• NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Graphene recommending this at all is extremely sus. My objective of using your operating system is to avoid giving Google any information I possibly can. Don’t know why they always recommend using Google shit in a sandbox like those packets aren’t still coming from my IP.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Its not sus. They’re just hyper-aware of security. And Aurora is just not terribly secure. Its just that you’re now choosing between privacy and maximum security. And I prioritize privacy, personally.

      They pretty much only recommend Accrescent.

      • vas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I agree. Specifically, it’s privacy AND freedom (free software development model).

        If these two are against maximum security, GrapheneOS consistently chooses security. Which is unfortunate for me, because I would consistently choose freedom. (Especially due to long-term considerations.)

        • Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You can disregard their recommendation if you wish, I do sometimes. If they were here, I imagine they’d say they don’t see privacy and security as contradicting each other, just that there are different threat models. I think they subscribe to the idea that not everyone is going to be sufficiently informed in order to make a rational judgement, so instead they default to lowering potential risk. They do value accessibility for the tech illiterate as well.

      • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        how is Aurora less secure than PlayStore directly? GOS devs literally never make sense, and of course they recommend a app store that doesn’t even properly label non open/free apps distincly, it is not like they evwr cared about FOSS just vague “security” theater

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          because aurora store isn’t developed by a big team of professionals with a massive budget, and aren’t getting security audits by other teams of well-funded professionals.

          the point isn’t that aurora store is insecure, the point is that the play store is VERY secure (it’ll just also merrily sell your data to palantir)

          • F3lis_sylv4@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Isn’t the aurora store just a wrapper around the play-store using an anonimized account? That is exactly the reason that google can easily block them. They obviously found a way to stop the burner accounts that Aurora makes from accessing the store. It would be equal to making a container for each time you renew the anonymous account.

            In other words, unless the aurora app has a backdoor (and I believe it is FOSS, so that should show itself easily), it is as secure as the play store ( which has debatable security, I believe it served malware on several occasions )

            But please correct me if I’m wrong

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              AFAIK aurora store is a completely separate implementation, it’s certainly not based on the play store in any way since it’s open source.