upvote
> The attestation API in AOSP allows companies to trust signing key fingerprints (such as those of GrapheneOS), which means that the attestation system is not controlled by a single company (Google).

I wonder if this would exclude rooted OSes, non-relocked bootloaders and things like that? Sorry for stupid question, still not quite understanding how this works.

reply
Currently probably not, because there are leaked keys, etc. But otherwise it would, since the verified boot state, etc. is added as part of the signed material.
reply
> very likely to be the most secure mobile OS

> IANAL, but anti-competition lawyers/bodies should have a field day with this, but nobody seems to care

I'm gonna take a wild guess that proving the above statement in court (and then its necessary impact) might be a significant obstacle here?

reply
You don't really "prove" statements like that. You get some "expert witnesses" to testify one way or another, and your opposition gets some "expert witnesses" to testify the opposite, and then the judge/jury decides who they think was more credible.

I imagine the way to do this effectively would be to get some well-regarded infosec firms to audit both OSes (from source as much as possible), and also compile lists of vulnerabilities found, fixed, not-fixed, etc. over time. Then you need a witness who can explain all of it in a way that's accessible to and likely to sway a jury.

reply