GrapheneOS

Open source privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.

Public Key

npub1235tem4hfn34edqh8hxfja9amty73998f0eagnuu4zm423s9e8ksdg0ht5

NIP-05 Address

GrapheneOS@grapheneos-social.mostr.pub

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs9g69ua6m5ec6ukstnmnyewj7a4j0gjjn5hu75f7w23d64gczunmgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsc6v2t3

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1235tem4hfn34edqh8hxfja9amty73998f0eagnuu4zm423s9e8ksdg0ht5

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-22 23:51:28 UTC

Most of our users aren't active on these social media platforms and don't receive news about GrapheneOS beyond our release notes. Hundreds of thousands of people use it as a daily driver without closely following the project. We plan to reduce our dependence on these platforms.

2026-04-22 01:40:35 UTC

GrapheneOS version 2026042100 released:
https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026042100
See the linked release notes for a summary of the improvements over the previous release.
Forum discussion thread:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34377-grapheneos-version-2026042100-released
#GrapheneOS #privacy #security

2026-04-21 18:10:34 UTC

- reply

We provided a series of replies with nuanced and well informed takes on email security which go against the beliefs of the dominant posters on Hacker News. As a result, they're relentlessly targeting us with inaccurate claims about our project and team including personal attacks.

2026-04-21 18:07:34 UTC

- reply

Their replies to us started with their incorrect assumption that we don't deploy MTA-STS and are heavily based around a consensus on email security among prolific Hacker News posters who believe Gmail's poor email security practices are a model to follow:
https://x.com/Avamander/status/2025709681012855006

2026-04-21 17:53:10 UTC

- reply

Here's one of the accounts repeatedly posting disingenuous attacks on us in the thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Avamander
They're attacking GrapheneOS because we disagreed with their advocacy against securing BGP and DNS to protect against real world attacks:
https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2025714506261737529

2026-04-21 17:44:14 UTC

- reply

A small number of accounts hostile towards GrapheneOS heavily participate in nearly any thread posted about it. These accounts largely focus on making personal attacks based on completely unsubstantiated libelous claims including fabricated stories. It's rarely heavily countered.

2026-04-21 17:40:24 UTC

Our forum thread addressing the extremely problematic article by WIRED has been posted on Hacker News at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47849854. As expected with Hacker News, a dozen accounts malicious towards us are lying about the project and our team including spreading harassment content.

2026-04-14 09:54:07 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac @nprofile…37xe
> If an app has many trackers from different big tech companies, that is enough to tell the app is very likely not going to be privacy friendly.
An app being listed as having 0 trackers on Exodus is not a strong indication that it's a privacy friendly app. It doesn't scan for the vast majority of the most privacy invasive behavior by apps. Very basic analytics or crash reporting is also treated with the same severity as incredibly invasive functionality.

2026-04-14 09:51:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac @nprofile…37xe
> It isn't feasible to manually test every app in the Play Store, as it would require the work @kuketzblog does at an enormous scale.
Scanning for a specific list of libraries being presented the way it is has created major misconceptions for a large number of users. Runtime testing of apps cannot provide much assurance about an app's behavior particularly when only doing limited short term testing, but that isn't what we we're talking about here.

2026-04-14 09:48:26 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac @nprofile…37xe
> this is a misrepresentation of what people at exodus do.
No, it's not a misrepresentation. Our statements accurately describe our extensive real world experience with how users interpret the information it provide and what it leads them to believe. We've been addressing it for years.
> They don't tell you an app isn't privacy invasive just because it doesn't have any trackers.
The user interface gives many users the impression that it does do that.

2026-04-14 09:33:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac We have a lot of experience with our users asking about this and needing to have their misconceptions addressed. Many people are using this as a major factor in how they choose apps where they believe apps being listed as having 0 trackers means those apps aren't privacy invasive. Similarly, people are interpreting the permission count as meaning something it doesn't. An app which doesn't require granting anything invasive to use it is often shown as very invasive there.

2026-04-14 09:32:13 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac It's the way it's being presented to users which is a problem. It's a hard-wired list of specific third party libraries without differentiating the severity of what they do where a portion of those are severely privacy invasive and most are far less consequential. Nearly all of the most privacy invasive behavior by apps isn't evaluated at all, because it can't be detected this way. It gives users the impression it's able to determine far more than the approach actually is.

2026-04-14 09:30:36 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac It's useful to make a list of privacy invasive third party libraries and detect those in apps, but it shouldn't be presented as an overall privacy evaluation of apps. It's unable to detect the vast majority of the most privacy invasive behavior by apps and is primarily detecting far less consequential things. The way that's presented combined with a counter with the number of declared low-level permissions gives users the impression of a meaningful privacy score for apps.

2026-04-14 09:28:17 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7kfx @nprofile…zmac Ads, analytics, telemetry, crash reporting and similar things done on the client side with connections to dedicated domains are not usually the most privacy invasive behavior done by apps. There are certain types of client side SDKs which are quite invasive but those things are nowhere close. This definition of trackers and interpretation of what matters is something we've been educating our users about for years. A large portion of people exposed to this are misled by it.

2026-04-14 09:06:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…zmac The most privacy invasive behavior by apps is nearly always done with their own code and servers including sharing sensitive data with third parties. Client side ads, analytics and crash reporting code is usually far less invasive. A lot of what's being categorized as trackers is questionable and the most privacy invasive behavior by apps is missed.
Many users have misconceptions about how privacy works and how to evaluate if an app is private because they place too much weight on this.

2026-04-12 16:21:13 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…0q4u @nprofile…37xe They say stronger privacy and security than what they provide is only useful to pedophiles, criminals and spies. They've misled an enormous number of people about what GrapheneOS provides. Why shouldn't we be countering this and defending ourselves?
We had to migrate many servers from OVH because of these pervasive false narratives about GrapheneOS in France were beginning to put the safety of our users at risk with threats of action being taken against GrapheneOS.

2026-04-12 14:53:14 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…37xe France's national law enforcement has increasingly gone after apps and devices which are regarded as providing people with privacy and security regardless of the merit to that marketing. In their interviews with the media, about GrapheneOS, they made direct reference to past arrests and server takeovers targeting multiple companies and said they would go after us similarly if they could justify it. This is a serious matter and efforts by /e/ and Murena to help them are a big deal.

2026-04-12 14:49:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…37xe Legitimate privacy projects and organizations would not push the narrative that privacy and security are primarily beneficial to criminals or that the userbase of projects like GrapheneOS and Signal primarily consists of criminals. This isn't a one time incident but rather a consistent narrative from /e/.
/e/ and Murena laid the groundwork for France's national law enforcement and corporate/state media using the same talking points to attack the GrapheneOS project alongside them.

2026-04-12 14:46:40 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…37xe /e/ has spent years widely propagating inaccurate claims that GrapheneOS isn't a privacy project, doesn't work on privacy, isn't aimed at regular people, isn't usable, isn't compativle with apps, is difficult to install and much more.
/e/ have repeatedly pushed the false claim that GrapheneOS is primarily useful to criminals and that the userbase largely consists of criminals. They've expanded this to claiming security hardening primarily benefits criminals.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116353973732143171

2026-04-12 14:42:04 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…37xe LineageOS is by far the most used alternative mobile OS and yet we don't have threads on our timeline about it. That's because LineageOS as an organization isn't misleading people about GrapheneOS and trying to harm us.
/e/ and their supporters are engaging in concerted efforts to mislead people about GrapheneOS and cause personal harm to our team. Each of our threads about it has been made to provide accurate information in response to their inaccurate claims about GrapheneOS.

2026-04-11 21:19:33 UTC

/e/ and Murena have been been promoting their products by misleading people about GrapheneOS for years. This has turned into an all out war on GrapheneOS by their company and supporters. We began regularly debunking their inaccurate claims and they try to frame it as aggression.

2026-04-10 17:35:47 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s4ce @nprofile…zswc We aren't finished responding to it with this thread. We're going to be posting it on our forum and other social media platforms too. We're going to be responding beyond what we're already posted. We've been actively finding and archiving more cases of /e/, Murena and Gaël Duval attacking GrapheneOS by claiming it's only useful to criminals and spies which they've said directly multiple times along with often alluding to it. We have a lot more than that one video clip to use.

2026-04-10 17:30:26 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s4ce @nprofile…zswc You've likely already read our previous thread where we directly addressed these inaccurate claims. Here's the relevant part of the thread:
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116354014750484314
We're repeatedly published content addressing people inaccurately claiming GrapheneOS is a security project rather than a privacy project. He has read multiple of these threads and knows what we've said. He's saying what he did in the interview despite that. This isn't about getting any technical details wrong.

2026-04-10 17:27:28 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s4ce @nprofile…zswc He directly responded to the thread we published 4 days ago addressing Murena once again claiming the kind of privacy and security hardening work done by GrapheneOS and iPhones is only useful to criminals and spies. In that thread, we directly addressed these repeated inaccurate claims about the purpose, goals and approach of GrapheneOS which wrongly portray it as a security project rather than a privacy project. His claims in the interview are more than egregiously inaccurate.

2026-04-10 14:27:42 UTC

- reply

Exodus Privacy uses a very similar approach to label apps as having trackers based on whether they include a library from a small list they've decided as trackers. Many of those decisions are dubious and it misses that the most privacy invasive behavior by apps isn't done that way. It also has extremely inaccurate labelling of permissions misleading users about how that works. Here's a great example of both with Facebook Lite:
https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.facebook.lite/latest/

2026-04-10 14:27:13 UTC

- reply

The domains they block are a tiny subset of domains used for those purposes and do not stop the most privacy invasive behavior by apps.
Apps and SDKs have also increasingly bypassed DNS blocklists via DNS-over-HTTPS resolvers, hard-wired IP addresses and most of all moving connecting to third party APIs to their servers where they don't need to leak their API keys.
DNS filtering works fine on GrapheneOS but isn't a viable approach to protecting privacy.

2026-04-10 14:26:48 UTC

- reply

/e/ tries to provide privacy by bundling a small blocklist of domain names solely used for ads and analytics. This doesn't do anything to address the most privacy invasive behavior by apps which happens via their own services. It doesn't stop apps sending data to arbitrary third parties from their servers or even client side. It can't block anything without the app using a dedicated domain for the unwanted behavior which usually isn't how things are done.

2026-04-10 14:26:20 UTC

The claims made about GrapheneOS in this interview are extremely inaccurate. It heavily misrepresents the purpose of GrapheneOS and what we've worked on for years. The claim GrapheneOS is a security project rather than a privacy project is misinformation. Contacts are specifically brought up and yet our Contact Scopes feature is ignored. @fla knows GrapheneOS is a privacy project. He replied to a thread with our response to this misinformation only 4 days ago...
https://piaille.fr/@projetslibres_podcast/116379561169492214

2026-04-10 13:39:05 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…6tqk @nprofile…zswc The claims made about GrapheneOS in this interview are extremely inaccurate. It heavily misrepresents the purpose of GrapheneOS and what we've worked on for years. The claim GrapheneOS is a security project rather than a privacy project is misinformation. Contacts are specifically brought up and yet our Contact Scopes feature is ignored. @nprofile…f3dp knows GrapheneOS is a privacy project. He replied to a thread with our response to this misinformation only 4 days ago...

2026-04-08 18:23:33 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…rkf2 Fairphones are obsolete from day one. If you get a Fairphone, then you'll be far behind on privacy and security updates particularly for the Linux kernel from the very beginning. Fairphone 5 already has an end-of-life Linux kernel. None of their devices get basic kernel updates and all their devices lag far behind on updates. They're selling hardware components from multiple generations ago at premium prices. They're the same components used by other devices built in the same factories.

2026-04-07 20:51:19 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…q4x0
> I'm waiting for the Motorola-Graphene partnership before I switch from OnePlus.
Initial devices meeting the requirements are coming in 2027 and likely not at the start of the year.
> and perhaps FDroid
F-Droid doesn't provide decent security and has never prioritized it. They've taken many anti-security standards and are hostile towards the GrapheneOS project including deliberately showing inaccurate warnings on GrapheneOS and misleading users about it. We recommend against it.

2026-04-07 20:50:01 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…q4x0
> I'd like reassurance from someone in the know that this switch will sidestep Google's developer registration monopolistic play.
It has no impact on GrapheneOS. It's only additional friction for installing apps from unverified developers on Google Mobile Services operating systems. GrapheneOS is not a modification of a GMS OS. It's based on the Android Open Source Project. There's no reason that something like this would impact GrapheneOS in any way on any device.

2026-04-06 16:22:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…eea5 @nprofile…sg74 Nearly everyone cares enough about privacy for receiving standard privacy and security patches to be highly important to them even if they don't realize it. The same applies to receiving the standard Android privacy and security protections. Most Android OEMs fail to deliver a bare minimum level of privacy and security. Murena devices are horrible from a basic privacy and security perspective. Dismissing this by claiming it's about threat models is simply nonsense.

2026-04-06 16:20:00 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…eea5 @nprofile…sg74 GrapheneOS supports using any Android browser app. There's nothing forcing people to use Vanadium. If you prefer using Brave because it has a significantly larger userbase to blend into than Vanadium along with additional anti-fingerprinting features then you can use Brave instead. It isn't as secure as Vanadium and has privacy disadvantages too. Brave on GrapheneOS is more secure than Brave outside of GrapheneOS due the protections. Same applies to other browsers.

2026-04-06 16:15:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…eea5 @nprofile…sg74 GrapheneOS goes out of the way to avoid standing out as being GrapheneOS on networks and to services when people are using a VPN. That's why it has a toggle to use the standard connectivity checks. Fixing privacy and security vulnerabilities inherently makes it possible to see those are fixed but that doesn't mean it stands out.
Contrary to your claims, Vanadium has far better protection against fingerprinting than Chrome but doesn't have nearly as many users.

2026-04-06 14:53:10 UTC

This is an extreme misrepresentation of both what Gaël Duval said in this interview and our response to it. What he clearly said is that /e/ and Murena aren't providing security hardening which he claims is only useful for pedophiles, criminals and spies. Gaël Duval has repeatedly said this in his posts including ones where he directly says GrapheneOS is only useful for pedophiles, criminals and spies. We can show archives of numerous posts with him saying exactly that.
https://tilde.zone/@notthebee/116358115664425978

2026-04-05 22:03:40 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…q9qe GrapheneOS is based in Canada, not France. However, we avoid strongly tying ourselves to Canada and are willing to move elsewhere if there are ever authoritarian laws which prevent us from continuing GrapheneOS in it. Laws which don't impact us directly aren't an issue. We did have multiple public-facing servers in France and had most of our public-facing servers hosted with a French company (OVH). We left those entirely behind.

2026-04-05 21:59:27 UTC

- reply

France is the most anti-encryption, anti-privacy and anti-security country in the EU. They've been doing a gradual crackdown on open source privacy projects including GrapheneOS and Signal with escalating smears and threats. /e/ and Murena are on the side of the police state.

2026-04-05 21:52:18 UTC

- reply

/e/ and Murena have repeatedly claimed GrapheneOS is for drug dealers, pedophiles, terrorists and spies. /e/ and Murena are anti-privacy. They're heavily profiting from marketing products as private but don't believe in it. /e/ is an authoritarian-aligned fake privacy project.

2026-04-05 21:45:59 UTC

- reply

/e/ and Murena have their own privacy invasive behavior in their apps and services. One particularly egregious example is their supposedly private speech-to-text service sending user data to OpenAI without consent instead of doing most locally like Apple:
https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using-open-ai/70509

2026-04-05 21:44:51 UTC

- reply

Their marketing heavily focuses on avoiding Google and gives the impression they believe privacy means avoiding one company. Meanwhile, they add a bunch of Google services not present in the Android Open Source Project and give extensive privileged access to Google apps/services.

2026-04-05 21:40:30 UTC

- reply

/e/ and Murena aren't on the same side as GrapheneOS. They're charlatans selling devices with poor privacy and atrocious security to earn money. They've spent years trying to undermine a legitimate privacy project and heavily use the same talking points as police state advocates.

2026-04-05 21:37:14 UTC

- reply

/e/ and Murena are based in France. They've been pushing false narratives about GrapheneOS falsely claiming it isn't usable by regular people and doesn't benefit them for years. Duval has been making the ludicrous claim GrapheneOS is only useful to criminals and spies for years.

2026-04-05 21:33:49 UTC

- reply

Here are several particularly egregious examples:
https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/telephones-proteges-utilises-par-les-narcotrafiquants-rien-nest-inviolable-19-11-2025-3PP34GIBAJGH3EZOVEJVT7OMU4.php
https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/google-pixel-et-grapheneos-la-botte-secrete-des-narcotrafiquants-pour-proteger-leurs-donnees-de-la-police-19-11-2025-NTGPQE4JCNGEHLF7XGIQ3CCA2I.php
https://www.franceinfo.fr/faits-divers/narcotrafic-les-autorites-alertent-sur-l-utilisation-d-un-systeme-d-exploitation-de-telephone-pour-echapper-aux-forces-de-l-ordre_7631510.html
Gaël Duval and Murena participated in these attacks. They even spread harassment content towards our team and shared it with sites attacking us.

2026-04-05 21:24:46 UTC

- reply

Across most of the French corporate and state media covering it, inaccurate claims by the state about the features, distribution and marketing of GrapheneOS were wrongly presented as factual. Most media didn't contact us and none of them showed us what was claimed about us before we could respond.

2026-04-05 21:18:43 UTC

- reply

Recently, France's national law enforcement began fearmongering about GrapheneOS and smearing it with inaccurate claims. France's corporate and state media heavily participated. Many articles and also radio/television coverage misrepresented GrapheneOS as being for criminals.

2026-04-05 21:13:49 UTC

- reply

Despite being done for profit, /e/ receives millions of euros in funding from the EU on an ongoing basis. /e/ and Murena use extraordinarily inaccurate marketing to not only promote their products/services but also to mislead people about GrapheneOS and scare them away from it.

2026-04-05 21:09:56 UTC

- reply

Murena is a for-profit company owned by shareholders including Gaël Duval. /e/ has a non-profit organization which is also led by Gaël Duval. /e/ includes paid services from Murena. /e/ very clearly exists to build products for Murena to sell in order to enrich the shareholders.

2026-04-05 21:06:56 UTC

- reply

It's common for apps and websites to do everything through their own servers. That's best practice to avoid leaking API keys. It's increasingly common for invasive libraries to use hard-wired IPs and/or DNS-over-HTTPS to evade blocking. DNS filtering is increasingly less useful.

2026-04-05 21:04:12 UTC

- reply

Their DNS blocklist can only block domains not used for useful functionality to avoid ruining usability. Meanwhile, the most privacy invasive behavior by apps is rarely ever split out into separate domains. Even for those, apps and websites can trivially evade DNS blocklists.

2026-04-05 21:02:25 UTC

- reply

/e/ and Murena devices are far worse for privacy and security than an iPhone. It's trivial to break into their devices remotely or extract data from them compared to an iPhone. They have weaker privacy protections from apps too. Their main approach to privacy is a DNS blocklist.

2026-04-05 20:56:03 UTC

- reply

/e/ is far weaker in all of these areas compared to the standard Android Open Source Project on secure hardware. It doesn't keep up with standards updates and protections. It adds tons of low security attack surface and privacy invasive services. It's not in the same space as us.

2026-04-05 20:54:05 UTC

- reply

GrapheneOS and iOS are both heavily focused on privacy and security. Both are gradually adding much stronger protections against apps/sites scraping data, coercion users into giving data via alternatives with case-by-case consent and increasingly strong exploit protections.

2026-04-05 20:50:55 UTC

- reply

It's hardly only GrapheneOS focusing on protecting users against exploits. Apple and Google have put a ton of work into it. Apple heavily focuses on privacy and security. That includes protecting against remote exploits, local exploits from compromised apps and data extraction.

2026-04-05 20:43:03 UTC

- reply

For years, Gaël Duval has spearheaded a campaign to misrepresent GrapheneOS as not being usable, not compatible with apps and only useful to a tiny minority of people. He has repeatedly claimed GrapheneOS is for pedophiles, criminals and spies while claiming /e/ is for everyone.

2026-04-05 20:41:48 UTC

- reply

/e/ has far worse privacy and security than the Android Open Source Project. They fail to keep up with important standard privacy and security patches for Android, Linux, firmware, drivers and HALs. They fail to provide current generation Android privacy and security protections.

2026-04-05 20:36:07 UTC

- reply

GrapheneOS exists to protect users from having their privacy invaded by arbitrary individuals, corporations and states. Privacy depends on security. GrapheneOS heavily improves both privacy and security while providing a high level of usability and near perfect app compatibility.

2026-04-05 20:26:43 UTC

- reply

> si la mémoire est pas corrompue, des trucs de sécu vraiment durcis qui pourraient être utiles clairement pour des dirigeants, dans les services secrets ou que sais-je. C'est pas notre but, notre but c'est de partir d'un constat, aujourd'hui nos données personnelles sont pillées en permanence et ça serait pas légal dans la vraie vie avec le courrier ou le téléphone, on veut changer ça. Donc on vous fait un produit qui change ça par défaut pour n'importe quelle personne.

2026-04-05 20:26:39 UTC

- reply

Transcription in French:
> Il y a la surface d'attaque, là pour le coup on est pas des spécialistes de la sécurité, donc je ne pourrais pas te répondre avec précision, mais des discussions que j'ai eu, il semblerait que tout ce qu'on fait, ça réduit la surface d'attaque. Donc oui, probablement ça aide. Par contre, on a pas une approche "sécurité durcie", on développe pas un téléphone pour les pédo(bip) pour qu'ils puissent échapper à la justice. Donc il y a pas des trucs pas possibles pour voir

2026-04-05 20:26:08 UTC

- reply

> with the mail or the telephone, we want to change that. So we are making you a product that changes that by default for anyone.

2026-04-05 20:26:04 UTC

- reply

> we do reduces attack surface. However, we don't have a "hardened security" approach, we aren't developing a phone for pedo(censored) so they can evade justice. So there aren't difficult things to check if the memory is corrupted, really hardened security stuff that could clearly be useful for executives, in the secret service, or whatever. That's not our goal, our goal is to start from an observation: today our personal data is constantly being plundered and that wouldn't be legal in real life

2026-04-05 20:25:41 UTC

Gaël Duval is the founder and president of the /e/ foundation along with the CEO of Murena. Duval and his organizations have consistently taken a stance against protecting users from exploits. In this video, he once again claims protecting against exploits is for only useful pedophiles and spies.
Translation to English:
> There's the attack surface, on that front we're not security specialists here, so I couldn't answer you precisely, but from the discussions I've had, it seems that everything
https://grapheneos.social/system/media_attachments/files/116/353/970/673/759/638/original/9e06eacbb567eab4.mp4

2026-03-30 21:58:57 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…6xa0 A Tweakers.net editor reached out on Bluesky and they may be in the process of resolving it already. We'll see.

2026-03-30 21:34:57 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…8096 We have bigger fish to fry with legal action.
Debunking this and showing how ridiculous it is should defuse the ability for it to cause harm to us.
It would be a huge pain to take legal action against someone in Europe so it better be worth it. We don't think he's going to cause much harm to us with us debunking it.
We can hopefully get multiple news organization to look into the situation and correct their articles.
It's genuinely ridiculous how much bullshit we deal with...

2026-03-30 20:59:49 UTC

- reply

He was selling devices by misrepresenting his involvement and was going after other companies selling devices with GrapheneOS based on claiming to have created it. He donated a small portion of the sales to GrapheneOS, but the way he earned it money caused substantial harm to us.

2026-03-30 20:52:54 UTC

- reply

We allowed him to make a fork and sell devices with it but he thoroughly misrepresented that as being GrapheneOS behind our backs. He took advantage of the language barrier and our lack of awareness about Dutch media along with us being occupied by the attacks from Copperhead.

2026-03-30 20:50:17 UTC

- reply

Abdoul said he would donate a portion of the money from each device he sold to GrapheneOS but didn't end up providing most of it. Despite that, he later tried to extort us claiming he'd invested money and was owed returns. GrapheneOS isn't a business and has no shareholders.

2026-03-30 19:11:26 UTC

- reply

This isn't limited to tech news sites passing themselves off as credible sources. Here's one of the major Dutch news sites publishing his claims:
https://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/tech-innovatie/10597115/ajaxstopteomvangrijkdatalekuit-2017-in-de-doofpot
We've attached some screenshots of claimed achivements on Abdoul's website at https://aquax.nl/.
https://grapheneos.social/system/media_attachments/files/116/319/707/302/864/367/original/dd4f742ff9a5d54b.png
https://grapheneos.social/system/media_attachments/files/116/319/707/491/975/215/original/e78ddef0b19c5be8.png
https://grapheneos.social/system/media_attachments/files/116/319/707/685/243/124/original/1a0c9f630beca9eb.png

2026-03-30 18:59:22 UTC

- reply

These journalists seriously need to take a close look at Abdoul Rasnab's website where he claims to be responsible for the 2014 celebrity nude leaks involving iCloud and much more. His claims are clearly false. How is the Dutch media getting duped into repeating his stories?

2026-03-30 18:46:49 UTC

- reply

We need help from people in the Netherlands to get Tweakers to investigate their past story where they were duped by Abdoul Rasnab into believing he founded GrapheneOS. They should take it down and issue a formal retraction. Slop farms including Cybernews are unlikely to do much.

2026-03-30 18:45:18 UTC

- reply

We're drawing attention to this because we're concerned about Abdoul Rasnab's fabrications about involvement in GrapheneOS and his supposed hacking achievements being leveraged in state attacks on GrapheneOS. He's making himself a useful idiot for authoritarians slandering us.

2026-03-30 18:43:01 UTC

- reply

Take a look at Abdoul's site and expand the section on data breaches where he claims credit for a bunch of them. We have direct experience with 2 years of him pretending to be supportive while building a business around pretending to be our project. This is simply how he rolls.

2026-03-30 18:36:12 UTC

- reply

Abdoul's site claims he's responsible for major data breaches even including the 2014 celebrity nude photo leaks tied to iCloud. Abdoul has previously duped Dutch podcasts and news sites including Tweakers.net into publishing content claiming he founded GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 18:14:50 UTC

- reply

We heard from several people who knew Abdoul Rasnab that the reason for his arrest and imprisonment while awaiting trial was him pretending to have committed crimes to impress a woman who turned out to be a police informant. That sounds a lot like what he's doing right now.

2026-03-30 18:12:56 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab spent a year in prison in Spain which brought an end to his proprietary fork of GrapheneOS pretending to be the original project and his company selling it. We don't know the details. He claims he didn't commit a crime and was found to be innocent. It's possible.

2026-03-30 18:02:38 UTC

- reply

Cybernews has taken AI slop content from Abdoul Rasnab's site claiming credit for hacking a company and published it on their site, which is now being spread by other news sites:
https://cybernews.com/security/ajax-silenced-hacker-2017-data-breach/
This is the state of journalism in 2026. It's why we've posted this thread.

2026-03-30 18:01:49 UTC

- reply

Cybernews is a content farm presenting their coverage of information security as being investigative journalism and security research. We've previously debunked a story from them involving the Pixel 9 which was heavily spread by other news publications:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16338-highly-misleading-and-inaccurate-article-from-cybernews-about-the-pixel-9

2026-03-30 18:00:04 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab has created a website filled with AI slop where he claims to have discovered a bunch of severe vulnerabilities and claims credit for hacking multiple companies. He's once again falsely claiming to have founded GrapheneOS on this website:
https://aquax.nl/

2026-03-30 17:49:48 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab previously tried to extort us by coming up with fabricated stories about us and claiming he would ruin our reputation pushing those in the media. He backed down and he once again stopped wrongly calling himself a founder of the project but now he's back to doing it.

2026-03-30 17:43:38 UTC

- reply

He created a proprietary fork of GrapheneOS and founded a company selling phones with it in Europe. He was allowed to fork GrapheneOS and sell it but absolutely shouldn't have used the same name as the upstream project. He's passing this off as having created/founded GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:40:57 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab misrepresented himself as creating and founding the project in order to gain an advantage over other companies selling devices with GrapheneOS. He had conflicts with those companies and he did things such as filing DMCA takedowns in our name without authorization.

2026-03-30 17:39:47 UTC

- reply

The person who sold us the grapheneos.com domain with the original rights to the name only charged us around $500 to cover their costs along with wanting a phone running GrapheneOS and accepted an old used one. It's possible they're now a GrapheneOS and supporter.

2026-03-30 17:38:01 UTC

- reply

We ended up having to purchase the grapheneos.com domain including the rights to the name. Run a WHOIS or RDAP check on grapheneos.com and you'll see it was registered in 2014. There was also a name collision with an academic project which renamed themselves.

2026-03-30 17:36:08 UTC

- reply

Back in 2018, we renamed CopperheadOS to the Android Hardening Project as a placeholder and told people we were deciding on a new name. Abdoul Rasnab was one of multiple people who suggested GrapheneOS as a name. He seems to think that somehow made into his project post-rename.

2026-03-30 17:34:01 UTC

- reply

His proprietary fork of GrapheneOS and his company both wrongly reusing the name of the project he forked only existed from around 2018 through 2021. The part that's still ongoing is that he keeps reverting back to promoting himself by claiming to have founded GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:31:11 UTC

- reply

To this day, Abdoul Rasnab misrepresents himself as a founder of GrapheneOS. He even portrays himself as being actively involved in the project. He makes many extraordinarily claims about himself unrelated to GrapheneOS which help to contextualize the claims about GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:24:30 UTC

- reply

He did multiple interviews in Dutch with media in the Netherlands where he misrepresented himself as being the founder and creator of GrapheneOS. He told his customers he was the creator of GrapheneOS and that devices running a fork from him were using the official GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:23:26 UTC

- reply

He took advantage of the fact that we were incredibly busy and under huge pressure from attacks by Copperhead. He acted as if he was supporting us while actually taking advantage of us and pretending he had created the open source project he didn't write 1 line of code in.

2026-03-30 17:22:37 UTC

- reply

He used GrapheneOS as the name for his proprietary fork of GrapheneOS and also named his company founded in the Netherlands GrapheneOS. He didn't have authorization to do this and was misleading us about what he was doing and how he was presenting his involvement in GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:21:30 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab repeatedly misrepresented himself as a creator or founder of GrapheneOS on LinkedIn and elsewhere. He repeatedly agreed to stop but never followed through. Later, we found out he built his whole business around misrepresenting himself as having created GrapheneOS.

2026-03-30 17:20:24 UTC

- reply

Abdoul Rasnab said he wanted to support us and committed to providing a portion of the sales of devices. We had no formal business deal. He didn't need a commercial license to use GrapheneOS. We thought it was someone being generous, although he didn't end up sending most of it.

2026-03-30 17:17:54 UTC

- reply

From 2018 through around 2021, Abdoul Rasnab sold devices with his own proprietary fork of GrapheneOS. That's 4 years after the project was started. He had no involvement in creating or founding GrapheneOS. He also didn't write absolutely any of the GrapheneOS project's code.

2026-03-30 17:15:30 UTC

- reply

A bunch of companies and individuals have sold devices with GrapheneOS or a fork of it. Many companies making forks of GrapheneOS haven't complied with our open source licenses and our separate rules for usage of our trademarks which we've been actively addressing for years.

2026-03-30 17:11:40 UTC

GrapheneOS is an open source project. Open source means it can be modified and used for any purpose including commercial ones. People making forks of GrapheneOS are supposed to rebrand it and make it clear that it's not the official GrapheneOS but rather a derivative of it.

2026-03-29 16:49:08 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…srdy GrapheneOS is entirely funded by donations. Paying developers is our main expense by far followed by legal fees, auditing and accounting. Our other expenses such as servers are quite small since we're being very efficient including seeking out sponsorships from hosting providers. If every GrapheneOS user donated $20 per year that would be over 8 million dollars per year of donations. We unfortunately don't get that much but don't underestimate how much money we can raise via donations.

2026-03-28 22:59:03 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…5nsj @nprofile…w4aq It will be regular GrapheneOS on Motorola devices. That won't have their apps and services.
They also want to integrate a subset of GrapheneOS features into their own OS which is a separate thing.

2026-03-28 21:14:30 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…w4aq Lenovo is a Chinese company based in Hong Kong.
We're expanding device support to one of the most widely available brands of devices while keeping all of our security standards intact.
It's not our fault that most Android OEMs aren't interested in improving their devices to meet our security requirements with better updates, better hardware/firmware security and adding more of the standardized hardware-based security features.
Why exactly are you angry with us?

2026-03-28 15:38:39 UTC

- reply

There aren't yet devices supporting GrapheneOS directly sold in South America. Brazil in particular has unusually high import duties/taxes which add up to around 100%. This has resulted in us not having a lot of users there but our Motorola partnership will start changing this.

2026-03-28 15:29:12 UTC

- reply

We have a tiny VPS in São Paulo for our ns1 anycast DNS and a second for our website/network services. It probably isn't an issue and those can be removed if necessary. Santiago could be added for both instead but wouldn't work very well as a replacement for having São Paulo.

2026-03-28 15:25:38 UTC

- reply

GrapheneOS has no team members or operations in Brazil. São Paulo in Brazil is by far the biggest network hub within South America. Miami is also a major network hub for South America and is currently where our update server is for South America since it's dramatically cheaper.