Don't just Degoogle,
Zero Google.
As Google shifts to put AI and "Find my device" in the hardware itself, who knows if this corrupt and evil company secretly has backdoors in Pixels. We just don't know.
Introducing the first of our "Zero Google" non-Pixel Phones,
LineageOS OnePlus 9
Carrier Unlocked
No Battery Cycles, Brand New
Mint condition, Black
3 Month Warranty from us
Secured by a binding arbitration XMRBazaar deposit
Optional 6-month VPN subscription as well.
$320 in Bitcoin or Monero.
In theory, the "find my device" needs a google account to be activated. And if you trust that, then we offer Pixels with GrapheneOS.
But if you don't, and you want to completely separate your ties from Google, then this is an easy, low-cost way, to keep your name off the IMEI for geolocation tracking from celltowers, save time with Lineage's setup, and get an amazing price for a mint condition brand new device.
Reach out either way for Graphene or Lineage. It's not for me to decide, it's your device:
simplifiedprivacy.com/contact.…
GrapheneOS
in reply to SimplifiedPrivacy • • •OnePlus 9 is end-of-life without basic driver/firmware patches. LineageOS misleads users with an inaccurate Android security patch level. Devices without basic privacy and security patches do not provide users with the bare minimum for privacy. LineageOS itself significantly lags behind on providing patches and does not maintain the standard privacy/security model.
Aside from that, it's absolutely not "Zero Google" in any sense.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •No need for backdoors when those devices and the OS have known serious unpatched privacy and security vulnerabilities. OnePlus 9 end-of-life was March 2025.
The software is near entirely written by Google and it's still using Google's work at a hardware and firmware level too. LineageOS always connects to multiple Google services and gives highly privileged access to Google apps and services. How is that "Zero Google"?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Quite strange to make unsubstantiated claims about backdoors while selling devices with serious known unpatched security vulnerabilities.
GrapheneOS isn't going to take the shortcut of supporting insecure devices to expand usage share while misleading people. That's why we're working with OEMs towards their devices meeting reasonable security standards.
Profiting from our work while spreading FUD about us is an interesting move.
freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Look. Graphene OS does security very well. But it is supporting only Pixel phones. Other OS's like lineage are maby really barebone and have the goal to help every smartphoneuser to extend its lifetime.
The war you are fighting against ROM's is no help to the privacy space. You need to accept, that different solutions tackle different problems. With all its downs and ups. You paint all in black and white. And through this you always missrepresent reality very badly.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> Look. Graphene OS does security very well.
GrapheneOS is a privacy project. The bare minimum required for privacy is providing important privacy and security patches.
> Other OS's like lineage are maby really barebone and have the goal to help every smartphoneuser to extend its lifetime.
No, this is an unsafe device without basic patches. It's not extended.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> The war you are fighting against ROM's is no help to the privacy space.
We're doing no such thing, and you should also use the correct terminology. These are not ROMs. They're operating systems.
> You paint all in black and white.
It's a clearly insecure and non-private device. Basic patches are the bare minimum. It is black and white in this case.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> And through this you always missrepresent reality very badly.
We've done absolutely no such thing. This device is end-of-life since after March 2025. It doesn't get driver and firmware privacy/security patches. It's vulnerable to known remote code execution vulnerabilities which will not be patched. Using LineageOS does not provide the patches. It 's unsafe.
Juraj
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •They are reacting to claims of selling devices that should be somehow secure by "zero Google", which is no longer the case.
This use case is not about extending life span of your device but about somehow selling you a device with claims of increased privacy that are completely wrong
freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to Juraj • • •But noone is advertising security. The article is very explicit in helping to avoid Google tracking.
So I actually would say this is a fair transparent offer. That Lineage has security concerns can be a good additional information. But it does not take away any of the value of the original offer.
Therefore I see @GrapheneOS comment as agressive and no real support of #grapheneos nor #privacyand #security .
It is attacking claims that have not been made. Like when I would say to drink a coffee and then you want me not to drink it because of the bad effects of smoking on my health. Complete misdirected critique.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> But noone is advertising security. The article is very explicit in helping to avoid Google tracking.
They're advertising devices with serious known privacy and security issues as being private. They're advertising devices which heavily involve Google as "Zero Google". They're not "Zero Google".
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> it does not take away any of the value of the original offer.
The product is not what it's claimed to be. Selling people highly insecure and non-private devices without basic patches without informing them is wrong. Strange to make unsubstantiated claims about backdoors when doing it.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Providing accurate info is not aggression or harassment as you keep claiming. Informing people is not wrong.
They were the ones to make unsubstantiated claims about backdoors while selling devices known to have serious unpatched vulnerabilities which won't be fixed. Which is backdoored again?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Do you think it's right to sell people a device with known vulnerabilities with an OS
No. It is not ok. And important to be corrected.
Same counts for upplaying a threat. Is also harmful to security and privacy. Since every person has an individual threat level. When we can improve the basic security and privacy level, this is great, when it comes at no cost. And in every other case it is up to the reader to decide what level of security and privacy is the best for her/him.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> No. It is not ok. And important to be corrected.
Yet you're repeatedly misrepresenting our statements and attacking us for doing so with accurate and verifiable information.
> Same counts for upplaying a threat.
We're doing no such thing. Basic privacy and security patches are very important.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Look, you really fail at bringing in threat levels. Understand what others want. Privacy and Security are both scalable. They are not digital in a way to eighter have privacy or not. Same with security.
npub1kl8e7s48j6cfr6zrmn53n5l0f…
Discussions like this one on discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14304… show too well, how you fail completely in understanding the goal of someone. You seem to just not care or think every person on earth has the same threat level.
And since you fail with this consistantly, I have a very hard time to beliefe anything you say. People who mix true criticism with unlegitimated attacks, maby just loose cridibility for everything. And this is exactly what I see far too often by
... show moreLook, you really fail at bringing in threat levels. Understand what others want. Privacy and Security are both scalable. They are not digital in a way to eighter have privacy or not. Same with security.
npub1kl8e7s48j6cfr6zrmn53n5l0f…
Discussions like this one on discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14304… show too well, how you fail completely in understanding the goal of someone. You seem to just not care or think every person on earth has the same threat level.
And since you fail with this consistantly, I have a very hard time to beliefe anything you say. People who mix true criticism with unlegitimated attacks, maby just loose cridibility for everything. And this is exactly what I see far too often by @GrapheneOS . Every project, that gives anything about costumer relations and values trust gets rid of such contributers immediatly. Since all the value you bring the project has to be reviewed by hard work, to know which parts are lies and unrelated attacks, and which have some truth.
This project would be so much better, when your comments would just not be under the name of the project.
Probably you say I should just stop using the OS. But since it is an opensource project the developer have no say who and how it is used. So do not even try to come with this argument again.
Harm reduction with stock OS or LineageOS (Samsung S10) - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion ForumGrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> Look, you really fail at bringing in threat levels.
No, we don't. Lack of basic privacy and security patches fails to meet even the most basic threat level. Someone using a device without those is putting their contacts and the health of the overall internet at risk, not only themselves.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14304…
This shows us steering people away from extraordinarily insecure and non-private options. No one should be using devices without basic privacy and security patches. It's the bare minimum every product should provide. A $50 phone from Walmart SHOULD provide it for years.
Harm reduction with stock OS or LineageOS (Samsung S10) - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion ForumGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> And since you fail with this consistantly, I have a very hard time to beliefe anything you say.
We do no such thing. You continuously posts these irrational appeals to emotion where you misrepresent what we have said and done. You do not actually try to read and understand what we've posted.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •SimplifiedPrivacy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to SimplifiedPrivacy • • •Here are Qualcomm's security bulletins:
docs.qualcomm.com/product/publ…
Here are Android's security bulletins:
source.android.com/docs/securi…
Each Android Security Bulletin is divided in 2 parts. The first YYYY-MM-01 part has AOSP userspace patches. The second YYYY-MM-05 part has kernel, driver and firmware.
Qualcomm Documentation
docs.qualcomm.comGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •There are also additional patches required for other drivers and firmware for other components not made by Qualcomm.
Here's the Pixel June 2025 Update bulletin listing the additional driver/firmware patches:
source.android.com/docs/securi…
Only around 1 patch there is actually Pixel specific (TPU).
Pixel Update Bulletin—June 2025
Android Open Source ProjectGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> The topic is not someone having an insecure, end-of-life device where they want to make it less bad.
When you critique LineageOS as a whole you are including the end of life devices. And this is what you did in the first comment.
You seem to not care about reputation at all. Show me a comment, where you publicly claim to be wrong or missrepresented.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> You seem to not care about reputation at all. Show me a comment, where you publicly claim to be wrong or missrepresented.
You've repeatedly misrepresented our statements and lied about us in this thread. Most of your replies are example of it. You use our work but desperately try to harm us.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •SimplifiedPrivacy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I went through this again and the Qualcomm list did not sway me. But more careful review of the android one does. CVE-2025-27363 changed my mind. I knew about easier access without locked bootloader and such, however remote access is a different animal. You're correct that speculation about backdoors in Google hardware are meaningless in the face of known remote access vulnerabilities. I will pull the offer.
Ultimately though I do believe that neither you, nor I, should decide if everyone is forced into a Pixel. We offered this to let the end-user decide. I see from your posts in general, that you are looking to and working with other hardware in the future. I hope that works out. Graphene software is top notch.
But while you have changed my mind today with this particular OnePlus 9/Lineage offer, in the long-term, if we're having this same discussion 2-3 years from now, we will offer alternatives. The end user should have choices.
GrapheneOS
in reply to SimplifiedPrivacy • • •Qualcomm Documentation
docs.qualcomm.comGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •That July 2025 Qualcomm bulletin has a critical severity remotely exploitable GPS vulnerability. It also lists a bunch of relevant High severity vulnerabilities.
June 2025 Qualcomm bulletin has a remotely exploitable GPU vulnerability and a bunch of relevant High severity ones.
There are more.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •CVE-2025-27363 is one of the remote vulnerabilities fixed in the userspace AOSP code so LineageOS does eventually ship them but often with weeks of delay.
There are already multiple relevant remote vulnerabilities in Qualcomm drivers and firmware. There will be far more of them. They won't be fixed.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •OnePlus does not take security very seriously and does not allow another OS to be installed securely with the hardware-based security like verified boot intact.
Aside from that, your claim that a OnePlus device is somehow more trustworthy and less likely to have backdoors simply doesn't make sense.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Graphene software is top notch.
GrapheneOS depends on hardware-based security features used by Android and GrapheneOS. It also depends on driver and firmware security patches. A highly private and secure OS with insecure hardware/firmware underneath isn't a highly private and secure device.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •People do have many choices. We aren't saying people shouldn't have the option to use LineageOS or a OnePlus 9. What we're saying is that it has poor privacy or security.
We're aware having a non-Pixel device would make people happy and are working towards a secure one, which is not yet available.
SimplifiedPrivacy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to SimplifiedPrivacy • • •mister_monster
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to mister_monster • • •OnePlus devices are Google Mobile Services devices made in partnership with Google. Android Open Source Project is made by Google.
There isn't a similar OS in the same space as GrapheneOS made for other devices and there cannot be one.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Comparison of Android-based Operating Systems
eylenburg.github.ioGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •mister_monster
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to mister_monster • • •GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSJuraj
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to Juraj • • •This is great to point out. For me a person needs to argue fine grained, so I could think they understand of what they are speaking. And this I have never seen from @GrapheneOS account.
I am always open to change this view, when I see finegrained well explained critique, including sources.
These kind of critique just seems like the user is not working scientifically at all. And when he leads to people thinking that nonscientific work would be accepted within the graphene project, then it takes away a lot of credibility of the project.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> This is great to point out. For me a person needs to argue fine grained, so I could think they understand of what they are speaking. And this I have never seen from @GrapheneOS account.
We provided that information above in what you replied to. You do not read and try to understand our posts.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> I am always open to change this view, when I see finegrained well explained critique, including sources.
We provided accurate and verifiable information. We linked to the 3rd party table at eylenburg.github.io/android_co… with highly accurate info vetted by many people publicly. They accept corrections.
Comparison of Android-based Operating Systems
eylenburg.github.ioGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> These kind of critique just seems like the user is not working scientifically at all.
You dislike the accurate and verifiable information we provide, so you disregard it. You pretend we've said and done things we haven't. Info we've provided here and elsewhere about this is accurate/verifiable.
freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> Or are you so dishonest to just lie in my face and hope this would recuperate your underground reputation?
Jul 21, 2025, 01:24 AM:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
Jul 21, 2025, 06:11 AM:
grapheneos.social/@b7cf9f42a79…
The fact is that you repeatedly make false claims including about what we've said.
GrapheneOS Mastodon
grapheneos.socialGrapheneOS
2025-07-21 05:24:14
freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •This is within an other branch. Same main note but an other branch of it.
I hope you do not expect people, to read all your comments spread to different threads and branches?
> The fact is that you repeatedly make false claims including about what we've said.
Go on with your unproofen claims and go on digging your grave of distrust. I keep on calling you out, when you fail to correct. Even opensource projects have to be user-centric to have success. When you understand this, you can start to add value to the project.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Here's from this branch of the thread:
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/…
We explained how LineageOS always connects to multiple Google services and gives highly privileged access to Google apps and services.
It is also clearly based on AOSP and the device in question is a Google Mobile Services device.
GrapheneOS
2025-07-21 05:15:56
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Go on with your unproofen claims and go on digging your grave of distrust.
All of the information we've provided is accurate and verifiable. You aren't responding to us with facts or rational arguments. Instead, you make false claims about what we've said and irrational emotional appeals.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Choosing Your Android-Based Operating System
Tommy (PrivSec - A practical approach to Privacy and Security)freemymind 🇨ðŸ‡
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •There is Leneage with MicroG, which replaces most needed Google services quiet well.
I really do not feel, as if you are intrested to help people. You herrass solutions without proposing better ones. When ones concern is Google, than de-Googeling the phone actually helps a lot in this regard.
GrapheneOS
in reply to freemymind 🇨🇠• • •> There is Leneage with MicroG, which replaces most needed Google services quiet well.
LineageOS always uses multiple Google services:
eylenburg.github.io/android_co…
microG is also primarily an implementation of Google services.
> You herrass solutions without proposing better ones.
We're providing accurate information. Devices without basic patches aren't private.
Comparison of Android-based Operating Systems
eylenburg.github.ioGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The idea that somehow providing accurate information which is inconvenient to your beliefs is harassment is ridiculous.
A device which does not have High/Critical severity patches for the drivers and firmware along with the OS significantly lagging behind on those patches for AOSP is not private and secure.
This lacks working disk encryption for most users too.
gruff
in reply to SimplifiedPrivacy • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to gruff • • •OnePlus 9 has been end-of-life since after March 2025 so firmware and driver bugs are no longer getting patched:
oneplus.com/us/psti
Neither those devices or particularly Lineage OS on them ever had decent security in the first place. Now they're having serious security vulnerabilities remain unpatched for good. The front door is wide open, no need for more.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •LineageOS connects to multiple Google services and gives privileged access to Google apps and services:
eylenburg.github.io/android_co…
LineageOS Is based on AOSP, which is nearly entirely written by Google. OnePlus devices are made in partnership with Google to meet their specifications and use Google's work at a lower level below the OS too. Hardly "Zero Google".
Comparison of Android-based Operating Systems
eylenburg.github.ioSaberhagenTheNameless
in reply to gruff • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to SaberhagenTheNameless • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The context is someone selling devices end-of-life since after March 2025. People will be buying and starting to use a device where important privacy and security patches are now unavailable. This is far from the only choice people have available.
Aside from that, it's not at all "Zero Google".
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •OnePlus themselves has significantly worse privacy practices than Google for their own software and services.
If it's entirely about specifically avoiding Google, then why not use an iPhone? iPhones and iOS have dramatically better overall privacy and security than OnePlus and LineageOS.
SaberhagenTheNameless
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to SaberhagenTheNameless • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •