7 comments

  • edent 37 minutes ago
    In my experience with UK banks & financial institutions, GrapheneOS support can be roughly divided into four types.

    None. Explicitly banned. And, though I feel bad for saying it, I can't blame them. If some idiot roots their phone and downloads malware, the bank may be responsible for refunding them. I can see why they don't want that headache.

    Some. App works, but some functionality is unavailable. I've got a credit card app which works, but refuses to set up virtual cards or use "remember me". That's good enough for my use. Similarly, I had a merchant account which let me see my balance, but I couldn't use my phone as a credit card reader.

    Works, but only in main profile. I'd rather keep financial things in a locked profile. But lots of banks disallow that.

    Full. Everything works (although you may need to toggle some exploit protection off).

    Some banks are reasonably good at letting you pass on technical queries to their developers - mostly the smaller ones. The nice thing about the UK banking sector is that it is trivial to move banks. So I switched accounts to providers which worked with my phone and let the old ones know why I was moving.

    • embedding-shape 29 minutes ago
      > The nice thing about the UK banking sector is that it is trivial to move banks.

      Are there countries where this is a hassle? Now I've only had personal banking accounts in ~3 countries (so far?), so maybe I'm in a bubble, but in none of the countries has "switching banks" been more than basically create a new account, start using new IBAN for incoming transfers, move direct debits to use new IBAN and start using new card(s). Those last two were even automatic in the last move I did for a lot of stuff. Is it typically more difficult than that in other countries?

      • TFNA 25 minutes ago
        There are countries where, as a result of mergers, banking is now down to 3-4 banks, and they all have the same Android requirements, so switching won't get one anywhere.
  • ronsor 2 hours ago
    > many have memory corruption bugs and incorrect anti-tampering code requiring our per-app exploit protection compatibility mode toggle

    Ironic for apps that are often so paranoid about "security" and "hardware attestation"

    • przmk 2 hours ago
      Because it’s mostly about checking compliance boxes than really caring about security.
      • paweladamczuk 2 hours ago
        Corporation are not able to "care". It's the boxes's fault. That is, legislation and/or enforcement.
        • preisschild 0 minutes ago
          Its not like govt agencies care about security either. Its just "compliance" bs.
        • ironmagma 1 hour ago
          This meme again? Corporations are not capable of anything, but corporations are made of people, and people can care.
          • paweladamczuk 59 minutes ago
            Call me cynical, but I would rather rely on written regulations and systems of checks than human altruism.
            • II2II 47 minutes ago
              True. Those who only care about meeting regulatory requirements are not going to care if the regulatory requirements cease to exist. Those who care about security may be dismissive of regulatory requirements, but they will do so primarily when they are insufficient or when they conflict with their opinion. In the former case, they probably have the ability to go beyond the regulatory requirements. In the latter case: while I won't claim that regulations are perfect, I would trust them over the an anonymous person who may be going on anything from their personal opinion to legitimate research.
            • embedding-shape 36 minutes ago
              Currently, besides if you use cryptocurrencies, I don't think you can rely solely on "written regulations and systems of checks", somewhere along those processes there are a bunch of humans with their altruism (or lack of), taste and daily life moving those processes along. And judging by the state of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, this is probably a good thing more than a bad thing.
          • qwertyforce 1 hour ago
            We need a graph of empathy vs number of people in organization
        • RobotToaster 37 minutes ago
          By that logic governments are not able to "care" either.

          But both are examples of cybernetic entities, if they don't care then their control loops aren't correctly aligned.

  • readthenotes1 18 minutes ago
    A better link to the actual list of hundreds of banking apps supported

    https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

  • LoganDark 26 minutes ago
    I truly hope that this is not a pure whitelist of only the official signing keys via attestation.
  • LightBug1 37 minutes ago
    Excellent. That was one of my main issues with Graphene.

    I'm just starting a deep-dive on it.

    As a newbie, can existing users point out any other gotchas?

    * EDIT: Oh ffs, only on Pixel phones ...

  • Roark66 58 minutes ago
    Why not lineageos23?
  • OsrsNeedsf2P 1 hour ago
    Is this new? It's unclear why the word "began" is in the title
    • pizzaiolo 1 hour ago
      After that guy was arrested for wiping his GrapheneOS phone with a duress password, some reports appeared of previously usable apps becoming unusable specifically on GrapheneOS. This now reads like a possible reversal of that trend.
    • riedel 22 minutes ago
      Where is this list of 12+ banks that explicitly allow graphene. My understanding is if the banks do not explicitly state support also in terms of ToS, they might pull the rug any moment. With neo banks you are then basically left without a bank.
      • riedel 7 minutes ago
        I found some evidence of half a dozen that there might be support 'by desogn' (all of them might pull the rug at any time again as far as I understand TOS, which however seems true for any android in theory): Swissquote, Yuh, UBS, Starling Bank, Triodos Bankieren NL, AmeriCU Credit Union. More?
    • blendergeek 45 minutes ago
      That sentence is lifted from the post.