Scattering tidbits around in different comments while including dodgy unsubstantiated appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument.
It sounds like you have something real, that solves a real problem while adding its own drawbacks, that works for your requirements. Focus on the specific value proposition, including the specific technical details in technical forums. Otherwise, you just sound like a crank. And the security field has a long history of cranks arguing against mainstream advice to sound edgy and authoritative (eg what you said regarding Signal) while then pushing their own bespoke solutions that survive through lack of scrutiny.
What I am showing you is I already answered your question, you fail at reading comprehension, or you fail at comprehending the very concepts themselves. Probably the latter.
> that could solve a real problem, while adding its own drawbacks.
It already solved a real problem. I have asked you repeatedly to specify a real-world drawback other than the physical profile (which the users find tolerable), you have not done this successfully.
> Focus on the specific value proposition
We already did this, and delivered.
> arguing against mainstream advice
Mainstream advice in the security world is, to consider a device secure:
- do not run binary blobs in kernel space
- do not run binary blobs in higher-privileged cores on the board
> (eg what you said regarding Signal)
The concept that something running in userspace can not protect users when 1.] the host OS is already compromised (binary blobs in kernel space) and 2.] underlying "hardware" is already compromised (via firmware on higher privileged cores, similar to Intel ME/AMT) is EXTREMELY MAINSTREAM.
> appeals to authority like "Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions" does not make for a compelling argument.
Very rich people and their families already have these kinds of solutions. Other people who are rich in other ways (hacker's mind and motivation) also already have these kinds of solutions.
The authority that I did appeal to, ultimately, are Systems Administrators and relatively novice hackers equipped to prepare these solutions for themselves.
> their own bespoke solutions
The pattern was standardized over a decade ago. Our own implementation is already standardized with enough units in production that it's not bespoke anymore.
> that survive through lack of scrutiny.
If you were capable of implementing this solution on your own, which you have already effectively admitted you are not, then scrutiny from someone like yourself would be worth more than two rat shits, but you can not, so it is not.
At this point, you are clearly a midwit intelligent enough to comprehend what I have posted, but you still continue to post utter garbage. And ultimately I perceive you as a moderately mentally ill fucking moron.
You keep saying you have a device that solves the problem, but you don't provide any actual details above what everyone already knows. You keep insulting people when they call you out on it. Either show your hand or be more humble. The other options don't make you look good, trustworthy or competent at all.
The people (other than me) in this thread have provable track records talking about this field. They're asking for more details and you just keep insulting them.
What we did was put de-blobbed GrapheneOS on a compute board, put secure boot on another compute board, punt the radio onto a separate compute board, add a battery, and manage it all with a management board in a small backpack, with a USB touchscreen for user interface.
Then we productized it for select groups of people.
But, it's really not that complicated. Like it's really not. Many people have built these kinds of things before.
If you want to try to tell me that mindslight has a "provable track record" talking about this field, I have a very very hard time believing something like that because -- and I'm being honest here -- as any reasonable person will also conclude: his responses he has posted here are really fuckin' stupid.
I would at a later time directly link to you the next-generation builds that we do have permission (the previous was not my corp) to make public-facing in 2025, as I already wrote in another comment. However, your overall reply is kind of dumb. So, if you feel you are entitled to demand a "finished product", build it yourself.
And, yes, I will continue to look down my nose at you as someone who is grossly inferior to me.
As someone grossly inferior to you I welcome your constructive feedback and I hope that many others adopt your attitude and social behaviour. Only in this way can we truly improve our world.
All hail devops99 and may the platforms that you build be favoured by your subjects, as unworthy as they surely are.
I suggest you re-read the entire thread and try to see your replies from a perspective other than your own. I don't think you realise how terrible you look here. It's not just the general cringiness of over confident youth, it's the doubling down on false superiority, the stench of antisocial tendency and the immature claims of success without the slightest hint of any evidence.
I'd be pleasantly surprised, and believe you'd achieved a modicum of self awareness, if you just deleted everything you posted here. But I fear that would be out of character...
If everything you posted in this thread wasn't so demonsrably, and pathetically stupid, I might be able to take you somewhat seriously. But they are, so I can't.
What do you get out of attacking everyone who engages with you?
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but your description isn't that technically interesting - no aspects of getting Graphene running on the devboard, or other difficulties integrating the parts. The idea of separating out the baseband isn't really novel either. A decade ago I gave a shot at using a mifi+tablet to move in that direction, and to see how far I could get without a proper voice plan. (I eventually got bored and moved on). You're not sitting on some super special idea here, and this vague passive voice "existence proof" style of writing is cagey and tedious to read. Which is probably how I ended up skipping over some actual details.
But do you know what is very interesting? That you've found a niche where the backpack form factor isn't a huge drawback, as well as group(s) of people who actually appreciate the threat model enough to keep spending extra effort doing a nonstandard thing. Those are all social factors that could actually sustain this type of device, rather than merely being passing curiosities that users eventually move on from. Basically it needs to be easy for people to piece together such a setup while mindlessly following a guide, as well as point other curious people to a description of it - the polar opposite of the trash elitist attitude you're pushing. (eg what specific dev boards straightforwardly run Graphene? I don't see any listed on the website)
And so if you actually care about widespread communications security rather than just being some combative wanker on a message board, please please please try to level up your wisdom for your next sockpuppet nym.
> of people who actually appreciate the threat model enough to keep spending extra effort
The "product" is already successful. Some spent effort, others spent money.
Those who did the latter include defense contractor or other government backgrounds, ""conservative"" (aka normal people) moms who were censored on Facebook and Twitter as early as 2019 and had enough pattern recognition to know the unlawful censorship reached all the way up into the federal government, journalists, and some are in the category of politician.
Think of what Tucker Carlson shared with the public "the NSA got into my Signal account, which I didn't know they could do". I don't expect our solution to stand up to NSA, but unlike a retail device the starting point of the digital playing field on my camp's solution doesn't let digital intrusion be a cakewalk for "glowies" like retail devices do. Glowies have to work significantly harder to compromise what we have.
Some of the "Instagram famous" gen Z stereotypical "hot girls" who are computer illiterate and generally aloof (vapid on the surface) were immediately willing to tolerate the overhead of "touchscreen cabled to a backpack" when they were told "when you do a call with mom or dad, that call does actually stay protected". Trashy aka "low socioeconomic status" people don't give a shit about family privacy/autonomy, but these people do give a shit about it.
All aforementioned categories of users have already experienced suffering abuse, or anticipate being abused, or they simply have enough dignity in their life that they're not going to just give it away like typical retards do ; they are not going to "eventually move on" from "this computer I carry on my person every day is not designed for me to get fucked over" and then downgrade to a retail device that is by design (in one way or another) positioned to fuck them over. Sans a "burner" device for some specific narrow purpose (Instagram presence) that has had its internal mic gutted and has hardware shutters on its cameras.
The technical concept is what I am allowed to post about so that's what I did. As I already wrote earlier (and also then later cited I had written), something cohesive will be posted later this year, and if the person I expect to do it doesn't then I'll do it myself. Or, one of the other existing players in the space will, or someone else entirely (and I'd be perfectly happy with that).
.
> You're not sitting on some super special idea here
I appreciate you acknowledging this point, a point that I had emphasized, and I feel I had done so rather clearly, several times above. Many Qubes users have been doing this since 2018.
The essential thing my camp did that was "special" was package it professionally in a way that "normie" users can succeed with it out-of-the-box.
Like with any specific operating system and hardware combination there are implementation specific bugs here and there, but nothing major.
.
> how far I could get without a proper voice plan.
Some use "2FA mule", like this https://kozubik.com/items/2famule/ ; though we advise to physically remove the microphone of the 2FA mule and presume any WiFi/Bluetooth traffic from it is hostile.
Those who need PSTN (legacy phone network) voice or 911 can use another device for that.
No one using our mini-backpack is missing out on any functionality they actually need.
.
> eg what specific dev boards straightforwardly run Graphene? I don't see any listed on the website
I do appreciate you bothering to look. I actually do. There are boards that can run with zero blobs, they are intended for production use as sold, so long as they can run a Linux kernel and have a GPU that Android can use, they can run GrapheneOS.
Our solution is not supported nor known about by the GrapheneOS project, we have our own branch and cicd and all that.
.
> Which is probably how I ended up skipping over some actual details.
Yeah, the performance (or lack thereof) of your reading comprehension has been rather noticeable.
.
> the polar opposite of the trash elitist attitude you're pushing.
Okay but no matter what happens, I will always get more money and more pussy than you.
It sounds like you have something real, that solves a real problem while adding its own drawbacks, that works for your requirements. Focus on the specific value proposition, including the specific technical details in technical forums. Otherwise, you just sound like a crank. And the security field has a long history of cranks arguing against mainstream advice to sound edgy and authoritative (eg what you said regarding Signal) while then pushing their own bespoke solutions that survive through lack of scrutiny.