Slashdot Mirror
Have Your iPhone 6 Repaired, Only To Get It Bricked By Apple (theguardian.com)
New submitter Nemosoft Unv. writes: In case you had a problem with the fingerprint sensor or some other small defect on your iPhone 6 and had it repaired by a non-official (read: cheaper) shop, you may be in for a nasty surprise: error 53. What happens is that during an OS update or re-install the software checks the internal hardware and if it detects a non-Apple component, it will display an error 53 and brick your phone. Any photos or other data held on the handset is lost – and irretrievable. Thousands of people have flocked to forums to express their dismay at this. What's more insiduous is that the error may only appear weeks or months after the repair. Incredibly, Apple says this cannot be fixed by any hard- or software update, while it is clearly their software that causes the problem in the first place. And then you thought FTDI was being nasty ...
Sell your bricked piece of shit and buy an Android phone, which does not have this problem.
Solved.
Probably to prevent hardware attacks on phone encryption
If Apple gets away with this we may see more vendors doing the same thing to the stuff we own.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
All our customers are belong to us.
Did you think it was *your* phone?
..that happened to my iPhone 3GS when I had battery issues and had the battery replaces by a non-Apple person? I can't remember if it was an "Error 53" but it does sound familiar. Is this truly new, or just an old issue showing back up? Can anyone confirm?
It sounds like Apple fixed a security bug in an SU, closing a hole which allowed attackers to replace the touch ID sensor to gain access to user data. Had Apple not made this move, we'd instead be seeing an article about how Apple products are insecure and the NSA could get access to your secure date just by replacing some hardware components. Then everyone would be up in arms, demanding this exact software change, and complaining about how Apple is reactionary and not proactive in fixing security issues.
Of course, "Apple fixes vulnerabilities in iOS 9" is not really a catchy flambait title for an article.
This error occurs if the repair involves the TouchID sensor. Sense this stores data required for the fingerprint authentication, the device will refuse to function for security reasons if it thinks it's been tampered with, which seems to be a reasonable precaution for a device component that can authenticate you across the device and also external services including financial transactions.
A better option would be to instead disable TouchID if tampering is suspected, but this isn't a case of Apple just arbitrarily making iPhones not work if you get a third-party repair like the story suggests.
In the Apple world-view - you're just borrowing their property. Never mind you paid for it, it's still theirs and they retain 100% right to do anything to it at any time, and you just have to accept it. Because, you know, It Just Works. For them...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
.
It definitely makes one take a step back and think, who or what are the walls really protecting?
Read the EULA. Read the instructions. Apple will replace your phone if under warranty. It is stated very clearly that your iPhone IS NOT SERVICEABLE, either by you or by anyone who is not Apple. Don't like it? Buy something else.
... might even be class action!
This prevents MTM hardware attacks on your phone. The interesting question is "how is apple authenticating its hardware?" I mean, it's just a screen and a button with a cable, right?
The worst part is that error 53 can happen without the phone being repaired by third party.
Error 53 happens when the SoC doesn't detect a fingerprint reader with the exact same fingerprint reader that came with the device. That means if the fingerprint reader somehow fails, you'll get Error 53 as well.
One of the third party repair shop owner Louis Rossmann talked about this on his channel.
This is what happens when you choose to live in the walled garden.
Leave while you can!
If they can't do a proper repair such that it doesn't brick your phone, then they are at fault, no?
Should one be able to break through the trust hardware and cause a security vulnerability instead?
Paid a lot of money for my iPhone, partly because I wanted security and not be at the mercy of the carriers for updates. Could have bought a Nexus maybe, but that would be the only equivalent in the Android world. So how is Apple going to guarantee that your phone is utterly unable to be decrypted, has no keyloggers, backdoors, etc. UNLESS they prevent third-party parts from being used? Go to a cheap-ass repair shop and who knows what the hell goes in your phone. If you paid a premium for an iPhone, don't be a cheap-ass when you repair it.
Couldn't agree more.
In Apple's defense, it does seem reasonably plausible that the biometric sensor widget built into the 'home' button(and quite possibly the cable connecting the home button to the logic board) is a 'trusted' element of the system, in the 'the integrity of the system depends on this part performing as expected and not being malicious' sense of 'trusted'. So, I can see why it would be impossible or prohibitively difficult to keep the biometric authentication feature secure while also allowing random people to swap random hardware in to that part of the system.
However, what is a lot less clear is why(especially when many iDevices, including current-model ones, simply lack this feature entirely) 'security' demands that the entire phone be bricked, rather than just the biometric features flushing any private storage associated with them and leaving the phone usable as though it were a model without that feature. This might involve wiping all locally stored data, if the device encryption keys are tangled up with the biometric authentication feature's private storage; but it should still be able to function as though you had just restored it to defaults.
This also raises the question of whether, with the correct incentives, it is possible to induce authorized repair services to introduce malicious components when doing these repairs, and whether doing so would allow you to extract highly sensitive information. Since Apple-blessed repairs can apparently fix home buttons without destroying the handset, and since Apple's line is that tampering threatens the integrity of the authentication system, this seems like a natural place to try to get your malicious part introduced: much more likely that an authorized repair outfit exists in your jurisdiction than that Apple Inc. does; many more low-level techs you could potentially lean on; and home button repairs are a pretty common service request...
Pay the $99/year extortion/insurance that is AppleCare, and always have your phone fixed by Apple under warranty. Then if it gets bricked, it's Apple's fault and you get a new phone. The one thing I've found that Apple does best is customer service.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The provisions for the FTC and the resultant class action provisions could get expensive.
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
Never fails to amuse when people "lose all their photos".
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
just couldn't let that slide.
Personally, I don't trust the updates that come out for my Samsung phone. My last phone had the GPS functionality reduced by an official upgrade. There were other things after that upgrade that were removed causing me to loose some data. I now will not install the upgrade that has been in the notification bar for the last year. I am planning on putting Cyanogenmod on there because I do trust them to do upgrades that are good for the customer. But the official ones from Sprint and Samsung, no-way. If the Apple fans stopped trusting their beloved company perhaps they would be in a better position. Of course it isn't as easy to mod the Apple and still have access to the apps, so they are more stuck because of their initial decision.
On a side note, I trust Microsoft even less and never install their updates on my system. I have less fear from viruses and malware than I do from the update coming from Redmond. And with the amount of spying being built into their recent versions of their OS they have become a gaming system only for me. If I want to have a work computer to do things on, it will be Linux. If I want to play games on my big screen tv, I can use Windows. I guess I'm not too worried about them spying on which game I am playing. As the linux gaming environment improves perhaps that will change, but it still seems that the video cards work better and Windows.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Many years ago, Apple used the TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chip to protect their product from the consumer. Microsoft uses is only now to protect their UEFI chips, My PC motherboard still doesn't require one and a selling point for me.
And no you don't fix a product who's TPM chip turned against them.
This wasn't mentioned in the summary, but a touch sensor ID home button will only work with the original iPhone it was shipped with. If for whatever reason it breaks or needs to be replaced, the TouchID part will no longer work although it should still work as a regular home button.
No, you cannot disable anything on the device without first asking permission of its owner, regardless of how sensible you think that may be. You do not own the device, it is not your property, it ceased to be your property the instant that it was sold. You have no more right to it anymore than its owner still has right to the money that he or she paid for it.
And it does NOT matter what you write in the terms and conditions of sale. It's a SALE (a transfer of ownership in exchange for money), not a lease, and you lose all property rights over the device the instant that it becomes the property of someone else. You cannot invent conditions of sale that overrule the law of the land.
Apple has made it abundantly clear that they are selling a *secure* device. Always on encryption, etc etc.
How would you expect such a device to behave when it is compromised with unauthorized components? A phone with 3rd party components could do pretty much *anything*, including sending everything on the device to an unknown third party, without your knowledge or consent.
Heck, this sort of "problem" just makes me appreciate Apple's commitment to security even more.
My only complaint is that the phone doesn't brick soon enough. It should brick itself immediately upon the next boot up.
You can recognize the "sucker born every minute" from their white headphones, and then, that fool and his/her money can be soon parted.
And are filthy pedophiles: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Sodom's obliteration, Pompei's destruction, the Black Plague, WWs, Hiroshima & Nagasaki etc. are because of the faggots' proliferation. (Beware monosodium glutamate!).
Apple is exemplarly collapsing, at last.
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
There is clearly an implied warranty that updates won't be malicious, even after the warranty period. The phone wasn't damaged by the consumer - Apple chose to brick it willingly. Even if the phone was out of warranty, they don't have the right to purposefully damage it, any more than a car company can claim lack of responsibility because an oil change was done at a competitor, unless they can show that the product's failure was because of the competitor's actions.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I do believe the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act has Anti-tying provisions that would explicitly forbid this kinda of fuckery. I might be wrong. A further reading of court interpretations is required, I already know the act itself.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
nt
This was a case of an un-authorized service which creates a security hole.
That's not bricking. Bricking would be MS rendering components in the computer or the entire computer unusable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You own the hardware and you can do whatever you want to it--but you are in no way entitled to have the original manufacturer support your efforts to make mods to the hardware or to support you when you've violated the terms of the warranty.
If you drop it and then take it to an unauthorized service vendor and they damage it--then you're on your own.
BTW: you're also not required to take OS updates, you have to click through a lot of legalese in order to get one. In this case the customer chose to take an OS update, unaware that the new OS detected a security violation that exposed their un-sanctioned repair work.
This is how things have always worked with any kind of device ever sold before in the history of mankind. The problem is that you're an idiot.
This sounds like pure greed and malice to me. Why not temporarily incapacitate the phone until a trusted sensor is detected? That provides both security and value to the user (i.e., doesn't have to pay Apple to buy a new phone). Isn't bricking the phone similar to HP bricking an inkjet printer upon sensing a non-HP ink cartridge? Not even HP was that evil.
But this is at least consistent on Apple's part. I have an iPad 2 that consistently gets worse with every iOS "upgrade", to the point of frequent multi-second lags as well as hangs that require reboots. All this supposedly in the name of helping the user, but actually truly in the name of increasing Apple revenue.
My daughter's phone had a damaged screen and was out of warranty. Rather than pay $199 for apple to fix it, she had a mall kiosk do it for $100. When she had problems, we decided to maybe let Apple fix it after all and eat the $100. The Apple Store folks told us that once the screen had been replaced by someone else, they wouldn't touch it.
Understand, I'm not saying they wouldn't cover it under warranty, which is totally reasonable. They wouldn't repair it for full retail ($199). ObCarAnalogy: Go to Jiffy Lube for an oil change and the dealer won't work on your car ever again.
Just one more reason my next phone is probably not going to be an iPhone.
I feel Apple has neglected it's customers in this case.
During upgrade to the new iOS, they should detect the replaced sensor and issue a warning to the user that the phone should not be considered as a safe device anymore. Maybe even re-issue this warning every week to remember their owners.
When a replaced sensor is detected AFTER the upgrade (i.e. after an original sensor was detected previously after the upgrade), then Apple can take more serious actions (I leave in the middle if bricking is the right solution). Yes, it will affect 3rd party repairs, but not their customers who repaired their phone for a more reasonable price in good faith.
Sorry Apple, you could have made this upgrade much smoother for your customers but you willingly choose not to.
First I've heard of this. I have a very small side business replacing batteries, headphone jacks, buttons, screens in mobile devices -- I have the factory tools and know where to get the parts. I don't really make any money off it. I got into it mostly from being offended by the electronic waste these devices represent. A handheld shouldn't become useless just because a $3 part has failed, and the cost to fix through regular channels should not approach 50 - 100% of the replacement cost.
But if Apple is going to brick the device after I've fixed it, I can't in good faith make the attempt. Instead, I'll have to recommend that the customer buy something else -- something actually repairable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You can't play in our garden if you allow some Archibald Tuttle-like character mess around with the inside of our products. Even if he does fix for less what we will fix for much more.
I am so sick and tired of this "no user serviceable parts inside" attitude of companies nowadays. Especially when they take it to the "no technically-capable person serviceable parts inside" level and deliberately break something which, once you've paid for it, is not theirs to be breaking.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
This sort of reminds me of how you can't use Android Pay on a rooted device.
Would it have been better if Apple said "We've detected unauthorized modifications to your device that are potentially insecure. Access to sensitive information and the features that rely on it have been disabled. Please take your device to an authorized service center for repair." instead of permabricking it?
Yeah.
But that's why I have a Nexus instead of an iPhone.
That's not bricking. Bricking would be MS rendering components in the computer or the entire computer unusable.
Microsoft will generally not brick your computer.
They may decide, however, that if you have replaced sufficient components of the computer, that it is not the same computer for which the OS has been licensed, and refuse you the right to run the OS. You're still free, however, to either put some of the old components back so that that's no longer the case, or boot Linux on the thing instead.
In the case of the OP, technically, they've replaced enough components that Apple has decided that it's not the machine for which iOS was licensed to run, which is very similar in scope.
I must disagree.
There are two distinct scenarios: upgrades and repairs.
If you end up replacing every component in your PC over time, it's legitimate to say that it's a new computer. In practice, it's tied to the motherboard.
On the other hand, if you just replace the motherboard with an identical model (or similar, they don't care about those details), you can speak to a support person and they'll activate the new board for you in a minute.
You're still free, however, to either put some of the old components back so that that's no longer the case, or boot Linux on the thing instead.
Or buy another Windows license, or call Microsoft and tell them what happened......
There are plenty of options in the Windows case that aren't available in the iOS case.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wow the reality distortion field has you fully in its grasp. Calm down, take a breath, and don't get so worked up. Its bad for your heart.
If the fingerprint sensor had been replaced with an identical one, I'm pretty sure the phone would have continued to work. I assume that what has happened is that the component was replaced by a different component that does something similar in normal use.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Enjoy..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I think you would be really hard-pressed to get a refusal to activate from a MS phone-rep, so long as your license is verifiably valid (and even in some cases when it's not valid, as you got scammed online).
Apple always gets away with it and the other vendors don't follow, because they don't have customers who will eat up anything.
Let me give you an example just from my experience. My 3rd iPhone 4S in a row has failed in the same exact way: wifi/gps disabled. Just do a quick google about the "grayed out wifi" problem, you will find thousands of posts and also a lot of iPhone 4/4S phones on ebay with that fault. Only the first of the 3 failed within warranty in my case and all three where always in an office and used once a week for testing/debugging (that's why I kept replacing it, I test on various devices). People have actually pinpointed the problem: the overheat detection of the wifi/gps module fails and the software disables it. In fact, this disabling was a "feature" introduced with iOS 6 IIRC, so people who had stayed with iOS 5 did not get the issue. For any other company there would have been a recall, since it would have been an easy class action otherwise, and even a software patch would fix it. But apple is happy with customers getting a new phone and their average customer doesn't mind much.
Ooh, another example, my boss, who you would call a dedicated Apple fan, had bought a mac mini 5-6 years ago. After 6 months it started killing his keyboards. He went through a few expensive/fancy keyboards before figuring out it was the mac mini and so he took it to the Apple store (Manhattan) where they diagnosed a faulty MB and told him it would take a week to have it replaced. He left it there, got a call about a delay and finally went to get it almost two weeks later. Instead of returning a fixed mac mini they told him they had voided the warranty because they found "dust" inside!!! And the only solution they offered was a 10%-off a new mac mini!!! And he took it!!! Bought the same thing, at a 10% discount!!! He didn't even flinch, I mean, I only found out because I asked, he did not find it interesting enough to mention. My jaw dropped when I heard it, I told him there is no such thing as warranty voided because of "dust", that if the device maker thinks they should not have dust they put a little filter in the computer intake (I do that in my custom builds), that a 6-month old mac mini in a no-pet no-smoke office would not have any dust anyway (and even if it did, why would it fail when decade old dusty components work fine). For all my arguments his response was "the apple genius told me my warranty is voided there is nothing I can do". He actually believed they were right. Even after I showed him the warranty which of course does not mentions dust he though they were right somehow...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Really? So it actually erases the data? Is it irretrievable or irretrievable without destroying the hardware? It's not possible to take the phone apart and get the internal storage mounted on a different device to retrieve the data?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The only people living in a reality distortion field are freetards. The rest of us have too much work to do to fuck around with computers all day.
If you grabbed my iPhone and smashed it on the ground, is Apple supposed to be liable for the damage?
The iPhone in question was dropped and damaged. It was then repaired by someone who claimed to know what he or she was doing without any certification or anything like that, and it functioned temporarily. A system update provided a new security feature, which was triggered by the repair. Exactly what are you claiming? That Apple should never add security features? That an Apple representative deliberately smashed the phone? That Apple should just trust an unknown third-party component in a major security feature?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There is the possibility that Apple discovered some TLAs have been fucking with their TouchID and using it to steal fingerprints/bypass TouchID.
Otherwise, Apple typically prefers to have good user interaction rather than bad interaction, and they have to know that if they brick enough people's devices, it's going to be extremely bad press, and reduce the chances of people immediately upgrading when new versions come out - which is a number they really like to keep as high as possible!
To balance that bad press, against people hacking TouchIDs, and them falling on the "lets keep it secure" side, I can see that happening.
The iPhone 5S uses the same concept, of touchID in the home button. However, when you change the button on the 5S, you don't brick the phone.
Apple has some good concepts, but I've spent nearly ten years driving myself nuts trying to find ways to fix devices that they make difficult to repair for no reason. I document that on a YouTube channel I've been posting starting two years ago. https://www.youtube.com/playli...
This is the most blatant middle finger to the independent repair community, and the customer who wants to fix their old one vs. buy a new one, that I have ever seen. It makes sense to increase the bottom line by creating devices that brick themselves when common parts are repaired outside of Apple. I get it, there are a lot of shitty iPhone screens out there... and a lot of shitty repair people. I've talked about it for years. The reality is that there would probably be less shitty parts out there if Apple didn't go above and beyond to make it impossible to repair their products. If I told you the crap I had to go through to get anything in good condition that was original to repair their products, you'd laugh... but it's true.
Buttons break all the time.
I know microsoft may consider it another computer, but having been through this process about a dozen times, a 5 minute phone call with microsoft gets it fixed. They're concerned about real piracy. If they detect it activated on 1000 machines in a week, that's a problem. If it's detected on a dozen machines over the course of 5 years, they really don't care.
The only people living in a reality distortion field are freetards. The rest of us have too much work to do to fuck around with computers all day.
Sure, selling those used cars is quite the chore. Cognitive dissonance? Sure, all day, clearly everyday.
Agreed -- it's an awesome security feature which helps secure your data.
However, I'm unsure how useful it is to brick the phone rather than disable the fingerprint reader in question and force the user to enter their passcode they created when configuring touch id? I don't see THAT as really adding security while refusing to use the fingerprint scanner and FORCE passcode entry would if it didn't trust the fingerprint hardware.
I see all the folks commenting that Apple's merely licensing the vehicle, blah blah blah, and that he should have gotten it repaired by Apple, or with legitimate parts.
Sure, I agree, legitimate parts if you can.
However, I bet everyone making these comments would shit a brick if they were required to take their name brand car to a name brand dealership for repairs, or else void the warranty (oh, wait, am I merely licensing the right to use the car - FUCK NO, I FUCKING OWN IT), or had an insurance company tell them they'd only pay for repairs from a dealership.
I can't wait for my repaired screen or some other part to cause this error 53, at which point I'm definitely going to go for a class action.
The article title is incorrect. If you are fixing the device in such a way it does not work, then it was not "repaired" any more than using Duct Tape to stop a radiator leak is a "repair".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The number of shit guzzling apologists here is truly shocking.
However, I'm unsure how useful it is to brick the phone rather than disable the fingerprint reader in question and force the user to enter their passcode they created
At first that seems a bit nicer for the user, but thinking longer term I think it makes a lot of sense to disable the device if it's detected it has been tampered with - I feel that's OK because of the ease of restoring the system from a backup, including the secure items in the keychain. If one bit of hardware has been compromised who knows what else was - why risk it? It just adds a lot of complexity around knowing the system is truly secure or not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ok... then how about notifying the user that the part cannot be trusted and offer them the choice to continue by entering the PIN and disable access to all items in the keychain until repaired by apple? Hell, even flush out all saved passwords and force the user to re-enter for email and other apps.
I'm really not seeing the justification for bricking the phone out-right.
That's nice, except this bricking appears to be irreversible. The hardware that you bought and paid for (or perhaps are still paying for) is useless, forever, and any data that has not been backed up is also lost forever.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
By design, but not to be cruel... How would you like it if your phone could be compromised simply by someone opening it up and replacing the fingerprint sensor with a rogue part? I'm actually surprised, however, that it takes a software update to brick the phone - if anything, that would be a bug.
I agree. Think of it this way, Apple are trying to push Apple pay which makes use of the system security provided by the fingerprint scanner (the private keys for apple pay are split between the fingerprint scanner chip and the crypto engine chip on the motherboard, so that compromising one chip doesn't reveal the whole key).
At present, the OS will disable apple pay when it finds that the finger print scanner fails to negotiate key exchange correctly; this potentially ends up with a tech support call to apple, or a social media posting saying, "why does my apple pay keep screwing up?".
Now consider what happens when there are a large number of field-repaired phones with knock-off fingerprint scanners. They appear to work fine, but some features are broken in subtle ways. The customer is confused; they may not relate it to the repair they had done; it creates an impression of an unreliable product and an expensive customer support nightmare. Clearly, apple want to stop this before it becomes endemic.
With the OS doing a full power-on self test on the security infrastructure, such a fault would be detected at the first reboot after the damage occurred, or after a repair using an incorrect part was performed. The security failure can now be easily attributed to the damage/repair, even by users of social media and journalists. This ensures that repairers don't perform half-assed repair jobs which can lead to incomplete or faulty operation (on what is marketed as a premium product).
Say I go to an unauthorized service provider to get my car fixed. They swap out my engine with one that is so flaky and fragile that it explodes if you change the ignition timings.
Then I go to my original dealer and ask for them to update my software. The software update from my dealer changes the ignition timings because they've found more efficient timings.. The software update works fine with the original engine, but with the new engine it explodes.
Who's fault is it?
I'll give you a hint, at some point along the way you signed a piece of paper that says that the manufacturer only covers problems with their design or manufacturing.
Companies can't possibly be expected to test their software will all possible configurations of third-party modifications.
The iPhone in question was dropped and damaged. It was then repaired by someone who claimed to know what he or she was doing without any certification or anything like that, and it functioned temporarily. A system update provided a new security feature, which was triggered by the repair. Exactly what are you claiming? That Apple should never add security features? That an Apple representative deliberately smashed the phone? That Apple should just trust an unknown third-party component in a major security feature?
What if apple added a credit card swipe to the side of their iPhone x phones and a few years later pushed out a firmware update requiring $1 fee to be paid by card swipe each time phone is started up as a security precaution to validate current owner?
Are you claiming that Apple should never add security features? That an Apple representative deliberately prevented you from using the phone? That Apple should just trust an unknown operator without $1 fee?
Considering the iPhone hardware sales gravy train has left the station and iPhone sales are predicted to start declining, Apple has to find a new revenue stream.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Apple is trying to make itself into a services company. The modern thinking on services company is the subscription model, therefore Apple is trying to nudge people into buying Apple Care. Think about it, even on old number of 650 million phones worldwide, if only 20% of them buy in that's still a hefty $6Bn per year of guaranteed revenue. Playing it as security is a way to deflect the actual purpose.
They didn't just "not support" the modified hardware - it worked fine after the repair and was systematically disabled by the update.
That's like if you take your car to the dealership for a routine checkup after having it repaired at a cheaper third-party garage, and they scrap it - without so much as warning you.
Gawd this cunt is shilling for Apple all over this thread.
What a fucktard.
In the past they would just put up a big ugly screen and warn you that the Windows copy is not genuine (warn or accuse, either way). It still gave you time to copy your files off if you needed to.
No, there's a security exchange between the CPU and the touch sensor, and by replacing one it needs to have a new exchange only customers and third party repair have not been told how to do this (possibly needing validation with Apple back office servers).
Or buy another Windows license, or call Microsoft and tell them what happened......
There are plenty of options in the Windows case that aren't available in the iOS case.
Really? Because the recommendation at the end of the article was "Call Apple Support".
No, there's a security exchange between the CPU and the touch sensor, and by replacing one it needs to have a new exchange only customers and third party repair have not been told how to do this (possibly needing validation with Apple back office servers).
So you're saying the replacement device was /NOT/ identical, because it was incapable of duplicating the crypto exchange.
I'm pretty sure you are saying exactly what the GP said, yet you are disagreeing with them?!?
"If you drop it and then take it to an unauthorized service vendor and they damage it"
But, the unauthorized servicer didn't damage it. They fixed it. They just don't have Apple's seal of approval on the fix. So Apple trashes the CUSTOMER's property. Great.
Don't step on the baby.
Even the identical devices have unique keys generated for them.
Identical devices with unique keys are by definition *NOT* identical.
Or to car analogy it: two otherwise identical cars with different VIN numbers are *NOT* identical.
Where did he learn the trade? I'm a freelance photographer myself. In the field I carry TWO ruggedized smartphones of which one is kept off for emergencies and a bare-bones oldstyle cellphone that will work for one week on one charge to just make voice calls. You go in the Balkans with an iPhone? Go back working for Hello Kitty Magazine.
There is a point about security that all the glib commenters here (disable fingerprint allow PIN blah blah ) get wrong: real security is very hard to get right. As Steve Bellovin points out, the Needham-Schroeder key exchange protocol was published in 1978. It took seventeen years to find a flaw in it that allows a man-in-the-middle attack. It was "proven" mathematically correct, too. Still think Apple should just disable fingerprint auth on the iPhone 6? Then you're a fool who has no business commenting on cryptography. If you really want to do cryptography and get it right, you need to approach the subject with a large serving of humble pie.
Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. Bricking the cryptographically secure device when hardware tampering is detected is the right thing to do.
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
If you chance screen include the home button ( include the finger print reader) and the logic board it won't work. The rest is fine that's the princip of a secure phone and privacy protection. Homebutton with out finger print reader or screen only is fine
And this is why only a fool buys Apple products.
Stage 1 - only use the cheapest parts so they are unreliable. Stage 2 - charge the earth.
Stage 3 - rig the system so only authorised repairs will continue to work..
Apple Fools !!!
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
The newest update made my iPhone 4S slow as hell... I can't even accept incoming calls... Apple told me I needed to buy a newer phone. Fuck Apple.
There is almost zero chance this was an intentional result on the part of Apple.
While I am sure Apple is trying to provide a secure environment, and checking for compromised hardware, it is very unlikely that Apple intended for end users to ever see "Error 53". This is likely a factory error, which no one expected end users to experience.
Apple always puts thought into the wording of error dialogs, trying to make them descriptive for the user. Error 53 is the opposite of that. For this reason, as much as anything else, I do not buy the conspiracy theorists claiming this was an attempt to prevent 3rd party repairs. Its much more likely it was a security precaution to prevent suppliers from substituting subpar parts in the factory.
Apple is quite clear about this.
From my point of view, I'm injecting a little sanity into a big Apple bash. If this had been a large "Apple can't possibly be to blame" discussion, I'd be in there saying why Apple was. I'm not saying Apple did the right thing, because I'm not anywhere close to sure about that, and I don't really like everything they're doing. I'm saying that a lot of you have crap arguments.
I also don't shill for anyone. I annoy people without any payment at all. You're welcome.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Requiring payment isn't a security feature by any stretch of the imagination. Requiring correct authentication in general can be. To put this another way, nothing has happened to my phone, and it's functioning just like it used to with some improvements. It would appear that iOS 9 runs just fine on a 5S, and I checked for that before upgrading. If there was a problem using my phone for no reason at all, I'd be ticked.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes