I had the same problem, using a USB 2.0 port solved it!
After changing USB-Cables and USB-C Ports on my Laptop I tried also the USB-A Port. That was the key. So for everyone with a Lenovo Thinkpad T480s, the USB-A Port on the left side was working for me.
I received my Fairphone 6 with Google Android about 3 weeks ago, and unfortunately I find the info on security patch levels (SPLs) and dates vs. bricking extremely unclear. I have flashed several phones before (mainly with Lineage OS or forks), so I know more or less what I am doing. Hereâs the source(s) of my confusion:
- On the Install /e/OS on a Fairphone The Fairphone (Gen. 6) - âFP6â page I read this warning:
The examples did not help clarify my situation unfortunately.
Also a little lower down:
/e/OS build : A15 official (Security patch: 2025-06-05)
(i.e. June 5th 2025)
However, if I go to the download page, I see the download dated as follows:
IMG-e-3.0.4-a15-20250708507307-official-FP6.zip
(i.e. July 8th â or is it August 7th?)
I assume that download zip filename date âŚ20250708507⌠is the build or release date of that build, and has nothing to do with the included SPL? And so should be ignored for this issue?
- The SPL on my received Fairphone 6 is:
July 5, 2025
Unfortunately I have done almost nothing beyond cursory testing with my new FP6 so far, because I do not want to share a load of phone info with Google, while trying to obtain clarification of the above SPL info.
My questions:
a) If the bootloader is correctly unlocked (per the instructions lower down on the above-referenced page), the pink warning posted above means that "Rollback protection errors are âIGNOREDâ? (last line); so is it then safe to install the above-mentioned June 05 SPL ROM?
b) If I try to relock the bootloader after a successfull install per a) it will brick the phone.
c) Assuming b) is correct, then with my phone still unlocked, is it safe to later upgrade /e/os to a later SPL than that listed above for my phone (July 5th)? And further could I then re-lock the bootloader?
d) I read somewhere in the /e/os info that updates are released every month or two, but it looks like the last one is June or July (depending on how you parse the dates). What is the correct expectation for the next /e/os SPL update?
According to the most recent Google security bulletin it appears the latest SPL might be 2025-08-05 (August).
Thank you for your patience, and apologies for my long post, but I have tried to be very explicit about the dates and info I am asking about.
Any and all advice greatly appreciated!
a) Install ok
b) Lock will brick. Edit @cxtinac in the case that the /e/ SPL is 01 June 2025 as found by others [1], [2]. (Otherwise equal SPL would be ok to lock.)
c) carry on unlocked ok
d) Keep checking ⌠July likely omitted ⌠August likely 1st Aug not 5th August.
See also [1] Please put the complete date of the security patch date in the release notes
Perhaps see also Revert back to stock OS and relock bootloader - #4 by aibd
Exactly, the build date is irrelevant to Android SPL.
[2] Fairphone 6 /e/os 3.0.4-a15 security patch not june 5th?
Perfect, thank you very much for quick reply!
I know how my long weekend will be spent now
Hi everyone, I recently got my FP6 with Android, and instantly wanted to switch to e/OS. Installation went fine until I tried to lock the bootloader, then I got the message the system was corrupt. Investigating further into the issue with the security patches dates and the anti roll-back feature of FP6, I realized that the security patch of the pre-installed Android system was 2025-06-01, and therefore the installation package I was trying to set up wouldnât let me lock the bootloader (having Security patch: 2025-08-01)
My question is: if this feature of Fairphones makes impossible the complete installation unless the security patches match, wouldnât it make sense to have a catalogue of different e/OS packages for installation that have different security patches? Is that something that already exists, or is there only the âlatestâ, therefore making the final step of the installation process impossible for most FP6 users?
A second question is: I am interested in using this as my main system, therefore its important to have access to all sorts of apps that wonât be happy about rooted systems, or unlocked bootloaders. Is there a way of keeping the bootloader unlocked and somehow still bypass Play Integrity checks?
In conclusion, what I have now done is to install back the Android system (sadly), and I am thinking that perhaps there will be chances in the future to access other installation methods? because matching security patches doesnât seem to be an option⌠(is it possible to get an Android with security patch matching the e/OS to then be able to lock the bootloader, or this is exclusively the first security patch date the system was installed with?)
Thanks a lot!
/e/OS is also Android, but we know what you mean.
This shouldnât be a problem with rollback protection, it is against something with an older security patch level, newer should be fine.
Perhaps you can share which file exactly you were trying to install and how exactly?
Itâs a general Android feature introduced by Google some time back ⌠https://source.android.com/docs/security/features/verifiedboot/verified-boot#rollback-protection
That exists in the sense that older /e/OS builds stay available as long as server capacity and Murena goodwill allow. But the FP6 is so new that it didnât have that many /e/OS builds so far, so thereâs not much to go back to.
Ok thanks a lot for a quick response!
This shouldnât be a problem with rollback protection, it is against something with an older security patch level, newer should be fine.
Perhaps you can share which file exactly you were trying to install and how exactly?
When reading the installation guide, I thought I read that the only way the anti-rollback protection would NOT trigger was to have the exact same date, sorry for the confusion. Re-reading now, I realize the 3 examples the provide are 1 with the same date, and 2 examples with e/OS dates being older than the Google Android. So the option of having a newer security patch date is not supposed to be a problem? Thatâs great news!
Then I must have done something wrong. I went through the installation process described in the guide for the FP6 and installed /e/OS build : A15 official (Security patch: 2025-08-01)
The installation process was through unlocking the bootloader and using adb and fastboot, which I did on a Linux system connected to the phone through a USB cable. The phone booted normally on e/OS, and I canât recall doing anything that wasnât described on the guide.
So I guess that then perhaps I should try and repeat the entire process again and see if I the outcome is different? I understand that there is not that many versions of the e/OS for the FP6, but if the newer security patch date is not a problem, then this is not necessary (even though I looked for an archive of older install files and couldnât find any)
I do not see such a build listed, I see latest as e-3.0.4
which others have recorded as June SPL.
It is shown on the installation page of the FP6. It is the typical, âautomatically adjusted the docs but other things arenât available yetâ
It is exactly that build I got, but on the guide to install is where I got the date, maybe this is wrong?
(after clicking on A15 official):
Android 15
- IMG-e-3.0.4-a15-20250708507307-official-FP6.zip MD5 | SHA256
- IMG-e-3.0.2-a15-20250627504414-official-FP6.zip MD5 | SHA256
If the SPL is June, that would explain the fact I could not lock back the bootloader
It is. (As said by @mihi above.)
We are accustomed to official
builds being unavailable until late in the release cycle (better if that element in the install guide was not updated until the build is published).
However in this case there are reports that for some Fairphone official
the e-3.1.1
ROM was published and available for a limited time and then withdrawn. Without you quoting the actual build you attempted to install it was not clear if you found this âphantomâ build and it failed for unknown reasons.
Alright, that makes sense.
In that case, would it make sense to install this version (e-3.0.4), and then update later to be able to lock the bootloader? I am not particularly interested in spending efforts setting things up on Google Android if I know I am going to be leaving soonish.
But I am wondering if updating from 3.0.4 to 3.1.1 or whatever the next release with newer SPL is, will in fact need me again to use bootloader and therefore erase all data of the phone? It seems to not be the case looking around for info on updates
Once e-3.0.4
is installed it is expected to update OTA with the System updater.
Edit (i case it is not clear what I first meant)
With this OTA update you could now lock
but
The install page advises to lock the Bootloader directly at install time. Users have previously struggled with this, example workaround Revert back to stock OS and relock bootloader - #4 by aibd
Edit Option #2
Use of the install ROM again will delete data but might be the chosen approach by many.
Yes, when you lock or unlock bootloader all user data is erased then
My question there was whether or not updating the system would require me to unlock again bootloader and therefore erasing all data
This sounds interesting, but does an OTA update change the SPL therefore allowing to lock bootloader later on?
This is what I tried initially, but then the anti-rollback system triggered and I couldnât boot back into the system, so I am discarding this option unless I just wait for the next official release.
Yes it does. Do I need to publish a new user troll alert, I hope not.
Is that so obvious of a question that you honestly considering I am posting it in bad faith? damn, I never imagined that question would be problematic, please donât publish troll alerts, I am just trying to understand how this works
It was explained. So it implies that it changes
It seems that latest OTA update (3.1.2 for Fairphone 6) does contain some critical malfunctions on the Fairphone 6: Feedback for v3.1.1 - #122 by Gaea
I would recommend to wait until a fix will be found, before to install /e/OS on the device.
(I also have a brand new FP6 waiting for /e/OS to be installed)