Link: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Paying-without%20-Google-New-consortium-wants-to-remove-custom%20-ROM-hurdles-11204037.html

A consortium consisting of multiple interested parties including Murena, i.e. /e/ OS, iodéOS, and Volla, is working on an open source alternative to the Google Play Integrity API, which is to be offered on smartphones that are not running a Google-certified Stock ROM.

For those who do not know, the Google Play Integrity API is Google's official security and anti-abuse framework that lets Android apps verify that they are running on a genuine, i.e. unmodified device, installed from Google Play, and not being tampered with.

Sadly, this framework tends to discriminate against Custom ROMs, i.e. operating systems that are not running Google's apps and services, no matter their actual device security state.

Full Google Play Integrity is tied to the ROM being certified by Google, and running Google apps and services - many banking and government apps make use of it right now.

---

The consortium around UnifedAttestation wants the new framework to rest on three foundations:

it will be part of the operating system, apps can add support for it with a few lines of code

operation of the validation service will be decentral

an open test suite for checking and certifying operating systems on specific devices

---

The whole thing will be open source, developed under the Apache 2.0 license.

Developers of Scandinavian government apps have already indicated interest, considering the project a first mover for Europe.

---

Personal comment: I think it's good that there is now validation service for government & banking apps that is not tied to Google's infrastructure, and more crucially does not require Google's apps and the Play Services to be installed.

Shockingly good news!

I don't like it. Remote attestation is a violation of the user's right to control over their own devices. We should be pushing to eliminate it, not expand its use.

No, shockingly bad news to continue to require third party attestation of my device.

This is to just get people used to the idea, to normalize it outside Google and Apple, and to then push it into PC OS's.

I hate these apps that don't work if you have developer mode enabled. How brain dead stupid is that?

Security by obscurity is a joke

Correct. Anyone with intention or experience will not be deterred by obscuration. With modern tools and techniques, they will hardly be delayed. Obscuration is not security

This is highly needed. An open alternative to play integrity is the only way forward. Something so critical cannot be left in the hands of US company.

Watch how the anti-opensource crowd comes out of the woodwork.

The danger of retaining one's purity is that you risk forfeiting influence over what may (very well) happen anyway.

This is absolutely not 'the only way forward'. Hardware attestion is much more secure and doesn't rely on third parties to give you permission on how you use your own device.

Lets hope enough developers boycott this awful initiative. Graphene are asking devs to boycott this and hopefully they can get enough momentum behind getting this blocked -

https://piunikaweb.com/2026/03/10/grapheneos-calls-on-privacy-focused-app-developers-to-boycott-european-unified-attestation/

How about let me attest that my own device is safe to use? I don't need third party DRM to do it for me, open source or not.

You're not wrong, and an open option might be an improvement over the current situation. On the other hand, it might encourage broader use of remote attestation.

I'm mostly disappointed that there's no meaningful organized opposition. When Microsoft first proposed adding remote attestation to Windows, the New York Times called it out as oppressive. Now it seems like only hardcore open source nerds care, and I think the tech community should be doing better.

This is the core issue. Remote attestation fundamentally breaks user agency. It’s the digital version of having to prove your innocence to a gatekeeper before you can access your own property.

The consortium model is progress over the Google-only status quo. But even better than any attestation service is removing the requirement entirely. Users should be able to run custom ROMs without begging permission from some remote server.

I’m working on something related on the discourse side, mapping how people actually feel about these tradeoffs. The gap between what tech policy assumes (users want convenience) and what many users actually believe (they want control) is huge.

Open source alternatives matter. They matter even more if they actually work.

Isn't checking the bootloader enough?

Not really. If I'm running as root or with a custom firmware, I can easily fake that my phones bootloader is locked, when in fact it isn't.

Attestation creates a "chain of trust", starting at the hardware level. So, an external website can verify that the hardware -> operating system -> application software are all "intact".

"intact" is a very subjective term (which is why many technical people are against it), but that definition of "intact" will be defined by Google, Apple, Microsoft, or (possibly) whatever this EU Governing Body is.

However, it will not be defined by you the device owner.