The trusted application thing is hard, same as the trusted kernel thing is hard. Some monolithic kernels are adding bugs faster than they're being addressed. It's a really hard problem and I don't see monolithic kernels as being the best solution of the future. That's relevant to threat modeling, which is why virtualization is so valuable, but it needs to be built on a secure hardware platform. Part of the benefits of significant sandboxing, much like virtualization, is you can ultimately run all apps as some degree of untrusted. Both together would be best. Saying you can't imagine how something could be more secure than your Qubes setup is a better indication of your ability to imagine than it is of any security reality. And then you recommend people check out two solutions with the benefits of neither approach (and other issues).

Anyway, I'm still going at this because your comments (which frequently commit the errors of which you accuse others) go unreplied in too many threads, so I engage so that others who skim threads containing questionable assertions will at least see a different viewpoint.

When I recently didn't continue to play along with you, you tried to use that thread as evidence supporting some kind of weird dunking on me, and others. It's a project you claim to care about and want to see succeed, and then you repeatedly approach it in a highly insufficient way, often invoking the project in threads not even about it just to go ahead and dismiss it. You ask basic, easily researched questions relentlessly and when people stop answering point to the lack of a final response as justification, despite your claims of awareness of your own ignorance. There's an actual name for what it is you're doing.

It's a weird axe you have to grind, and I'm content to let others see it all in context and decide for themselves. I only bother because I think it's an important project, genuinely want to see it succeed, and think on this important site of tech culture, you're damaging it unfairly. Whether that's intentional or not, I don't know, nor do I need to.

So you confirm that you and strcat were spreading false information about Librem 5 with a convincing tone, while saying that you're "sharpest security minds on the planet" and calling me "disingenuous"?

> Same as if you turn off all radios and sensors on a GrapheneOS device.

This is plain false. Software switches can never be as secure as cutting power from hardware components. Are you saying that GrapheneOS can reliably save you from tracking by a state actor? This is very unlikely. The number of lines of code in Trusted Computing Base of GrapheneOS is likely similar to one in the monolithic Linux kernel (10 MM lines of code, https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/developer/system/security...). (I would be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong here.) This is why it can never be as reliable as hardware virtualization relying on 100000 LoC. I'm happy that GrapheneOS is going to add the virtualization btw.

> Saying you can't imagine how something could be more secure than your Qubes setup is a better indication of your ability to imagine than it is of any security reality.

You walls of text are so large and not always constructive, because they frequently contain personal attacks like this one (and words like "disingenuous" I mentioned above).

> You ask basic, easily researched questions relentlessly

If this is so basic, I don't understand why you are making so many false or implausible claims and do not just give me a link with a simple, high-level explanation for noobs like me. Instead you keep attacking me and presenting yourself as very smart, with words like these.

I agree with you that GrapheneOS is a very important project. I disagree that trying to point out its weaknesses or ways to improve it harms the project. I also would like to add that Librem 5 is similarly important project, and you unnecessarily harm it with your false claims. Some people come to discussions about GrapheneOS asking to get root of rely more on free drivers, or expand the supported devices by lowering security requirements. My replies about Librem 5 to these people do not harm GrapheneOS, since they aren't your target audience anyway. I just help them to find what they want.