"Pixel 11 series is a lot more expensive for an incremental improvement to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and reduced RAM for the Pro base models. They finally caught up to the last generation of Qualcomm cellular radio. It's overpriced, the upgrades aren't impressive and losing MTE is appalling."<p>I guess that's a thumbs down then?
Lost any remaining respect for Pixel with the decisions they've made for Pixel 11. The product design and hardware teams have both tried to one up each other and who can deliver the bigger pile of steaming crap.
Can someone from AOSP/Pixel hardware security shed some light? This is strange timing, especially when the approach has been validated by Apple also.
What, MTE is such a promising tech and for security and now that we need all security we can get. WTF this is terrible development. You cant go backwards when the world needs getting even more secure.
Such a shame. Google themselves barely utilised it in their stock builds. I wonder if there is some silicon or development overhead they decided to cut.<p>I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
I don't understand much from MTE/Android or MIE/iOS but the explanation is also confusing when:<p>- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS
- iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues<p>So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).<p>Then also:<p>> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.<p>So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
iOS uses MTE for nearly all of the important parts of the OS. It uses MTE within the kernel and for a substantial portion of the base OS processes. They focused on deploying it to the most security relevant processes first but it's deployed for a large portion of the OS beyond those. Apple has done a very good job protecting the OS with it. They've done a very poor job getting the app ecosystem to adopt it.<p>Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.<p>GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.<p>We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
I see a significant difference between making a security feature available but opt-in during a teething phase, and removing the feature altogether. Am I missing something?
This isn't terrible development, it's simply that GrapheneOS devs can't do miracles
They can't just continue supporting phones if they have security downgrades, especially if it's an important feature.
Good riddance to Google. I'm happy GOS is no longer dependent on their hardware.<p>My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive.<p>So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
They have their reasons.
Pixels are only getting worse and worse after the 9
Urgh I was about to buy one for GOS. Maybe back to iPhone it is.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.<p>The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring <i>support</i> in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
Motorola doesn't have a great track records for flagships smartphones. I will keep finger crossed that we won't have to choose again between security and features but either way it's a great news, and I truly hope that GrapheneOS will be adopted by more manufacturers in the future
One thing about Motorola. They aren't known for supporting devices long term with fast updates.<p>Is there any guarantee that in 4 years this device will be getting monthly patches, source and builds regularly?
Eagerly waiting for the Motorola flagship! Will it be released worldwide?
Same here! I had everything lined up to import the phone just for GrapheneOS!<p>Google just can't help being a fucking disappointment at every single opportunity!