GrapheneOS

Open source privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.

Forum, Discord and Matrix:

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.

https://t.co/8flkjD52Eg

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

GrapheneOS version 2026091900 released:

https://t.co/7bcfoOu3UU

See the linked release notes for a summary of the improvements over the previous release.

Forum discussion thread:

https://t.co/snso7WltoJ

#GrapheneOS #privacy #security

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@therealDrSpin @Le_happy_can @Itsfoss Why are you okay with using T2Mobile devices but not Motorola Mobility (Lenovo) devices? That doesn't make much sense to us.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@SilentSchizoid It is updated via the GrapheneOS App Store. We just publish the release notes on GitHub for the tags. We don't publish Vanadium APKs on GitHub.

There are App Store release channels for each app (Alpha, Beta and Stable) and each release goes through Alpha, Beta and then Stable.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

Vanadium version 153.0.8010.52.0 released:

https://t.co/b1vZHENHxG

See the linked release notes for a summary of the improvements over the previous release and a link to the full changelog.

Forum discussion thread:

https://t.co/0YyQPnhfwu

#GrapheneOS #privacy #security #browser

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@LeftEons @DoomerTapes GrapheneOS has supported the Pixel 10a since our 2026032000 release:

https://t.co/bhDYO5fgGK

It's listed everywhere we list the supported devices.

https://t.co/OCAyHTQeSR
https://t.co/g9mAK59i7s

Pixel 11 series could already be supported if we weren't waiting for MTE support.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.

https://t.co/8flkjD52Eg

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@therealDrSpin @Le_happy_can @Itsfoss There are many ODMs much better suited to building devices with a focus on security. We already have an OEM partnership with an OEM doing in-house design and even a lot of the assembly/manufacturing for their devices so it's not something we want to focus on right now regardless.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@therealDrSpin @Le_happy_can @Itsfoss Fairphone doesn't design their own devices and barely does engineering themselves. They're limited to what T2Mobile is interested in offering and it's T2Mobile which would need to be convinced to improve. Why should we choose T2Mobile over other ODMs and why involve a middleman?

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@therealDrSpin @Itsfoss We would realistically need a direct relationship with the company designing the phone, not a European brand focused on marketing. Even if T2Mobile did significantly improve the device's updates and security, all of that would become irrelevant as soon as they switch ODM again.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@therealDrSpin @Itsfoss Fairphones are very far from meeting our requirements for updates and hardware security features. They don't design their own devices but rather their ODM does. T2Mobile has been the ODM designing and assembling Fairphones since the Fairphone 4. They went through 2 previous ODMs.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@513Cincy_ @masunobom @IntCyberDigest Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GNSS, NFC and UWB radios are implemented in a similar way. Wi-Fi/Bluetooth are related and implemented on a single dedicated chip across the supported devices. The rest including cellular have their own chips. Each of these gets firmware updates fixing issues.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@513Cincy_ @masunobom @IntCyberDigest It's an entirely separate isolated processor for cellular. It's unprivileged and doesn't have access to the application process or OS. It can only write to memory that it's explicitly permitted to write to by the OS which is used for communication back and forth between those.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@CryptF1 GrapheneOS was already fully ported to Android 17 QPR1 and was ready to go on release day. We're not allowed to release it because Android 17 QPR1 wasn't pushed to AOSP. QPR1/QPR3 are Pixel exclusive and Pixel support was dropped from AOSP with Android 16 so those are gone too.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

GrapheneOS version 2026091700 released:

https://t.co/umOsaHeBV1

See the linked release notes for a summary of the improvements over the previous release.

Forum discussion thread:

https://t.co/dADEzt94lU

#GrapheneOS #privacy #security

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@R3st4rtY0urL1f3 Your account posts similar engagement bait and directly promotes content from the account you're supporting.

We've looked through more of the posts and are now aware it's someone who was previously regularly posting false claims about GrapheneOS but switched to a new account.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

The account we responded to at https://t.co/TrjYJVY6lT is clearly using an LLM to masquerade as an expert and make inaccurate attacks on GrapheneOS. Our account was blocked alongside their clearly AI generated reply. They should be enabling the "Made with AI" content disclosure.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

No, that's not accurate. The cellular baseband is an unprivileged component isolated from the application process and OS. It does not have control over the device. It's similar to Wi-Fi/Bluetooth and the other radios which are all isolated.

The OS on the device definitely does matter for containing an exploit to the isolated component. The OS can also reduce attack surface for the cellular baseband which is part of the GrapheneOS feature set.

Components having vulnerabilities is nothing new and that's why systemic security protections including isolation, attack surface reduction and exploit protections are important.

A firmware patch for this vulnerability is available and currently being tested by GrapheneOS prior to release today.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@R3st4rtY0urL1f3 He made multiple objectively inaccurate posts demonstrating a clear lack of familiarity with the topics. It's not a personal attack to debunk the content in his posts and baseless claims of him being an expert used to try to create credibility for consistently inaccurate claims.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@_reamus Pixel 11 only launched August 20th and Pixels no longer have official Android Open Source Project support. It would be quite early to have official support for it. We did complete a port as much as possible but it currently lacks MTE support which is a security requirements.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@RandomGreenKirb @_reamus No, the Pixel 11 still has a secure element. The blocker is that hardware memory tagging (MTE) is unavailable at launch for the Pixel 11. It has at least most of the necessary hardware support for it but it isn't available with the current firmware and needs to be added to it.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

The false info is mainly what he has written himself in his own writing style. He then directly posted a bunch of obvious LLM generated text in a reply to us which now appears to have been deleted. He clearly prompted an LLM to argue GrapheneOS is insecure which it did by just saying nothing is fully secure, which is irrelevant. The text he posted conflicted with his earlier posts and in fact agreed with what we wrote ourselves while making a contrived argument to try to support his position despite the facts not being aligned with it.

His LLM generated text confirmed what we wrote and debunked what he wrote, although it was clearly LLM generated content essentially just summarizing overall consensus on the topic while trying to argue what he asked in a super contrived way since it's objectively wrong.

We did refute what he said and his response was resorting to directly posting a bunch of LLM generated text not at all debunking what we said but rather reinforcing it combined with blocking us. He then made 2 personal attacks towards us on his feed. He now appears to have deleted the reply with the directly included LLM generated text conflicting with his own inaccurate claims since we called it out.

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@R3st4rtY0urL1f3 He deleted the reply clearly generated by an LLM after we called it out. He made 2 posts on his timeline attacking us for caring about people being given accurate info. He's posting slop and engagement bait to build a following. Which relevant credentials do you think he has?

[GrapheneOS @GrapheneOS]

@R3st4rtY0urL1f3 He's not an expert on this topics regardless of what he has told you and others. He's clearly heavily relying on chatting with LLMs to inform himself about it. He posted a bunch of LLM generated text contradicting his original post and blocked us to prevent us responding to it.