#GrapheneOS based on Android 16 is now available in our Beta channel. There are 2 main known issues which will be fixed in the next release: lockscreen date and media info are not properly displayed due to an upstream AOSP bug and Pixel Thermometer doesn't appear in our App Store. Last month, we provided the 2025-06-01 Android/Pixel security patch level early in the month before the stock OS release as preparation and then backported Android 16 firmware and kernel/userspace driver patches to provide the 2025-06-05 Android and then Pixel patch levels. Our 2025062700 release raised the overall patch level to 2025-07-01 since we got early access to it with a verifiable signature and know we already provide the patches. We usually do an early Android Security Bulletin release before the stock OS but it was done for July in June. Android Security Bulletins are backports of High/Critical severity patches to older Android. Starting this month, the initial release of Android 16 is one of those older releases. It's split into AOSP userspace patches (YYYY-MM-01) and driver/firmware/Linux patches (YYYY-MM-05) YYYY-MM-05 patch level has a device-specific portion with more driver/firmware patches. For Pixels, it's the Pixel Update Bulletin. Most Pixel Update Bulletin patches aren't specific to Pixels but the Android Security Bulletin doesn't cover Samsung cellular, Broadcom Wi-Fi, etc.
Android regularly adds and splits permissions for new API levels. Legacy apps are handled by treating them as requesting the permission to provide a toggle for it. For example, Android 13 converted the existing toggle for disabling notifications for an app into a new POST_NOTIFICATIONS permission. The Android Open Source Project has infrastructure for this since it's a regular part of the app sandbox and permission model improving. We add Network and Sensors permission toggles in GrapheneOS where Network is based on the existing low-level INTERNET permission and Sensors is entirely new. Nearly all apps are unaware of these non-standard permissions just as they're unaware of new permissions added by Android before they get upgraded. Therefore, we enable them by default for compatibility but provide the ability for users to disable them at install time like the standard permissions. For Network, apps request INTERNET, so we provide a toggle for rejecting that request in the initial app install dialog. If it's added in an upgrade, it's disabled by default. For Sensors, apps don't request it so we handle it similarly to how Android handled POST_NOTIFICATIONS for existing apps. When Network is disabled, we act as if the network is down for compatibility. We won't run network-dependent jobs, various APIs will report it as down and we give errors matching it being down. When Sensors is disabled, sensors not covered by standard permissions give zeroed data and no events. For usability, apps trying to use those sensors when Sensors is disabled will trigger a notification from the OS which can be disabled on a per-app basis. This informs users about what's going on so they'll know the app is either doing something sketchy or that it may actually require it. F-Droid has an incorrect approach to installing apps which wrongly warns users about the standard Android POST_NOTIFICATIONS permission, our OTHER_SENSORS permission and previous Android permission additions/splits. They wrongly blamed GrapheneOS and didn't fix it: They're now realizing that it happens with standard Android permissions added / split in new releases. Their approach to installing apps has been incorrect in multiple ways for many years and this is one of them. Their approach to listing which permissions are used by apps is also very incorrect. F-Droid has a long history of denying issues including covering up serious security flaws. In some cases they eventually ship a fix but still deny it. It's a major factor in why F-Droid is not a safe or trustworthy source of apps due to major security issues not being acknowledged or addressed. Multiple of the F-Droid developers wrongly blaming their app bug on #GrapheneOS in that issue are Calyx contractors. They prioritize attacking GrapheneOS with inaccurate claims and fabricated stories about our team over fixing a bug in their app impacting both GrapheneOS and non-GrapheneOS users. We've repeatedly brought up F-Droid not properly listing permissions or checking for them. Their understanding of Android's permission model is wrong. The way they list permissions misleads and misinforms users. It's one of many major F-Droid flaws they consistently don't acknowledge or fix.
ICEBlock is making incredibly false privacy claims for marketing. They falsely claim it provides complete anonymity when it doesn't. They're ignoring both data kept by Apple and data available to the server but not stored. They're also spreading misinformation about Android: Their claims about push notifications on Android compared to iOS are completely false. Both Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) and the Apple Push Notification service (APNs) function in a similar way with similar privacy. However, Android does not force using FCM and apps can use other push systems. iOS forces uses Apple services including getting apps through Apple where they have a record of which apps each person and account has installed and using their push notification service. Both FCM and APNs have tokens. Android doesn't allow apps to access device IDs. Push tokens aren't device IDs. Apple and Google can identify devices/users based on push tokens obtained by law enforcement from services. Unlike Google, Apple only recently began requiring warrants: https://reuters.com/technology/apple-now-requires-judges-consent-hand-over-push-notification-data-2023-12-12/ ICEBlock's claims about this are highly inaccurate and they haven't acknowledged corrections.
We are very disappointed that Android Authority, of all websites, would choose to publish an article like this too. Not only does it frame GrapheneOS in a way that makes it appear harmful, It is full of technical inaccuracies. We have contacted them about this matter.