The new iPhone 17 model supports Apple’s AI tools, features faster wireless charging, and includes the new C1X modem developed by the company’s silicon team.
So that’s still from half a decade ago. Again, it’s not impossible that US and Israel could find vulnerabilities in devices built on an independent stack, but at least it’s not part of the design there. And that means these vulnerabilities get fixed over time. Your support matrix from 2024 does not show a single Chinese made device which proves my point. It’s US based tech stacks that are compromised.
The point I’m making is this. One tech stack might have vulnerabilities due to negligence and human error, the other has backdoors baked in by design.
Just because something is a SoC or not is not really relevant. That’s just a type of architecture. What matters is if the specific implementation is compromised or not. I’m not aware of any evidence that recent Chinese devices are compromised. However, your own link shows that iphones are.
You’re right that chips alone aren’t the deciding factor, but they are the core of the stack, and if your hardware is compromised then it really doesn’t matter what your software is doing at that point.
While there might be a case for graphene being the most secure software stack, the hardware could still betray you and there’s little graphene could do about that. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence for the claim that latest ios or maybe a pixel with the latest android are preferable to HarmonyOS or HyperOS. If anything, you yourself just showed that iOS should not be trusted.
The point of using the company claims from 2021 and the famous leak from 2024 was to establish a pattern, not to suggest that information from that long ago could be applied directly to this present moment.
The pattern is: android devices and old iphones and pixels that need to be updated are vulnerable no matter the country and alliances.
It can be established because the company’s claims forever were “we can do this” and finally there was a leak showing in pretty good detail that they weren’t lying.
Page 3: supported extraction listed for android devices by chipset includes huaweis ostensibly non amerisraeli hardware stack. Secured container extraction supported for both huawei and xiaomi implementations present in harmonyos and hyperos.
Page 4: huawei and xiaomi devices listed as brute force able in both on and off device states (there are notably some exceptions here, some qualcomm chipsets take a day and the p40 phones with their software updates weren’t brute forceable).
Page 5: huawei and xiaomi, realme, oppo, oneplus and zte are listed as brute forceable in off and on states.
here’s the same thing but for ios. I’m tired and it gives much more precise detail on a narrower range of devices, so I’ll just summarize:
Six year old iphones running a month old os version were safe from even “after first unlock” (the most unsafe locked state) compromise.
some phones running the one and a half year old ios in a “before first unlock” state (the most secure locked state) were subject to a brute forcer that was limited to 5000 attempts per day. That sounds like a lot, but a six digit pin would need constant hammering for 200 straight days. Not unheard of but a very far cry from the “plug it up, get access” that is advertised, documented in many security outlets and something I have literally observed happening inside a cop car at a protest.
So to summarize: as of two years ago, the ostensibly non amerisraeli tech stack was not secure against the cops. Harmonyos and hyperos were not secure against the cops. Out of date ios and pixel phones were also not secure.
I want to make clear that what is explicitly shown with regard to pixels and iphones is definitley true of all device families: the newest stuff has fewer vulnerabilities because people just haven’t been pounding on it as much.
Again, this is intended to help people to make good choices using real world information as opposed to predictions. If I were buying a phone to resist the cops, it would be an iphone or a pixel with graphene.
The pattern is: android devices and old iphones and pixels that need to be updated are vulnerable no matter the country and alliances.
Ok, but what does this have to do with the discussion we’re having here. I never said anything to suggest using old phones and operating systems. I repeatedly said I’m talking about new devices here.
Again, while there could be an argument for a pixel with graphene, it happens to be what I’m currently using because I can’t get a Huawei device in Canada, there is zero evidence that stock pixel or iphone are preferable to LATEST Huawei or Xiaomi for people who have the choice.
So that’s still from half a decade ago. Again, it’s not impossible that US and Israel could find vulnerabilities in devices built on an independent stack, but at least it’s not part of the design there. And that means these vulnerabilities get fixed over time. Your support matrix from 2024 does not show a single Chinese made device which proves my point. It’s US based tech stacks that are compromised.
The point I’m making is this. One tech stack might have vulnerabilities due to negligence and human error, the other has backdoors baked in by design.
Just because something is a SoC or not is not really relevant. That’s just a type of architecture. What matters is if the specific implementation is compromised or not. I’m not aware of any evidence that recent Chinese devices are compromised. However, your own link shows that iphones are.
You’re right that chips alone aren’t the deciding factor, but they are the core of the stack, and if your hardware is compromised then it really doesn’t matter what your software is doing at that point.
While there might be a case for graphene being the most secure software stack, the hardware could still betray you and there’s little graphene could do about that. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence for the claim that latest ios or maybe a pixel with the latest android are preferable to HarmonyOS or HyperOS. If anything, you yourself just showed that iOS should not be trusted.
The point of using the company claims from 2021 and the famous leak from 2024 was to establish a pattern, not to suggest that information from that long ago could be applied directly to this present moment.
The pattern is: android devices and old iphones and pixels that need to be updated are vulnerable no matter the country and alliances.
It can be established because the company’s claims forever were “we can do this” and finally there was a leak showing in pretty good detail that they weren’t lying.
here is the entire pdf of the leaked android support matrix linked in the article I linked to above. It only goes model by model for pixels, partly because it’s illustrating their capabilities against graphene as opposed to stock android but likely also because there’s thousands of android phones and a model/os version matrix would be insane and have an endnotes page a mile long.
Page 3: supported extraction listed for android devices by chipset includes huaweis ostensibly non amerisraeli hardware stack. Secured container extraction supported for both huawei and xiaomi implementations present in harmonyos and hyperos.
Page 4: huawei and xiaomi devices listed as brute force able in both on and off device states (there are notably some exceptions here, some qualcomm chipsets take a day and the p40 phones with their software updates weren’t brute forceable).
Page 5: huawei and xiaomi, realme, oppo, oneplus and zte are listed as brute forceable in off and on states.
here’s the same thing but for ios. I’m tired and it gives much more precise detail on a narrower range of devices, so I’ll just summarize:
Six year old iphones running a month old os version were safe from even “after first unlock” (the most unsafe locked state) compromise.
some phones running the one and a half year old ios in a “before first unlock” state (the most secure locked state) were subject to a brute forcer that was limited to 5000 attempts per day. That sounds like a lot, but a six digit pin would need constant hammering for 200 straight days. Not unheard of but a very far cry from the “plug it up, get access” that is advertised, documented in many security outlets and something I have literally observed happening inside a cop car at a protest.
So to summarize: as of two years ago, the ostensibly non amerisraeli tech stack was not secure against the cops. Harmonyos and hyperos were not secure against the cops. Out of date ios and pixel phones were also not secure.
I want to make clear that what is explicitly shown with regard to pixels and iphones is definitley true of all device families: the newest stuff has fewer vulnerabilities because people just haven’t been pounding on it as much.
Again, this is intended to help people to make good choices using real world information as opposed to predictions. If I were buying a phone to resist the cops, it would be an iphone or a pixel with graphene.
Ok, but what does this have to do with the discussion we’re having here. I never said anything to suggest using old phones and operating systems. I repeatedly said I’m talking about new devices here.
Again, while there could be an argument for a pixel with graphene, it happens to be what I’m currently using because I can’t get a Huawei device in Canada, there is zero evidence that stock pixel or iphone are preferable to LATEST Huawei or Xiaomi for people who have the choice.