Let me clear up some misconceptions about Copperhead and rebuke the lies provided by bad-faith actors. Signing Keys We have *NEVER* received a request for CopperheadOS signing keys. EVER. IT Audits are a routine and boring aspect of cybersecurity process.

Understanding where the signing keys are, and by whom and their capability to protect them, is an integral part of ISO 27002's Physical Controls module. How secure is your operation if the signing keys are held by one man in his home?

Raytheon never requested anything regarding the keys from us. I was pre-empting a larger partnership relationship by trying to get us ISO 27002 compliant. The whole idea of some evil defense contractor coming to destroy our business through coercion is pure fabrication.

Harassment Copperhead has never partaken in a harassment campaign against Daniel, GrapheneOS or anyone else. In fact, I made it company policy to NOT get involved. Here is an email from me in 2018 outlining our policy as a company. This policy has been in place since then.

GrapheneOS has previously used it's community as a weapon against Copperhead. One example is on our Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copp… Daniel (Strcat) / anupritsano1 (randomhydrosol, a GrapheneOS developer) are both banned from participating because of defacing our article.

Since 2021, the GrapheneOS/Copperhead dispute has been quiet. I'd like it to stay that way. I'm not interested in having to constantly rebuke misinformation aimed at destroying our business. I am, however, not willing to sit idly by and let fabrications be echoed.