• somereaduser@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    In defense of Graphene for the first point:

    Graphene has a pin scrambler, so the numbers are in a different position everytime you have to enter them.

    It isn’t hard at all to get used to it, and it circumvents the pattern recognition bit.

    Fingerprint unlock…that’s a different discussion especially with biometrics not being protected under the law, but for first unlock you always have to enter in a pin

    Quickly looking at my phone, you can enter in a passphrase (though personally I think that’s too cumbersome). There’s also a swipe option, I THINK that might be pattern, but I’m not sure. I can’t test it, because it means deleting the already in place measures, and I don’t wnat to do that at the moment.

    I don’t know enough about other points to comment on it.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Graphene has a pin scrambler, so the numbers are in a different position everytime you have to enter them.

      It doesn’t matter. When I’m inserting my PIN on a bus or while standing or line with people behind me or something I know that anyone interested can clearly see my screen and learn my PIN, scrambler or not. Also, scrambler is not mandatory (I don’t have it enabled) so Graphene OS devs explanation that “we will not enable patter ulock because it’s not secure” while normal PIN can be enabled still doesn’t hold.

      This is actually a broader problem with Graphene OS. The devs often fixate on some minor security issues that don’t impact 99% of their users at all and refuse to introduce features that they request. It’s exactly the same with supporting phones other than Pixel. 99% of users would be completely fine using Graphene on a different phone (CIA is not going to hack them) but the devs prefer to directly reject all those users.