> The domain “Copperhead.co” was registered by Donaldson in 2014 and incorporated in 2015 under both Donaldson’s and Micay’s names. The idea was that shares would be split equally, with Donaldson as CEO and Micay as de facto chief technology officer. Their flagship product
It sounds to me like some "business" characters I know well. They "handle the business" while someone else does 99% of the actual work, then ask to split 50/50. This didn't work out for Donaldson, and now he spends his time harassing Micay? Is that the gist or am I misreading?
As a response, Micay decided to destroy the update signing keys for all the CopperheadOS devices out in the wild. Resulting in financial damages to Donaldson.
Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something.
It was not a disagreement about shares, it was a hostile takeover. Someone who never owned the project sought to steal it.
According to the linked responses, the keys were not deleted because of disagreement over financial share, but over how the keys were to be used (in particular, in potentially dangerous security-wise ways), for which he did not want personal responsibility over (the keys belonged and used by him even before that project)
>Donaldson tried to make a deal with Phantom Secure, which ultimately didnt work out. Micay suspected other counterparties were linked to organized crime, but we cannot confirm those identities or ties on short notice. Donaldson began pursuing such deals before Micay left and continued afterward.
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-r...
Question 17: Did your and Donaldson values begin to diverge? Was Donaldson more concerned with making money than you were?
Answer: [...] In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys.
The keys had been in continuous use by Micay, in his personal capacity, since before the incorporation of Copperhead. However, more importantly, any party with the keys could mark malicious software as “authentic”, and thereby infiltrate devices using CopperheadOS.
Micay was unwilling to participate in that kind of security breach. Since Donaldson had control over certain infrastructure for the open source project, he would be able to incorporate (or hire others to incorporate) the privacy-damaging features described above for all future releases of CopperheadOS. Micay therefore deleted the keys permanently and severed ties with Copperhead and Donaldson.
Question 25: Did things between you and Donaldson devolve when he approached you about a compliance audit? Did he tell you that he needed to know how the signing keys were stored?
From Wired:
We understand that Daniel's recollection was not that James wanted to know more information about how the signing keys were stored, but that he wanted direct access to them.
Question 26: Did you suspect his request was tied to a deal he was brokering with a large defense contractor? Did you believe this would put the entirety of CopperheadOS’ user base at risk?
Answer: Yes and yes.
The large defense contractor in question was Raytheon. The decision to destroy the signing keys was not based on a financial disagreement, but an existential one. Every single CopperheadOS user back then would have been compromised otherwise. It's of course a big deal given the implications, but it acted as a last resort for Daniel to stop a hostile takeover attempt fueled by greed, which he ultimately took because there was no other way out.
Intelligence wanted in, and Donaldson seemingly would have been happy to oblige.
> From Wired:
> We understand that Daniel's recollection was not that James wanted to know more information about how the signing keys were stored, but that he wanted direct access to them.
> Did you suspect his request was tied to a deal he was brokering with a large defense contractor? Did you believe this would put the entirety of CopperheadOS’ user base at risk?
> Yes and yes.
Forking and building a separate build isnt dual signing, its just forking. You can do that right now with GrapheneOS and its build guide if you want.
Im not sure what you mean by the last part, GrapheneOS has been quite upfront with all of this from the start.
So what? Causing someone financial damages isn't illegal. Your boss causes you financial damages when they fire you. Your competitor causes you financial damages when they offer a discount.
If Micay was a 50% owner, sounds like he didn't do anything illegal. Immature maybe, which simply puts him at parity with the other party involved.
Yeah, that’s the issue. I don’t want people who behave immaturely, impulsively, or vindictively, having a key role in something as important as my phone os. I want stability, maturity, and thoughtfulness.
They were able to improve. I don't think many of the often negative and ad-hominem critics would be able to endure such a pressure as they had in the past.
«In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys.»
Micay is rightfully paranoia, just having a GOS phone makes some government agencies quite mad. There are many ways a project like GOS could die, disinformation could certainly kill it. Other projects don't help the case if they throw mud at it. Rather, they should focus on their real technical shortcomings, but such articles aren't written somehow. https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
EDIT
> Should I make my own fork?
At least some of the defensiveness is warranted. Maybe most of it. Regardless, it comes across in most GrapheneOS communications, and it's sometimes counterproductive.
A related issue, which I'm sure Micay can appreciate, is that users of GrapheneOS tend to be cautious, and increasingly will want to know why the project should be trusted, now that it is popular and on a lot of radars of adversaries.
(For example, hypothetical scenario that's plausible, given the incentives: State actor (e.g., RU, US, CN) or organized crime group long-con starts with a public harassment campaign of Micay. Followed by sleeper volunteers taking more control of the project, initially under the pretext of helping insulate Micay from harassment, and taking some of the load off. Later maybe even impersonating Micay. Now the threat actor has backdoors to a large number of especially privacy/security-conscious parties, including communications, 2FA, location, cryptocurrency wallets, internal networks where those people work, etc.)
I think it probably hasn't been compromised like that, but it's an obvious real possibility, and IMHO, until GrapheneOS is more transparent, some natural users of GrapheneOS are going to consider iPhone relatively "the devil you know".
Again, I think Micay is genuine, and I'm a fan of the project and appreciate it. And I hope the project understands that's compatible with critical thinking about infosec, and doesn't take personal offense at that.
(Source: Am long-time GrapheneOS user, and have donated.)
With a non-profit project of highly principled security experts, there is at least a high probability that they'd rather blow up the project than compromise. People elsewhere in the thread criticize Micay because he deleted the CopperheadOS keys, but to me it increases trust in the GrapheneOS project, since he clearly puts the security of his users over money, fear, and whatnot.
In the end trust arises from running a project or company long-term without evidence that you somehow compromised security.
I wonder in general how this situation could be improved. Second or third independent reproducible build + confirmation signing?
The project is not going to relinquish control to any 3rd party. Not even the Motorola partnership is given control over the GOS project. The hypothetical you describe is not possible by design.
The GOS project takes no issue with critical thinking, and encourages it. But that is often used as an excuse to handwave attacks. There is a very big difference between criticism/critical thinking and attacking them.
Note that there are more individuals in the project than Micay. Multiple people handle multiple responsibilities, its not one person.
Is there an authoritative source of information about how a takeover like that isn't possible by design, which people can verify, analyzed, hold parties accountable for the pieces that require it, etc.?
Responding to attacks so defensively is almost alway a bad look for organizations. They could really use a PR person with a more measured voice that corrects facts and projects confidence, and does not convey victimhood, insecurity or defensiveness. Take a look at the tone of press releases issued by companies when some tech press bozo writes a hit piece on them, for good examples of dealing with people attacking you.
That's not healthy for any project.
So I can understand why they are as defensive as they are.
There's no coordinated attacks on anyone or projects by GrapheneOS. They respond to misinformation, that's about it.
There have been many attacks on privacy/security projects, not just GOS, recently. If you keep up with the GOS forum you can see posts saying GOS was hacked without evidence. Other claims that GOS is only used by criminals. Theyre not true. Misinformation that aims to destroy the reputation of the project should be responded to.
> ...responding to that with sustained, coordinated attack campaigns online. That's what Micay's history is.
For the rest, in general, I'm tempted to give grapheneOS the benefit of the doubt. Running any FOSS project is hard, running it against the (implicit) wishes of OEMs/Google (who throw in things like Play Integrity) is even harder, and doing it when 3 letter agencies at the US govt actively hate you is harder still.
Being paranoid in responses to FUD campaigns isn't ideal, but save coordinated attacks, I'd say fairly understandable.
Rossmann wanted to work with GOS and they didn't want him. So Rossmann made that video to make Daniel look bad for revenge probably. Saying he was leaving GOS was a lie, not that GOS can push malicious updates which was also a huge lie. Even after pointing that out that part wasn't corrected because Louis doesn't care about accuracy, he only cares about making Daniel/GOS look bad. He used his big following to punish Daniel. Now he works with Nick from Calyx after he got pushed out and are doing business together.
The more you learn about the story, the more you see the Copperhead stuff was just the beginning and those involved held grudges and pushed their grudges onto more people who bought their lies and it continued. Privacy-focused OSes that pretend to compete with GrapheneOS suck. GrapheneOS is led by someone with integrity, unlike some other projects.
okay and? Do you have any proof Rossmann has done any of that. He made the account for the sole purpose of engaging with _his_own_thread_ on the site... Does defending yourself from "coordinate the doxxing and harassment" make you "the absolute lowest kind of bottomfeeder in society" too?
Rossmann has an account on Kiwi Farms for the purpose of engaging with his supporters on the site. He acts friendly with them and they choose to actively support him.
Rossmanns thread on the site is in support of him, not a harassment thread against him.
Not that I disagree but Louis Rossmann giving someone advice to tone down the rants is ironic.
Micay rants are most often on other peoples' platforms and he deliberately tries to draw as much public attention as he can muster.
You're not a community member, you're an astroturfer.
I am an active chatroom member, and many people see me there on a regular basis. I choose to volunteer my time, and am not paid or compensated in any form.
GOS only defends themselves from attacks. Its not that they are misinterpreting what is an attack, there are really just that many attacks. It leaves little room for much else than defense. Nobody should have to deal with the inhumane level of attacks.
Classic OCPD behaviour
Classic OAD (Obvious Asshole Disorder)
I'll keep being disagreeable. Because it works.
Eh, Linus signs his personal name to rants. Having a blog post by GrapheneOS per se making non-factual personal attacks (nestled among, to be clear, factual attacks) does seem wanting for maturity, at least from a distance.
Barely any comments about the linked thread which is about Wired publishing an article that was extremely poorly researched after having misled GrapheneOS about the intention and content of what would be published. This seems like the sort of thing that should earn a disclaimer on future Wired articles as worthless and get them removed from RSS feeds/have subscriptions cancelled. Complete lack of integrity and respect for standards. Why did they not interview anyone else involved in the project or around at the time?
This Micay guy spends so much time and does something hugely beneficial and we're arguing about how he responds to criticism?
I'd rather direct and blunt rather than the weasel words and lies most companies put out.
I'm more concerned that Signal incorporated in US is having easy life.
To add - ironically, it was Durov (Telegram founder) who got arrested in Paris.
(Durov himself is known to regularly visit Russia, while denying he ever visits Russia. Telegram opened a Dubai office claiming that it was now a Dubai-headquartered company, but that was a mere legal formality; no one was actually there at that office, and journalists visiting it found that not even the building staff knew anything about Telegram. In practice, the company continues to exist out of Russia.)
"so anybody going knocking on incorporation addresses in Dubai" The point is that Telegram has repeatedly countered claims that it is a Russian app with "Actually, Telegram is a Dubai company”. People reasonably interpret that as more than a mere incorporation address, and it isn’t being emphasized enough that development is still largely done from Russia, and servers are also located there.
P.S. I avoided making any statements about what I personally think about Micay and the GOS team's behaviour above because I don't use it and have never looked into it before reading this article, but from looking at the comments, the WIRED article, the forum thread linked in this post, and some cursory research, it just seems like they are a popular software project that is at odds with many powerful actors with obvious motivations against their existence and popularity - if they are constantly combative online instead of being friendly, don't you think part or all of it may be because they have to defend themselves against attacks instead of having the freedom to be friendly like say SQLite/FFMPEG/Rust/other free software projects? I'm admittedly new to HN but this entitlement and refusal to empathise with the people giving you free shit seems insanely out of character
(I know one historical connection that looks suspicious, but it could be explained by the fact that prestigious social network graphs in the US tend to be incestuous, and a closely-connected world.)
They Built a Legendary Privacy Tool. Now They're Sworn Enemies https://www.wired.com/story/they-built-privacy-tool-graphene... (https://archive.ph/pbJu9)
See the attacks on GrapheneOS and even other privacy projects trying to make them look like they are designed for criminals. Even French law enforcement took part. We have shared these details publicly and even with links to articles with quotes. There was even news about authorities in Spain assuming anyone with a Pixel was likely a criminal.
Months ago, we saw tons of reports of organizations reporting hacking GrapheneOS without any evidence or links to court cases. We never claim that GrapheneOS isn't hackable, but we still haven't seen any credible evidence showing forensics companies were able to hack it.
These are just a few examples of how GrapheneOS is being attacked. Again, we're not the only ones.
It's also important to note that GrapheneOS has many project members. GrapheneOS isn't a one man show.
Our responses to these things are not out of paranoia. We want our users to know what's going on, so we keep them informed. What's wrong with that?
(I’m aware I’m interacting with a sock account that only indulges in defenses of GrapheneOS on HN and im being facetious.)
Every once in awhile there’s a group or a project that was just asking to be burned down with everyone inside, I wasn’t there so…
I’m a grapheneOS user and I , personally (?) kind of find the guys public melties entertaining. It’s also a really damn good mobile OS.
Im a real person, choosing to do this. I made this account to help defend GOS (wasnt trying to hide it either).
And not only calling defense "public melties", but also deriving enjoyment from it, is kinda mean.
I get to be “entertained” because it’s not my first day on the internet, nor involved in a project or page that’s come with death threats doxing , ddosing, vendettas, vindictiveness, mutually assured destruction and or prolonged public outrage.
Maybe someone wants a broom or has some magical thinking that they’re going to profit off someone’s work. In my case, they stole everything I wrote and went “we don’t need you now.” And oh look, they failed.
That’s just how fucking people are in this society anymore. That part isn’t funny.
So it’s that kind of (unfortunately) knowing chuckle.
If you guys over at GoS insist on putting on a messy public spectacle, fine, but if you’re telling me how to react to it? Get bent lol.
1- GrapheneOS has a long history of long rants attacking people and projects. The leads will tell you that they're just correcting falsehoods etc, but a lot of companies/brands are target of falsehoods and don't bother to respond. I don't claim that GrapheneOS is wrong on anything they say, I'm just saying that these rants are a choice, and I see them as a red flag.
2- I once interacted with GrapheneOS on mastodon and I said something like the above. Something along the lines of "you know regardless of whether or not you're factually correct, these public attacks on other people companies are really bad for your image". Within 2 or 3 exchanged tweets they were threatening me with legal action. To me being a litigious project/person is an even bigger red flag than above. I have never in my life met someone who both lightly threatens legal action AND is an upstanding person.
Just my opinion, don't get upset over it.
EDIT: I just want to spell it out AGAIN - I don't claim that anything on their post is factually wrong, I have no idea.
I would go on a stretch to say that people that express themselves naturally, without detour, are maybe more trustful than the usual silver-tongued corpo.
For contrast, Signal is a very secure messenger which also wants to be user friendly so as to get the largest user base they can, which leads to all kinds of compromises - everything that’s come out that looks like a vulnerability in Signal originates in some feature or capability added to make the product more user friendly. Graphene will not make those trades.
Neither approach is de facto right - they spring from fundamentally different philosophies on how to maximize user safety, and both have been extremely successful in their missions, but you’ve gotta recognize what you’re looking at when you look at Graphene.
These things are not mutually exclusive:
You can make a great technical product while being friendly. You can make a great technical product while not being friendly.
You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being unfriendly.
This comes up pretty often in other HN threads, unrelated to Graphene. There's this weird personality type who insists that they aren't legally obligated to be friendly or nice or pleasant, therefore it's fine for them to be unfriendly or jerks or unpleasant.
Going it alone is that nineties libertarian romanticism, a persistent self-destructive tendency that in present market conditions is unsustainable
Still a user though.
The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.
It may be the case that Daniel and the project are so under siege that they need to take a hostile attitude toward some of the people they interact with as a matter of self preservation. They may have no other option. But taking this posture while also being fair to all of the people around them (i.e. some people who aren't actually attacking them) may be difficult or even impossible. I can see this behavior in myself sometimes. I just don't have the energy to be fair. "F U".
I wouldn't want to see friendly corporate slop either. I appreciate how down to nuts and bolts the communiques are on Mastodon and how deadly serious they take everything. That part of the communication style makes me trust them more.
I think a good step in the right direction might be acknowledging that being defensive necessarily leads to erring on the side of assuming bad faith rather than good, which leads to some mis-judgements. So far you said that GrapheneOS is open to all criticisms, which (though I haven't followed the space very recently so my memory on specifics is hazy) just does not seem to match my interpretation. I think that if we were having this conversation on Twitter or Mastodon, Daniel would have blocked me by now (if he hadn't already blocked me years ago).
It's worth actually reading the linked post. Relevant segment:
In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys.
The keys had been in continuous use by Micay, in his personal capacity, since before the incorporation of Copperhead. However, more importantly, any party with the keys could mark malicious software as “authentic”, and thereby infiltrate devices using CopperheadOS.
Micay was unwilling to participate in that kind of security breach. Since Donaldson had control over certain infrastructure for the open source project, he would be able to incorporate (or hire others to incorporate) the privacy-damaging features described above for all future releases of CopperheadOS. Micay therefore deleted the keys permanently and severed ties with Copperhead and Donaldson.
Deleting signing keys under threat of a hostile takeover is the responsible thing to do.
There's many examples of people being unfriendly and still coming across as someone of character, Linus Torvalds comes to mind.
GrapheneOS has multiple people helping out. Many developers as well as people who help out with non-development work. It's a big claim to say that the whole team is unstable.
I'd suggest reading the article again. Considering the situation, the party about deleting the keys should be a good sign for anyone reading it. It shows that the project's leadership cares about doing things the right way. Members of the team are similarly dedicated to helping build and support an OS that improves people's privacy and device security, not to scam users by making a flashy product and rake in cash. Or, in Donaldson's case, work with shady companies and even possibly criminals.
Privacy and security projects like GrapheneOS are important considering the political landscape these days. People really need to stop repeating inaccurate claims about us, like that we're criminals, unstable, crazy, etc.
Sometimes they aren't even factually correct and get a bit upset about it when called out.
Anyways, I have gotten the same impression and these seem like red flags to me as well.
Which is why I'd take everything in that response with a mountain of salt (and I'd pay attention to what they're not saying).
However your example is unrelated. Their arguments were rather reasonable and informative in the discussion you linked to. So I don't complain about that anymore.
Hardware kill switches need to be correctly implemented. A kill switch cutting off mics and not sensors or speakers is incomplete and privacy theater.
Not to mention kill switches assume the device is already compromised, at which point everything on it is likely compromised as well.
I never mentioned Pinephones, although I do believe that the attack on them is still too harsh. Their security is about as good as the one for Linux. And it's not exactly "atrocious". Especially if you only use software from the official repositories. Let's agree that it should be improved though. (I prefer Qubes OS myself.)
> Hardware kill switches need to be correctly implemented.
Are you saying they aren't for Librem 5?
> A kill switch cutting off mics and not sensors or speakers is incomplete and privacy theater.
I explained in the link above that cutting all sensors is exactly what happens if you choose it.
> Not to mention kill switches assume the device is already compromised
This is not accurate. Kill switches imply that even if the device is compromised (which you can never 100% verify, even on GrapheneOS), your location etc is still private, when you need it.
(But, if you ignore the rants, that's a fantastic OS.)
Other organizations having the resources to continue despite the damage does not mean GrapheneOS can or should deal with the damage it causes. That makes no sense and its excusing horrible behaviour from attackers. They arent rants, the truth just often requires more words than a lie, such is the nature of computer science.
I like the product, and even recommend GOS to those who want a hardened phone OS. But goddamn, their social media gives me major red flags and I hate remembering that they exist.
I genuinely think that the information in this post is accurate, and at the same time, I think that it is painted in a way that feels off. Like the data is correct, but there are aspects that are clearly emotionally manipulative and combative.
I also have had some less than great interactions with GrapheneOS devs, when I was not seeking out interaction from them on social media (they came to my post and were combative) and played victim that I bullied them and was in league with the harassment campaign when I just asked them to leave me alone.
Overall, I just think that GrapheneOS is a good product, but unless you want to join their cult, just never talk about it neutrally or negatively unless you are ready for weird interactions.
You are very much saying that OP is an attack post.
Or at least implying the point that it is tonally dissonant to claim otherwise.
If you didn't believe it was wrong you would comment on the post but you are explicitly avoiding doing that.
I ask because I'd be pretty disappointed in GrapheneOS over that kind of thing and it'd probably at least partially change my opinion of them, but it's better to validate these types of serious accusations and get the full context.
#2 on the other hand sounds unhinged, though no source is provided. Threatening legal action for broad criticism of project management is wild.
Attacks against GOS have not been quiet for years, attacks have still been ongoing during that time.
not enough people talk about how software projects also offer up a similar kind of atmosphere: you're suddenly hyperconnected with a whole bunch of humans you don't know and are receiving feedback from people outside of your immediate community. "hackers" for all the interesting ways they've contributed to computer science over the decades also have branches spawned from the original chronically-online, highly-opinionated and sort of antisocial and poorly adjusted sects of civilization. being the face of a project is like pouring rocket fuel on whatever predispositions you might have, and on more than one occasion we've seen people go from occasionally unhinged person to seriously unhinged.
this comes with a lot of bad outcomes for quite a few people, primarily it always has some serious amplification qualities to egos and narcissism. and for genuinely good and kind people who are just trying to share their value/contributions and are suddenly jettisoned into spotlights, we often see them suddenly step back and discontinue work on a project entirely.
we often see these departures and think solely "must be burn out" and don't put much more thought into what that means. but we don't do enough to frame how software projects just elevate people into a position that most people don't do a good job in mentally and socially, and how it deteriorates the pieces of them that make them feel like they're valuable members of a community/tribe. some have luck making their project communities their tribe, but that's obviously a risky step to take. for many who have a successful project, sometimes it starts as the most validation they've ever received and then they don't know how to reconcile with the exponentially-widened audience when negative reception starts pouring in.
daniel micay is just one of like.. many in these sorts of projects i've seen who are simply unfit for the role. for many reasons, i don't think he's a pleasant person at all. i don't have any answers here. i also see this in homebrew scenes for gaming, it's like my least-favorite human petri dish of software development enjoyers. lot of oddball developers in that space and quite a lot of incredibly dramatic fallouts and theatrics that seem to come with the anonymous nature of not tacking your real name / identity to a project, and a consuming audience that has zero idea what goes into development so the negative feedback/demands that come in are in their own way unhinged.
We have all of the parasocial behavior from bystanders as well. Cult mentalities and hero-worship. It's quite a strange phenomenon.
I was personally involved in a story they did in 2015 that was paid for by a three letter gov agency to bad mouth a companies tech into changing. I know only a few of their tricks, and they’re dirty as hell.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Show HN: I made 1000 accounts with more than 20,000 karma with Claude Opus 6.7" in the future
It's why we need sociopaths - to give us our jerbs, so we would know what to doo!