrapheneOS run Cashapp and venmo and lienageos can?
>proprietary sloppass
