Administered by:
Once again Graphene is attacking /e/OS publicly with misleading or totally false claims.
That is so counter-productive and gives them a lot of discredit (but we know the problem is not Graphene, but his leader who is hiding behind various Graphene accounts and posts)
/e/OS is not a security-hardened OS, we're focusing on Privacy improvements. But we still take security seriously, even doing some urgent OTA security updates: https://gitlab.e.foundation/e/os/releases/-/releases/v3.0.4-t
Not good timing for your lies @GrapheneOS
@gael I think I missed the attacking. Of course is only #grapheneos 'the best' according to grapheneos. But I'm very happy with e/os and I think a lot people like the e/os It is a good step in #degoogle and #unappsen 
Thank you for the good work
It aren't misleading or false claims. It literally took me five minutes to gain remote access to an up-to-date /e/ device. Or at least as far as your patch level claims.
I didn't have to do anything fancy either. Just browsing the ASB and finding something somewhat recent was enough.
Whom exactly is spreading the false claims here? 
@gael they attacked you ?, strange when i checked it was you who lied by actively lying about them.
Please don't call yourself the victim when you are the first to attack.
And when they call your lie you actually say they attack you.
Seem like a child not a ceo ...
@h3artbl33d @gael and here i don't talk for or against one of the other, simply from the exterior when i see someone moving like a child, i call it out like it or not.
If you attack someone his answer is not an attack ... but a like said in french "legitime défense".
Totally! I don't always find it easy but prefer to be pointed out when I am wrong. We are humans, we make mistskes. But don't double down when called out, as it is the typical techbro move.
Please please check this for yourself - my process has lead me to this:
@h3artbl33d @gael cool guy continue to save the face for those liar that have tracker in their "private" search engine, if you want to be less private than an iphone with their thing good for you
Yeah about that. The "spot" search engine is an outdated fork - getting could have been crammed into a SearXNG theme. But no, hey had to do it in the way where getting a shotgun and literally shooting themselves in the foot might be less painful.
Like if he needs time, that's fine, but save the judgement. It's a bad faith position.
CC: @heartshadows@cyberplace.social @gael@mastodon.social
@gael GrapheneOS once wrote quite emphatically that they are not a CustomRom like /e/OS or calyxOS. They play in a different league. So why are they provoking operating systems that are something else? They should rather compete with their own.
@symbadisch @gael
They did not provoke anybody, they criticized because of false claims.
@gael Louis Rossman gave us all the evidence we need to leave GrapheneOS behind
@snarl @wild_flow Rossmann gave you all the evidence you need to know what kind of person he is. Our developer was almost killed in multiple swatting attempts shortly before that interaction. It shouldn't come as a surprise that they were not in a good state of mind. Instead of showing some basic empathy, Rossmann decided to leak and livestream the conversation which provoked Kiwi Farms, a dumpster fire of a website dedicated to harassing people.
@snarl @wild_flow Did I mention Rossmann has an account on there? It's verified:
https://kiwifarms.st/members/larossmann.132201/
All the talks about him being afraid of a retaliatory strike, he didn't actually believe any of that himself. Because he was caught using GrapheneOS for months after.
@gael
#grapheneos is just a bad joke.
Buy a google phone for a de-googled OS?!
@plumeros @gael I agree, right? I just read the article on the graphenos blog against e/OS, which reads as a rant. They actually also include calyxos in their attac and even promote getting an iphone with ios if you can't get a google pixel. I don't trust them because their mission is obscure to me. I might trust them if they tried to get other companies to build phones according to the privacy standard they need. But why are there no such partnerships, only fanboying for Google and Apple?
@wild_flow @plumeros @gael
That's exactly what they are doing.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721689476079039
@wild_flow @plumeros @gael that "rant" is filled with valid concerns about /e/OS. And the response from Gaël Duval is quite literally a personal attack against a member of GrapheneOS's team. Why can't he respond to the valid concerns about /e/OS or make improvements?
@plumeros @gael The software is the issue with Google Pixels, not the hardware, which provides strong security. I agree it's ironic, but once you understand the hardware features of Pixels it makes complete sense. https://www.androidauthority.com/titan-m2-google-3261547/
@plumeros @gael
You seem to have no idea about how GrapheneOS works.
https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
@plumeros @gael They're the only devices that are supported because they're the only ones that meet the project's requirements https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. GrapheneOS is far more private and secure than /e/OS, so not really a bad joke and more like competence if you ask me.
@plumeros Ironic, but it still makes perfect sense. 
Pixel hardware is the best we got from a security perspective and was (until recently) very easy to support for Custom ROM projects.
And while the constant attacking of other projects gets on my nerves, most of the technical criticism towards eOS is correct. There have been so many problems regarding security in the past, it makes the project really hard to recommend overall.
@kuketzblog has good writeup of this (https://www.kuketz-blog.de/e-datenschutzfreundlich-bedeutet-nicht-zwangslaeufig-sicher-custom-roms-teil6/) and @divested had documented many issues in the past but I can no seem to find an archived version right now.
Edit: There you go: https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt
@gael I generally don't appreciate the bashing in their posts. But their claims are quite specific. Which of the claims are false or misleading, and in what way? Is there a debunking anywhere?
*edit* Some folks on the e/OS/ forum are analyzing it. https://community.e.foundation/t/article-from-grapheneos-about-e-os/72203/4
@kerfuffle @gael
"Which of the claims are false or misleading, and in what way? Is there a debunking anywhere?"
I would like that too... if it is available somewhere ?
Or in few words... to have at least the taste of the kind of claim they publicly say.
Thank anyway for the nice and so usefull result of e/OS...
@kerfuffle @gael their claims are not that invalid. But they miss a critical point. Graphene is not compatible with fairphone. Google Pixels are NOT repairable.
Even if yeah, there is better security on graphene, at what cost ?
Edit: several typos fixed
@draslorus @kerfuffle most of their claims are just wrong, we will update early next week
@draslorus @kerfuffle @gael That wasn't the conversation, though. iFixit recommended the Fairphone with /e/OS as the best phone for people who want privacy and security, even ignoring repairability.
The iFixit article also made some questionable comparisons between /e/OS and GrapheneOS, making it sound like /e/OS has a similar level of hardening that GrapheneOS has, which it clearly does not.
And thus, the GrapheneOS devs made the response that we are currently talking about.
If you already have a Fairphone and don't want to switch, that's fine. If you don't care about security, that's your decision to make. But the discussion here was about what phone someone should buy if they want to buy a private and secure phone.
@gael maybe answering to their attack is not the best way, telling just your position in the privacy android world without talking about them is better. They are making marketing of fear to make us talk about them.
Je viens de passer mon vieux Galaxy S8 en 3.0.4-S.
C'est la dernière version d'eOS pour AOSP 12.
Est-il prévu de faire monter ce bon vieil S8 en version 13 (ou plus !) ?
@gael @GrapheneOS I don't know about the urgent part. /e/OS is very rarely updated.
I bought a CMF Phone 1 to test how does it feel like, and if it worth buying a Fairphone 6 as my main device, and even the official ROMs are very far from each other in release date.
Android devices need to get updates every single month by adding the respective month's security patch, but so far, that's not the case.
I understand that community builds don't get released frequently, as the list of devices is very long, but this is an officially supported phone, sold on the Murena website, and yet, it doesn't get monthly support.
Not to mention that the hardware isn't properly tested, as the display and the fingerprint sensor aren't calibrated on the OS level. The display was even reported in the forum that it's oversaturated, many releases ago. Again, you sell this phone with this experience officially.
Aside from the Graphen OS team's claims, I experience from first hand that support requires much higher standards than how Murena operates right now. I hope that you consider forwarding my criticism to the maintainers.
@etnevelarts Here's the post we made in response to an article with inaccurate claims about /e/OS and also GrapheneOS, which was heavily promoting buying an /e/OS device:
He's responding to it by making his own inaccurate claims and also personally targeting our founder as he has repeatedly done before. He knows about the ongoing harassment towards our founder including from his community. Duval makes sure to personally target him and direct more harassment towards him.
@etnevelarts We responded directly to what Duval posted here at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private/21 which is meant to be read after our original thread. This includes a link to a third party privacy and security researcher, Mike Kuketz, pointing our many of the same things about /e/OS lagging far behind on browser and OS updates. He also found they're tracking users with unique identifiers in their update client. His evaluation also shows other problematic invasive services. What we've said is accurate.
@etnevelarts The reason we're posting about /e/OS is because they've repeatedly misled people about GrapheneOS and are doing false marketing that's harmful to us. What we've posted is accurate and verifiable information.
Duval's personal accounts along with the /e/OS and Murena accounts have repeatedly responded to the accurate info we've provided with misinformation about GrapheneOS. Duval has also repeatedly engaged in personal attacks on our founder including direct support of harassment.
> even doing some urgent OTA security updates
> This /e/OS 3.0.4 version includes the Android security patches available as of June 2025.
June security patches incorporated more than 1 month later though.
@BucciaBuccia There are many privacy and security patches in Android 16 which were not backported to older Android releases in June 2025. /e/OS is missing nearly all the Moderate and Low severity Android Open Source Project patches for June 2025. /e/OS is also missing a huge number of Critical and High severity patches for drivers and firmware across devices. They're missing those patches even on Pixels, but also other devices. AOSP patches are not the only Android security patches at all.
@BucciaBuccia Android Security Bulletins list a subset of the overall Android security patches which are split into 2 sections of the bulletin. /e/OS ships the first half with AOSP patches with significant delays. They largely don't ship the second half of the patches with driver and firmware patches. As people can see for themselves, those bulletins only list High and Critical severity patches. They're the subset Google decided to backport to older Android, not the full set of patches.
@BucciaBuccia Google backports most of the High/Critical severity patches to older Android versions. It often happens a month or two later. Full set of privacy and security patches is available through the stable releases of Android which come out each month. /e/OS is based on an older release receiving partial backports. /e/OS typically has 1-2 months of delay for the AOSP subset but that's only part of it. They largely don't ship the other half or additional SoC/OEM patches not listed there.
@BucciaBuccia @GrapheneOS So? Do you think it's technically possible to deploy security fixes to 200+ devices for hundred thousands users in a few hours? We do monthly updates. Don't ask us to do better than all others in the industry that would be a ridiculous posture, and it is not our business.
Also please stop thinking that you are at 0-risk with up to date security updates. There are many publicly unknown security exploits to get into your phone if you are targeted.
Bullshits.
@gael @BucciaBuccia @GrapheneOS
This is not the point.
If you are unable to provide security updates, don't claim to protect your users privacy. That's all.
And nobody especially not GrapheneOS claimed to be at no risk. That's an absurd strawmen argument.
@gael @BucciaBuccia @GrapheneOS
@gael just blocked me, wtf.
@Datenproletarier Same, I couldn’t respond few minutes after his reply.
@gael what it a publicly unknown exploit? Why is it ok to be vulnerable to known exploits?
@gael @GrapheneOS It is kind of ironic to use that as an example of keeping your browser up to date when it's not even the correct release.
> Chromium 138.0.7204.97 was a June 30th release for Windows, not Android. The Android tag for June 30th was 138.0.7204.63.
https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2025/07/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_15.html
https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2025/06/chrome-for-android-update_30.html
@gael Last updated: 9 June 2025, I will just leave this here!
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
If you think anything is factually incorrect, please let him know.
@gael @GrapheneOS Une guerre entre Grapheneos et vous serait la pire chose qui puisse arriver au monde libre sur les smartphones. Il y a largement de la place pour les deux options, un peu comme linux mint, ubuntu, fedora, etc dans l'univers de linux
@karazicos @gael @GrapheneOS keep in mind that GrapheneOS was only responding to an article and misinformation by /e/OS. GrapheneOS has a lot of very legitimate issues with /e/OS, many of which are outlined here https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private/21
@karazicos GrapheneOS has only posted accurate and verifiable information about /e/OS in respond to inaccurate claims. You should read the thread he's responding to. Duval's response makes further inaccurate claims which we've also responded to. Duval is also once again personally attacking our founder, which is clearly meant to contribute to further harassment his community is participating in towards them. His followers are referencing Kiwi Farms harassment content, which he has no issue with.
@karazicos All we did is post this information in response to content marketing /e/OS with inaccurate claims:
We only posted this due to an article with inaccurate information promoting /e/OS, including inaccurate claims about GrapheneOS.
We posted https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private/21 in response to Duval's inaccurate claims about us above and his personal attacks on our founder backed up by his followers harassing him, which come after he has previously done it more egregiously.
@karazicos Continued misinformation from /e/OS will result in continued accurate and verifiable information from GrapheneOS.
People can also get the same information about /e/OS we're providing from the content we're referencing from other privacy and security researchers including Mike Kuketz and the founder of DivestOS.
People don't need to take our word for it. What we're saying can be verified and there are third party, neutral experts including Mike Kuketz and many others publishing it.
@gael @GrapheneOS Haters gonna hate. Just keep up the good work you do! 