Awesome news
I’d take those lists with a big grain of salt. First off, it would be good practice to have links to those cited lists. These sites aren’t any of the more known and trusted sites for this kind of assessment. The lists themselves are just opinion lists, not studies nor did the reviews do any testing or have the devices at hand. At best, they are about “potentially could be secure” based on marketing material. Even then these lists are not really taking into considerations different scenarios and threat models - “secure to at what level and how” and “is it private too, and to what level and in what areas” (security and privacy can clash), although points for at least not fully forgetting that. Some security features that users can implement aren’t mentioned which is a bit odd and speaks to the level of journalism that the lists are. More to the point, some of the basic issues aren’t mentioned either - like the lack of updates PureOS has had, weak support to react to or proactively find issues, usability issues that affect security and privacy, that PureOS doesn’t even have rudimentary CVE or issue tracker or code audits etc. All reasonable things for a small organization that doesn’t have the resources - which is part of the overall security of the phone, from one perspective (the processes behind it). Potential may be there but there is still a lot to do be really secure - and there are variations of that, based on the usecases/risks. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, these are just what has been commercially available, so it’s all relative anyway.
So, it’s just marketing hype.
What else did you expect? I did not even read it, because I knew it’s just marketing. However, it is the most secure phone, once HKS are all off. Nobody without physical access to the device can hack or track you. But well, you barely can use it as phone this way. 