Maybe an analogy could be about using metal detectors as a layer to reduce bank robberies. A gun in a good guy's hands is a good thing to prevent robberies. Guns in a bad guy's hands are a bad thing to prevent robberies. Paypal knows you have a gun but they don't know if you're a good guy or a bad guy so it's easier to just ban guns.
On a side note, if you want to be extremely specific, the line between the physical and digital threat does not exist anymore. There are two things people need to be afraid of: incompetent friends and competent enemies. Tech giants are already filled to the brim with incompetent friends, which drastically lowers the bar for the competence of their enemies.
It's similar to how people don't like sites blocking entire countries or access from Tor, etc. You might be doing it for privacy...but all the people trying to commit fraud are also using those same channels to hide their identity. The blockades are one piece of a holistic security picture that frustrate the well intentioned users.
As for geo fencing or blocking Tor... HAH! As if that's ever stopped anyone with the will. That is the last concern of anyone with a malicious intent. Sure, it stops irritating kids but no one beyond that.
The simple fact is that cybersecurity was in an abysmal state before the slopification began and it's infinitely worse now. Paypal is no different given that much of their support has been outsourced to slop machines. Punishing the users that know what they are doing while rewarding the ones that don't is the most counter-productive and detrimental crap anyone could come up with.
It's not about user security.
From what we see above it sounds like the change trips their rootkit detection, which they are probably interpreting as a compromised device.
It sounds like you're expecting them to have a perfect security posture that can correctly identify fraud in call cases and only block the real thing. It's more complicated than that and there's typically some type of scoring system involved with numerous triggers that are higher value indicators of potential fraud. If they think the device is compromised, that's probably a high value indicator.
This is just me speculating.
No. It's the offensive fraud vector coming from unsecured devices that account for a significant portion of the noise. Requiring device profiling aggravates this vector.
Bullshit! Source:
> The reality is that European laws are much harsher when it comes to payments and personal data protection and the security team I was being interviewed for was catastrophic
Sounds like someone who wanted to impress the audience with fluffed up claims.
Just because you argue with vigor and intent, it doesn't make you right.
People are offering their opinions, try not being a dick about it.
GrapheneOS is a privacy orientated OS which is great. But if the vectors to achieve privacy are the same as used by bad actors, I'd block it too.
Get over it, don't like it? Use a different product. Or make a better one.
A more apt analogy might be game developers who demand admin rights so they can install a rootkit to detect "cheating".
They have all the data they need, and they choose not to use it.
I think that's a limitation of the analogy because there is no correspondence with trusted computing. I guess it would be some sort of a magical gun that some other company is endorsing as of limited use during bank robberies? Maybe like some sort of RFID thing that disables the gun when inside a bank?
Anyway it really stretches the analogy to get tied up in technical details (risks missing the forest for the trees type error).
and if GrapheneOS was a root-having OS.
Also I highly doubt that there is any real statistics anywhere about whether this is a real threat or not. I guarantee that nobody did such statistics properly. The only known data is from companies which sell root prevention tools, so totally unreliable. And internally I guarantee, that no banks collect such info.
So no, banks lie about this only because they can sell this to judges as safety feature, when they fuck up, which happens continuously.
They allow you to open PayPal.com on any web browser. Running Windows/macOS/Linux is basically identical to a rooted Android phone (you have local admin rights, you can modify and automate the browser, and can run unsigned code).
Apparently the world can't adult and be responsible for their actions, or people believe in that.
From a Paypal security POV, weather you use "custom Android OS" or an hugely outdated Android phone, you have:
- a similar risk for the "you" want to mess with Paypal case, in both cases the "you" can technically most likely mess with anything including the "virtual secure module" thingy android uses for NFC
- a lower risk for "others" wanting to mess with Paypal through your phone, at least if "custom Android OS" is GrapheneOS or another up-to-date android fork with decent security handling
so as far as I can tell, this inconsistency is very clearly not about PayPal's security.
IMHO it's about two other things:
1. marketing, if PayPal doesn't work on Android they lose customers, GrapheneOS for now has a tool small customer base for them to care. Outdated Android phone do have a large customer base.
2. compliance/politics BS. including potentially involving insurance. Compliance is mostly about checking of tickmarks(1) on outdated Android they can check them off and blame the user, Goodle or "hackers" for the issue. On GraphemeOS they have a harder time checking it of. Add the smaller user base and end up with PayPal doesn't care. Also iff things go wrong with Paypal on GraphemeOS in a public manner you will have all the "crime os" bad news bs, you won't have that if things go wrong with a even more risky highly outdated Android phone.
-----------------------
I got a bit to much off topic below:
(^1): Technically compliance should be about building robust, secure, law compliant systems and "showing" that by being able to pass a compliance tests consisting about a bunch of requirements. Practically there is way to many ways you can be "fully compliant" (on paper) but not secure and "very secure" but not compliant (wrt. security regulations). In the former case this might still come back and bite you iff you get sued or people suing which should get right don't get it because of ad-absurbum reasoning like "they comply with security regulations, hence can't have acted negligent". It's a shit show I don't know how to fix even if I could just magically change laws as compliance rules need technological flexibility, but if you give them that that will be abused to make insecure things pass. And the whole industry around checking that isn't really one who cares about actual security, sometimes outright corrupt (like groups which have the necessary accredited to check your compliance, are strangely more expensive then other groups, and somehow find less issues in average, with some excuse of why that isn't strange ...) :/
---
Lastly similar to how Teams or Slack could easily support FF (^2) but not only don't but outright refuse to try to even work. PayPal likes to act similar and doesn't care about niches. E.g. at least on some Mobile browsers WebAuthn works, but the PayPal website refuses to _even try_ 2FA with WebAuthn on mobile no matter if the APIs are there or not.
(^2): Yes there are some challenges, AFIK especially in certain edge cases most user might never run into. But Jitsi made it work, other smaller apps also made it work. And Jitsi is open source, so they technically can "look up" all the tricks to make it work (algorithmic ticks, not copy-pasting code) or outright just use their system with an appropriate contract (probably would be even cheaper wrt. maintenance cost then building your own system). At Slack/MS Teams scale that behavior is just messed up.
"OS that user compiled herself" can avoid this nonsense
No "smallcorp" is safe from Silicon Valley "largecorp" for long with the amounts of money SV largecorp can, and will, offer smallcorp if smallcorp grows. SillyCon Valley "largecorp" wants data about/from users, not users' money
"Safe way to make sure I'll stop being your customer - also YES!"
The user is not SV largecorp's customer
I don't think they care at all about the size of graphene os market share
if its jeopardize entire userbase then its not worth it
A financial security audit is one of the most thorough security audits you can ask for in software.
GrapheneOS gets blocked because it doesn’t follow the secure system requirements (root).
>(root)
GrapheneOS is not rooted.
They do their damndest to prevent owners from having full control of their property, over claims of 'insecurity'.
And complaints of this nature get inane drivel responses of "lol just fork Graphene"
This is a really, really poor-quality take.
> complaints of this nature get inane drivel responses of "lol just fork Graphene"
It’s a fork of AOSP, which you can just…use.
Its only since the smartphone era (2008) with locked down shit devices has this view changed. And people challenging this are somehow defective, tone policed, shamed, or likewise.
GrapheneOS users are treated as 'rooted phones', at the exact same time tools that would attack and prevent corporate surveillance (xprivacy, etc) are withheld cause they would involve root.
Even this thread is full of a lot of anti-owner hand wavey shit that amounts to 'we don't trust our users, and fork you'. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/18953-why-the-stigma-agains...
Also, I've seen such audits internally, and they don't care about security at all. They care about the theatrics of security waaaaay more.
For example, I was at Santander in 2024, during its huge data breach. Here is the list of actions which are supposed to prevent the same kind of attacks again in the future:
-
Yeah, it's an empty list.
But of course, they made our life more difficult. In the end, I literally had more permission than before, because they were even sloppier than before. But of course, I had to change my password more frequently, and I had to type it about 5x more.
Mistakes happen and ya can't fix what you don't know about. Always report issues.
Also strongly consider just using the website.
There's some countries with very bad financial sector where your option is PayPal or Western Union as the local banks don't know how to do international transfers, Remitly doesn't support all countries and Wise also doesn't work. PayPal works, even if they charge fees.
It was a big reality check for me usually living in Germany and having access to a lot of banks and modern neo-banks.
One of the ladies at daycare is leaving? Here's a paypal link to chip in for a good-bye present.
Split a take-out order with a German friend, but he paid? Here's his paypal to send him your share.
It's just assumed that everyone has paypal over here...
The whole "I pay this time you pay next time" is already covered by "everybody brings a case once in a while", but if the guys without cars just ask someone else to pay for it when it's their turn it won't add up.
If you're going to make assumptions, perhaps start with those that don't paint me in a bad light.
If this was a long time friend, I'd let it slide. It's just a case of beer, and in Germany beer is dirt cheap. If this was a new acquaintance, I'd let it slide and take note that it's not a person to make friends with.
> If you're going to make assumptions, perhaps start with those that don't paint me in a bad light.
Good point. But all of this isn't a problem of payment systems, but of people's behaviour.
I know many adults who believe that splitting bills is a normal and reasonable thing to do.
[0] https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-direc...
One-off SEPA Direct Debit is virtually unheard of, recurring payments are a bit more common but usually involve a €0,01 payment to prove ownership of the account. The transactions are also trivial to undo, and can only be initiated by companies.
So no, "IBAN fraud" isn't a thing in practice. You can safely share your IBAN with your friends for instant free wire transfers.
But for the small person-to-person type thing, paypal is the defacto here (sadly).
open source mobile software is over, no support by payment, medical, insurances and state agencies.
If I'm left with a choice between two walled gardens in order to communicate with my banks, my insurances, my doctors... well then I choose the one which does not sell ads.
And I will only run it on the cheapest hardware for that walled garden.
And now go out there and do anything that desktop linux does not go the same route.
Play Integrity API: Not blocked
Hardened memory allocator: Enabled
Memory tagging: Enabled
Extended virtual address space: Enabled
Secure app spawning: Enabled
Native code debugging: Allowed
WebView JIT: Disabled
Dynamic code loading via memory: Allowed
Dynamic code loading via storage: Allowed
I think this is the problem here.
A lot of NFC related tech is deeply rooted in having "trusted (aka large company)", "attested (aka you can't easily lie)", secure module functionality.
What should have happened is to just not enable the contactless payment functionality for given app, even if the user enabled it in general. And not crash.
Also as others have pointed out, this might be an accidental mishap not an intended outcome.
But it's not like PayPal is known to care about small user-base edge cases (quite the opposite). Which I guess is the actual root problem.
version 10.10.0
com.paypal.android.p2pmobile
versionCode 1160090162
Version 8.107.0
com.paypal.android.p2pmobile
I had to update exploit protection after their latest update — I think it was enabling dynamic code loading via both memory and storage that did the trick.
Edit: checked now, I have also disabled secure app spawning.
(Rather than something fundamentally incompatible, like them using Play Integrity)
IMO headline is very misleading, and OP should have tried disabling all exploit protection options before jumping to any conclusions. PayPal isn't actively trying to block GrapheneOS as of now.
It reduces security of the app itself, but doesn't affect security of the phone by much.
Hanlon's Razor is a useful tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Jokes on you though, I'm neither of those things.
What do you mean "some banks"? I thought the whole value proposition of Wero was instant bank transfers with SEPA but using phone numbers?
I've read once that there are paid app testing labs which test if an app has root and custom ROM detection and when they don't have that it's a minus point on the report.
UK politics has been quite isolationist, though, so I doubt the banks will see much in interoperating with the rest of Europe.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/motorolas-grapheneos...
But GrapheneOS isn't root, that's just PayPal's thing being broken.
So, best to grow the user base fast now and let every user send a complaint for every app that gets blocked. A few million users will be harder to ignore.
I also get why they'd be desperate to fight bots. It's a weak excuse for not doing it better, but at least it makes some sense.
The OS is designed to offer privacy and security guarantees, which root access breaks, so they don't offer it.
Funnily enough, the only way to hide those detections was to Root my phone... And i still remember when i had an appointment there, they wanted to see something in my Bank app, i opened it (and i assume it had an update since i then last used it) and a big "THIS DEVICE IS NOT SUPPORTED. ROOT IS NOT SUPPORTED" poped up
But was as simple as readding the bank app to my root hiders.
but still, i hate this security theater
I use latest Aurora Store PayPal version and it still works. I just dont use contactless payment.
So they'd want to enable an app trojan on GrapheneOS.
The question is why anyone would use GrapheneOS and use apps from hostile publishers?
Good job them. Can't wait for the motorola phones
But the howls you hear from Graphene is "wahhhh people can't be trusted" or "suck-u-rity holeeeee".
GrapheneOS devs are just as corrupted and anti-owner as Apple or Google.
Otherwise it would just continue to raise suspicious that Graphene is favored by governments and big tech.