Yeah try it. It is concerningly easy. Write a program that edits the users bashrc/zshrc. Have it append a line that adds something to the front of the path, and have it shim sudo. You can even have it forward the password to the real sudo.
Instead of waiting for the user to open another shell, you can also open a subshell. (E.g. your malicious program never returns/exits, it just appears to exit by opening a subshell with the modified path)
Immutable OS's like nix and fedora silverblue still have sudo, they can still rm -rf /. If they can do it and maintain security, then Android can too.
I agree both the OTA and safe way of doing superuser requests could be heavy technical work. My bigger point is people who manage ROM's shouldn't demonize having full control of devices we own. Root can be done safely. Its not an inherent security risk, its just a technical problem waiting for a technical solution. "Just accept you dont need it" is not an acceptable response IMO.
Good guess about the federating problem. Thats a good reminder for me to change instances (was on lemm.ee before it died, .world was my backup).
OTA, While a fair point, again is a technical problem. Desktop systems get timely OTA updates. Its perfectly possible for rooted Android to get security updates that are on-par with rooted (e.g. basically any) Linux systems. The hash can be done on the incoming update instead (integrity hash) instead of on the system.
Linux has other tools and protections.
What bothers me a bit more is, the OS could address a lot of what Graphene is talking about: there should be a builtin OS level "no overlays, no accessibility, allowed when superuser reqested, must use builtin OS controlled keyboard to input password". I'm not saying the graphene team needs to do more work; their contributions are incredible. But they shouldn't claim that having full control over a device you own is inherently a security flaw. Its a technical problem that can be resolved with ROM development.
If I can't rm -rf my root directory, then I'm not happy
security risk
All those rooted concerns are true for desktop Linux / MacOS, and they still ship with sudo. If I can't rm -rf the root partition then its not really my device.
The bootloader wall of shame is nice.
I thought the post was junk but it seems true https://hackaday.com/2016/10/12/become-very-unpopular-very-fast-with-this-diy-emp-generator/
Yes, absolutely there is hope.
Phones that don't support Google play services (AKA any hardcore privacy phone) will not be directly effected by Google restricting sideloading. The restriction is only for phones that use the Google suite. (source: https://9to5google.com/2025/08/25/android-apps-developer-verification/ "This requirement applies to 'certified Android devices' that have Play Protect and are preloaded with Google apps.") Graphene OS isn't going anywhere, AOSP is open source, even if Google tried to make that change in the OS, the community would hard-fork AOSP instantly and continue like nothing ever happened.
Realistically this is going to squeeze people "in the middle" towards fully-google controlled Android (one exteme) and towards fully-de-googled Android (the other extreme). Its just elminating the middle. Which is bad for people trying to gradually de-google their life, but not as dire as it might seem.
On the bright side, this is an opportunity for play-services spoofing to become commonplace and easy, and could cause more apps to avoid google play services. The EU also has a shot at forcing google to allow sideloading, since they've recently been forcing Apple to move in that direction.
So, while not a bright future, its far from hopeless for privacy respecting Android phones.
Yeah these numbers should be reported in % of profits