Apple vs. the Right To Repair (bloombergview.com)

retroworks writes: Bloomberg columnist Adam Minter takes on Apple's "Error 53 Code" and the precedents being challenged by the Right To Repair movement. Apple claims that bricking the phone if it's repaired by a non-Apple certified repair shop protects you from tampering with, say, the fingerprint scanner. But the column documents how the number of "certified" repair shops is under attack. If you can't open it, do you really own it?

Comments

It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, anyone could have told you that including biometric security on a smartphone was just inviting this kind of hardware signing.

Where outside of China are you going to find the components and the equipment to repair any of these electronics, anyway? Everything's microsoldered to a circuit board the size of a credit card, and the tiniest slip of your all-too-human hands and you've ruined a trace on a different circuit.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

If you could replace the touch ID sensor with any old thing, then they'd publish about "SECURITY FLAWS IN TOUCH ID ARCHITECTURE DISCOVERED" instead.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

well then why the security and worry?

If you require top of the line technical equipment to just look at it, then the only people who are going to try to steal it are the same people who were going to do that anyway, not people who just want their phone to work.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrchaotica]

It shouldn't even matter! The CPU should be doing the authentication anyway, with the sensor simply sending the bitmap (or whatever) to it. Having the sensor be a "trusted" part of the authentication system is just as stupid as requiring a "trusted" keyboard for putting in passwords would be.*

(* Yeah, yeah, keyloggers -- but don't even try arguing that angle, because anybody who cared about that wouldn't have chosen to have their phone repaired with un-vetted parts in the first place.)

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[sjames]

OTOH, instead of locking up the whole phone, they could just have it refuse to accept the fingerprint ID and let you continue to use other authentication methods.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Maritz]

Plus as I understand it, PIN entry is required for setting up TouchID, which strongly suggests that falling back to PIN when TouchID has a problem would be completely reasonable. Apple obviously disagree and instead prefer to brick the phone, whether that is a commendable position in terms of security or a cynical way of selling another phone depends on what you think about Apple I suppose. Personally I'd say it's overzealous...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

The sensor *isn't* a 'trusted' part of the authentication system. That's entirely the point. If the sensor were 'trusted, the system wouldn't *care* if it were the same sensor that used to be there or not. The key-pair involved confirms to the system that the sensor and secure enclave chip have not been tampered with.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[david_thornley]

Why should the CPU be doing the authentication? Spreading authentication in various pieces of hardware is useful for security. If only the CPU does security, all it takes is one CPU vulnerability in the wrong place and the bad guys are in.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[93 Escort Wagon]

But then again, anyone could have told you that including biometric security on a smartphone was just inviting this kind of hardware signing.

Where outside of China are you going to find the components and the equipment to repair any of these electronics, anyway? Everything's microsoldered to a circuit board the size of a credit card, and the tiniest slip of your all-too-human hands and you've ruined a trace on a different circuit.

The summary does a bad job attempting to conflate the "Error 53" problem and the "do you really own it" question - however...

At least some reports state these were Apple-certified shops. I've taken my Macs into these sorts of places before - they have access to genuine Apple components, same as the actual Apple Stores. Heck, a few years back I had an overbooked Apple Store Genius refer me to one of these Apple-certified shops! So they should be able to repair pretty much anything that can be repaired in-house at an Apple Store.

The problem is, the news reports are vague. Are these Apple-certified shops that have done the repair? Are the parts certified? If the answer to either of these is "no", then I can understand Apple disabling the TouchID component of the affected phones. But, bricking the phones? Phones that, post repair, were working just fine until they got updated to iOS 9? It seems to me that's 1) a dick move, and 2) a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I'd like to believe this is actually the result of a bug, and that it'll get sorted out in a more reasonable manner in the next several months. But, at the moment, it looks as if Apple has shot itself in the foot again, PR-wise.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tlhIngan]

It shouldn't even matter! The CPU should be doing the authentication anyway, with the sensor simply sending the bitmap (or whatever) to it. Having the sensor be a "trusted" part of the authentication system is just as stupid as requiring a "trusted" keyboard for putting in passwords would be.*

That IS what is happening.

But the CPU and sensor are paired up because you don't want to send the sensor data unencrypted across the bus where it's then subject to spoofing attacks. It may seem silly, but it's already been proven on Android phones where a good majority of the sensors do NOT protect the sensor data they send the CPU.

The CPU gets this data and decrypts it. However, to prevent access from user-level software or even kernel level (via privilege escalation techniques - the kernel is just an untrustworthy), the CPU enters a special trusted secure mode which is completely inaccessible to the kernel and userland software. Here your image data is processed, analyzed and a final determination done when the data is compared against the secure memory storage area (secure enclave - which because it is only accessible in secure mode is completely inaccessible to normal software).

The problem happens when you replace the sensor which breaks the pairing and encryption keys. Now you have to decide what to do.

A basic software engineer will say "we'll just re-pair the sensors". Which is great, until you realize you just created a security hole - what if what you just attached wasn't a sensor, but something more sophisticated? Perhaps it's something that pretends it's a sensor, but is really an attack device.

Said attack device can try to feed specially doctored bitmaps to the secure enclave and do power monitoring and other things to try to divulge secret encryption keys used to access main storage or other things. Or perhaps feed in invalid images meant to crash the CPU in secure mode in such a way as to be able to run arbitrary code.

Since this mode is superior to kernel mode, it will be completely invisible to the main OS and can spy on everything (think Intel Management Engine, or System Management Mode (SMM) on x86 - the software runs independently of the OS).

So re-pairing the sensor is a bad idea unless you're in a controlled situation.

Instead, Apple aborts the complete OS with error 53 - the sensor pairing data is mismatched, and the system is no longer trustable. To protect user data, it would be preferable to simply erase the encryption keys so user data cannot be compromised (think of it this way - the people who can carry out the attack would likely be state actors). Because while 99.999% of the time, the sensor will just be another sensor, who's to tell it isn't a sensor designed to hack the system and spy on its user with the ultimate spyware?

This is one of those security balances that has to be worked out - do you try to protect user data against state sponsored attacks that have been proven to occur, or do you try to give the user the ability to fix it, at the risk of completely compromising your security?

Apple chose the former - if the sensor isn't trustable, then the secure enclave is no longer trustable - malware could easily be running and private user data could be sniffed and uploaded for later analysis. So instead, when Apple detects the phone's software may have been compromised, they shut down with error 53.

Once the secure enclave is compromised, all bets are off. And Apple cannot tell if the TouchID sensor was replaced because the user changed it, or if was changed because the NSA needed to spy.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

How much easier is it to replace the sensor VS getting someone's fingerprint? Are we afraid of our phones being stolen by highly skilled phone repair technicians but secure in our knowledge that our fingerprints are unobtainable?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[gmiller123456]

Everything's microsoldered to a circuit board the size of a credit card, and the tiniest slip of your all-too-human hands and you've ruined a trace on a different circuit.

You might want to try giving surface mount soldering a try, it isn't really that hard. When there's several components, people usually use a reflow oven and solder paste, which is well within the realm of home hobby skill and equipment. But it can also be done pretty easily by hand. It takes a lot longer, so people only usually do it when there's just a few components. The key to it working is the solder mask on the board which won't let solder stick to it. It seems like magic the first few times you see it, so I recommend everyone give it a try at least once.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

I can only speculate, but this might be the more secure choice due to the way that the Touch ID module authenticates directly to the "Secure Enclave", but with the hardware signature verification taking place between the Touch ID module and the CPU. Total speculation though, I don't know the nitty gritty details of the security architecture. I'm disinclined to believe this is all just conspiratorial malice, however.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[MrKrillls]

Exactly. Disable the fingerprint reader and demand a PIN.

Bricking the phone is evil. Driving people to factory authorized repair doesn't cut it for me. Especially if that involves bricking phones. People are too dependent upon phones for apple to take it upon themselves to decide it is best to brick someone's phone on scant evidence of actual malfeasance. It is wrong. It is wrong minded. It is thoughtless. And it is selfish on apple's part.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[hidden]

Disabling touch ID on a phone with a non- genuine sensor would be fine. People would just have to use their PIN instead. But that's not what apple has chosen to do. Instead they've chosen to entirely nuke the device, with no warning. That's not a reasonable behaviour for a consumer security measure.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[kheldan]

I've been working in electronics for 35 years and know far better than you of what you speak, and I can tell you right now that nobody really is repairing the PCB in a phone, nor should they. Only the passive components and the smallest of the integrated circuits are even remotely replaceable on PCBs that small and that densely packed, the rest require a several-thousand-dollar rework station that requires special training and skills to use, and even then it's a risky proposition to R&R BGA-packaged devices, assuming those are even the problem. What they should be doing is selling replacement (new or factory refurbished) PCBs for their devices, so 3rd-party repair companies can repair customer devices. But they'll never do it, because it's not as profitable as telling people to just buy a new phone. Really, for all the good it does anyone, the entire inside of the phone may as well be just one solid block of epoxy, totally inaccessible, and when it dies, you toss it in the e-waste bin and forget about it; that's what Apple and many other companies want you to do, just buy a new one. Doesn't mean that isn't bullshit, but that's what makes them the most money so that's what they want to do. If automobile manufacturers weren't constrained by laws preventing it, they'd do pretty much the same thing: make vehicle engines completely unrepairable (except for the most basic maintenance), and make you buy a new one every few years (as if we're not close to that now anyway). Anyway, with electronics, that's pretty much the way things are going to be, in part because of the component density necessary to make such small devices, and in part because manufacturers want to make as much money as possible. If they were forced to make them more 'open', they'd probably respond by raising the price.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Gr8Apes]

That is a well written response. The real answer is "if you want to use your touch ID and it needs repair, it must be repaired by an Apple approved shop". Otherwise, turn off Touch ID and work without it. The OS gives you no other options.

Considering that Touch ID does more than merely let you in your phone (Apple Pay) this stance seems 100% reasonable. Apple might have a warning on the phone or a prominent agreement that if you enable TouchID/ApplePay, you understand that turning on TouchID can only be done with Apple certified TouchID parts, and no unapproved 3rd party repairs can have been done. (They may already have this, I don't recall reading it personally)

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

the fingerprint matching should be done on motherboard the replacing the sensor will be easy.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

http://semiaccurate.com/2009/07/31/apple-keyboard-firmware-hack-demonstrated/

What an "authenticated" keyboard system would look like.

Note the article mentions no password etc, this is not entirely true. In the case of the mighty mouse firmware all models contained the security code '1234'.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Gr8Apes]

No, because TouchID is linked to ApplePay there should be no potential backdoors for people to get into the phone. A warning when you turn it on should suffice and may already be there. If not, then that is a valid criticism.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

But since it doesn't throw the error when the repair is done but months later when an update is applied kinda makes all of this pointless. I could swap the sensor and access all the data I want the way it works now if I was trying to do so and this "security" measure would not stop me since it doesn't kick in at the time of the swap out. The way it stands now its really only enforcing "apple only" repairs and not any form of security.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Gr8Apes]

You forget ApplePay being linked to TouchID. That very well likely set into motion the Error 53 piece in iOS9. It also seems like the right answer to me. Apple's response will be interesting. If they were repaired by certified shops with Apple parts, Apple should fix/replace the phones. And how many phones were affected? I have or know of at least 20 iphones with TouchID - not a single one has failed. Anecdotal, I know, but 20:0 ratio with more than ten 2+ year old phones seems to indicate that this is not a very common problem.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Grishnakh]

It depends on the components and the scale. I agree, SMT is nice and easy when you're working with 0805 resistors and capacitors, and ICs with 0.5mm pin spacing, like a standard SOIC package.

However, if you start working with BGAs and DFNs and chip-scale packages, it's really not. A lot of electronics these days have gone to the former because it's easy enough to work with and the parts are cheap and you can make things fairly small. But cellphones are not normal electronics, they're arguable the very cutting-edge state of the art, because miniaturization is so important there. Take apart a reasonably modern cellphone and you'll probably find just one main PCB, and it's covered with BGAs, plus crazy things like capacitors and resistors embedded in the PCB, "buried" and "blind" vias (vias that don't penetrate the whole board, only certain layers, and vias that are part of pads), etc.

Some parts you might still be able to work on with a soldering iron or a hot-air rework tool, such as a common microUSB jack, as long as it's not too close to something small-scale like the above. (On my S4, I believe the USB jack is actually on a small, separate PCB, so that wouldn't be too hard at all.) But if you think you can work with chip-scale packages (these are basically bare chip dies soldered directly to the PCB) with hobby equipment, you're seriously mistaken.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Falling back to PIN is how I unlock my wife's iPhone 6s Plus when she asks me to change songs or reply to a message on her behalf while she's driving. There's no reason, absolutely none at all, why the Error 53 can't simply be a logged condition that disables the fingerprint reader; Apple should also be able to fix it by pairing the phone and fingerprint scanner.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[spongman]

Blah, blah, bollocks.

Diffie-Hellman.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[SScorpio]

It could be possible to replace the finger print reader on the phone, without alerting you. Maybe it would store the first scan it does and then just replays that for any other scan.

This doesn't get around needing to enter a pin/password on a cold boot. But it does break the chain of trust.

Also using a "trusted" keyboard that requires a specific host USB controller that encrypts data back and forth could prevent a keylogger. Is that something you need for your home? Probably not, but there are some cases where something like that would allow a user to take sure a machine wasn't tampered with.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[sjames]

If Apple pay would have accepted anything other than the fingerprint in the first place, then there is no back door added by simply refusing to acknowledge the un-paired sensor.

If not, then disable Apple Pay on those phones but don't brick them.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Still wrong. As a "security measure", the phone could say "untrusted fingerprint scanner detected, log in with PIN instead!" Or whatever other login methods this phone has. Making the entire phone useless just because the fingerprint sensor may be broken is bad. They can refuse the dubious hw and work with the rest - no reason to stop the user from authenticating using more cumbersome methods.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

It depends on what risks are associated with allowing a device to operate with a non-genuine or missing touch sensor. If, and this is speculative, but if it poses a risk to the secure storage of the "Secure Enclave", then it seems reasonable from my "fail secure" mentality.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[spire3661]

Normal humans can and do solder/desolder these kinds of parts all the time. I order parts from China all the time.... Not sure why you got marked insightful for this...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[sjames]

If it's not actual malice then it is a level of incompetence sufficient to be indistinguishable from malice.

Of course, if that was the case, then the malice comes in when Apple is unwilling to compensate it';s customers for that incompetence, so there's the malice again.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[spire3661]

And as we see, it may be useful for security, but it ruins usability (via making repairs harder than they have to be). Apple has no excuse here. They HAVE to allow 3rd party parts, just like the automakers had to eventually be forced to.,

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Even better, there is a secondary key exchange used for each unlock transaction, utilizing a rolling key in order to mitigate replay attacks. At least, that's what Apple tells us. They also tell us that the fingerprint data is stored in the secure enclave and cannot be read back out which, if true, necessitates that the secure enclave reads a hash from the scanner and makes the decision whether to unlock or allow the transaction. If any of that, including the pairing you mentioned, is true, any part of it at all, there's no reason to brick the phone. A different sensor shouldn't be able to communicate with the phone and should simply not work, while the rest of the device should be allowed to carry along on its merry way.

In fact, unless it is the home button itself making the match decision (which necessitates that either the button stores the hashes, or they can be read from the secure enclave), there is absolutely no security risk from replacing this button.

In short, Apple is lying to us about the security of the system. Either they're lying about the role of the button (which means they're also lying about the ability of data to be retrieved from the secure enclave) and it is making the match decision, they're lying about the secondary key exchange and replay attacks are possible, or they're lying about Error 53 having anything to do with device security.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[solidraven]

Fingerprint sensors are dead easy to bypass though. Unless you wear gloves your phone's case contains the unlock information... So intelligence agencies will still get in easily. Bogus argument. Quite frankly there is no reason to encrypt the sensor data on a board level, the moment they had sufficient access to take a desoldering station to your phone it's already past the point of trustworthy. Then again they'd just force your finger on the sensor... And if you want a sneak attack, just bug the screen driver and capacitive touch IC instead... (easier and far more valuable data).

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Supposedly it is, because the fingerprint hashes aren't supposed to be able to be read from the secure enclave once they've been stored. That necessitates that the secure enclave make the match decision. Technically, leaving it at that doesn't allow for easy secure replacement of the sensor; however, we are told that communication between the sensor and secure enclave is encrypted, and that there is a secondary (rolling) key exchange to prevent replay attacks so, yeah... replacing the sensor should be easy, and it is for Apple, they just have to pair the new sensor to the phone (or Apple lied about all of that and data can be retrieved from the secure enclave, or it is vulnerable to replays).

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[fbobraga]

seem an pretty good excuse to me (but a non-sense one :P)

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

But the CPU and sensor are paired up because you don't want to send the sensor data unencrypted across the bus where it's then subject to spoofing attacks.

Wrong. Supposedly, the fingerprint data is stored in the secure enclave and can not be retrieved. The sensor and secure enclave are paired (the secure enclave and CPU likely are, as well), at least according to Apple, and the match decision of made by the secure enclave.

Now that that's been cleared up, there is no reason to brick the device if the sensor fails to authenticate itself; just don't talk to the sensor anymore. Shut down its power and data lines and turn it into a dumb button like it was on the iPhone 5 and earlier; PIN still works.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Considering that it wasn't an issue until iOS 9, I'm gonna go ahead and conclude it's entirely done in software. Idiocy or malice I do not know, but I do know it's unnecessary; supposedly, according to Apple, the secure enclave handles signature verification and authentication for the entire device, taking the CPU out of the equation.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

So they should be able to repair pretty much anything that can be repaired in-house at an Apple Store.

No repairs are done in-house, they do replacements and the ship out (often to those authorized repair shops) for repair.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

How about changing the battery? I would welcome a law requiring all batteries in consumer items to be consumer replaceable. While they are at it, how about standard battery sizes?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

If communication between the sensor and the secure enclave is encrypted (and with a rolling secondary key, which prevents replay attacks) and data cannot be retrieved from the secure enclave, as Apple is telling us, there is no reason to disable anything but the power and data pins for the sensor if it fails to authenticate itself to the secure enclave at boot. Period. Let it be a dumb button if it doesn't authenticate; if you remove power and data lines from the button, you remove any possibility of a security vulnerability.

But, but... but... can't it just keep trying to authenticate until it's successful? Sure, it can, once per reboot (this is why one should disable the power and data pins on failure). A few quadrillion reboots and it'll finally get in.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[KGIII]

When this popped up, I was responding to David and I was thinking about it like this...

What's to stop them from keeping the data encrypted, not allowing access, and just using a second account (call it a guest account like on a PC) that has no access to the stored and encrypted data but does allow then to use a second profile until it can be replaced with a proper sensor?

Basically, they'd be able to put a new sensor in, have the device function, be able to even create a second profile, and not have access to the data that's encrypted. The sensors can probably have a fuse in them so that they pop and it's set to one device and one device only so there's some sanity checking going on - in case there's an attack that way that I can't think of.

This does nothing to prevent the phone from being stolen, set to work with a new "profile" by using a new sensor, or anything like that. But, unless I'm missing something, this stops a high-level attack by something like a State actor from accessing the encrypted data while still allowing the user to get the phone repaired elsewhere and then, when time allows or circumstances change, being able to get a proper sensor inserted and recover the data.

I am, by no means, an expert so I might be missing something but that's the most logical thing I can think of.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Gr8Apes]

True. But Error 53 tells the user something untoward has happened. Should it be a user configurable option? I could argue that it should.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't have any fallback authentication methods, then this might have been the case.

However, they force you to use a PIN/password or at the very least, plug in to a previously paired desktop (which in-and-of itself is a huge security threat, since it introduces a new point of failure if we're being super-security conscious)

This means that the key is not exclusively attached to your fingerprint and therefore not an essential part of the authentication schemes.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, so what's stopping the sensor from sending a bitmap of some chinaman's finger for all auth attempts?

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

That "secure enclave" is only meaningful for authenticating the fingerprint... if that system isn't trusted, then defaulting to the pin system which was used to define the trust that allows the fingerprint system to be programmed to your fingerprint would be more reasonable than simply bricking the device.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of fucking malicious idiot would power on the device after replacing the touch sensor knowing 53 would pop up? They would either leave it intact or spoof the original touch sensor so the OS doesn't know the difference, or go by some other means.

There is literally 0 risk to the secure storage by just simply disallowing the use of a non-genuine touch sensor. There is absolutely no "speculation needed".

Using your argument, you should also brick the device if the touchscreen or display is replaced by a non-original part. Touchscreens can capture your input right away. A malicious display could record your password; to wit, I've seen people's passwords when they unlocked their i device while plugged into a TV. Also, researchers have said they can figure out your password using gyroscope input, so brick when that is replaced too.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[AmiMoJo]

If Apple can pair the sensor to the CPU, an attacker can pair their own hardware to it as well.

There are numerous ways Apple could allow replacement of the sensor and remain just as secure. For example, allowing the user to pair the new sensor but requiring that all existing encryption keys be wiped in the process. That way it couldn't be used to access existing data on the phone, and while new data would be at theoretical risk that would at least be up to the user. A simple message on the display is all that is required.

They could even just disable the sensor but allow the phone to carry on working otherwise. You know, not brick it because one non-essential part failed. Unfortunately this is only likely to get worse - 3rd party tyres bricking cars will be next, because safety.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phantomfive]

Where outside of China are you going to find the components and the equipment to repair any of these electronics, anyway?

I usually get them here.

the tiniest slip of your all-too-human hands and you've ruined a trace on a different circuit.

Soldering isn't as hard as you make it seem. With practice, even someone with shaky hands like me can do small circuits.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

There is a fallback to a secondary authentification mode but it isn't necessarily a feeble four number PIN as you can setup an authentification passcode/phrase instead. Thus, when rebooting or authenticating after more than 48 hours of disuse you need to enter a real pass phrase. Using a passphrase would be annoying if it was every time but TouchID makes it the rare exception.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought i devices were updated fast. Why would it take several months? Roll back the changes or have an "if (error = 53) return false / unathenticated;" instead of "return 'brickphoneforcashgrab';"

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

The fingerprint scanner no longer working should tell the user that much, no need to brick the phone to do it. And it would be immediate, not weeks or months later when a system update is installed, like Error 53.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

"Ruins usability"?!? Oh yeah, you don't have an axe to grind, not at all...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[AmiMoJo]

If you can replace the touch sensor you can certainly intercept signals from the touch screen, which are not encrypted (they are analogue) and capture the user's PIN code anyway.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Great word salad, "secure mode" is exactly where all the backdoors are.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Yup, because a sensor that is disabled (power and data pins) when it fails to authenticate itself can totally prod at the rest of the system.

And if Apple's engineering is that weak, they deserve the criticism. If the secure enclave is truly write-only as Apple claims, if communication between the fingerprint reader and the secure enclave is encrypted as Apple claims, if a rolling secondary key is used as Apple claims, if the match decision is made within the secure enclave (as would be necessary if it is write-only)... see where I'm going with this?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

The secure enclave might handle all those tasks, but crypto validation of the touch sensor might be done on the main bus. If that's the case, then they might be correcting a vulnerability whereby the CPU tells the secure enclave processor, "yes you can trust what this device says" even in the case of a swapped device that shouldn't be trusted, permitting unauthorized access to the crypto store.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail at some point. Take it offline and it will never fail. "Security".

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

Or, it's a legitimate if somewhat heavy-handed workaround to a gap in the hardware security architecture.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

Only if you're using the part of your fingerprint that you use to grip things with. Using the ball of your thumb or your index finger isn't the best choice but there are others that make getting latent prints much harder to find but do not make TouchID significantly harder to use.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[rjstanford]

What's to stop them from keeping the data encrypted, not allowing access, and just using a second account (call it a guest account like on a PC) that has no access to the stored and encrypted data but does allow then to use a second profile until it can be replaced with a proper sensor?

Technically nothing, but security is a really touchy area. The more code that you have that says, "Well, we think there's been a breach, but let's be super-clever instead of just shutting down," the easier it is for someone to escalate and gain privileges, which in this case includes the ability to generate Apple Pay tokens at will.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[sjames]

A gap like that where an un-paired fingerprint scanner is a problem and can't just be turned off *IS* incompetence.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

I'll repeat:

supposedly, according to Apple, the secure enclave handles signature verification and authentication for the entire device, taking the CPU out of the equation

Unless Apple is wrong about how their own device works.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[ewibble]

Nonsense, once you give your phone to someone to repair they could install any number rootkits, or hardware extras on the phone, replacing the fingerprint reader or not. When you give any hardware to a manufacture you are implicitly trusting them. In fact you are trusting the shop that sells you the phone as well. I am sure if you went to enough effort you could replace the security sticker.

Anyway why would I trust an apple approved repairer, more than anyone else all it takes is one individual doing the repairs to be corrupt.

The could easily say you require a pin instead. Or give you a warning that it maybe compromised.

This is removing competition for repair, with the excuse of security.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Wait a minute... I missed something on my first read-through.

permitting unauthorized access to the crypto store

The crypto store that, according to Apple is write-only?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrchaotica]

Nothing, but that's not a problem because wouldn't match the owner's fingerprint and so the phone would refuse to unlock. At worst, the user could reasonably consider the fingerprint scanner to be "broken" (since sending the wrong bitmap is functionally equivalent to sending a blank bitmap) and demand another replacement that works properly, but that's not a security flaw.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't even matter! The CPU should be doing the authentication anyway, with the sensor simply sending the bitmap (or whatever) to it. Having the sensor be a "trusted" part of the authentication system is just as stupid as requiring a "trusted" keyboard for putting in passwords would be.*

Except that the fingerprint isn't even accessible to the CPU or (ring 0) code. It's saved in a "secure enclave" on the die which is actually a separate processor running it's own L4 kernel. This is all documented by Apple:

* https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204587

It's similar to ARM's TrustZone.

(* Yeah, yeah, keyloggers -- but don't even try arguing that angle, because anybody who cared about that wouldn't have chosen to have their phone repaired with un-vetted parts in the first place.)

Are people actually informed enough to care about this? We're probably talking about the same folks that click through all the browser certificate warnings without knowing what they mean.

Apple (for better or worse) decided to try to make a "default secure by design" system. Feel free to disagree with their decisions, but the alternative seems to be the malware infested PCs when folks don't understand the trade offs.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[spire3661]

Usability includes the sum total of the life of the device, including 3rd party repairs. Security is always a compromise between usability and integrity. Apple fell too far on the security side and hampered usability. For the record, i read your comment on my ipad, the only axe i have to grind is making sure we maintain a 'right to repair', which includes 3rd party parts.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[mrex]

write-only

I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't claim this, because that would be, err, dumb.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be no risk in replacing the Touch ID sensor with a benign replacement, but that isn't true of a *malicious* replacement. The secure pairing of the hardware prevents *that* avenue of attack. The fact that you think there is no security risk in replacing hardware with unknown hardware indicates a *huge* lack of imagination on your part, rather than an actual lack of security risk.

Think of it as a keyboard (or any other data-entry device, for that matter). If you replace a normal keyboard with another normal keyboard, there's no security issue. If you replace a normal keyboard with one that has a keylogger built into it, there's a *huge* security issue.

Imagine a malicious 'Touch ID' sensor that recorded the last fingerprint used. At any point in the future, if the system asks for a fingerprint, and the sensor doesn't detect the presence of an actual finger, it simply replays the last-used fingerprint. Anybody who picked up your phone could get into it, and utilize any accounts you have set up with Apple Pay, and get into any apps or accounts you've enabled for Touch ID.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[thegarbz]

? Everything's microsoldered to a circuit board the size of a credit card,

I invite you to go to iFixit's website and actually look into an iPhone to see how wrong you are. I count 16 discrete parts, each of which could potentially be replaced as they are are connected via small surface mount connectors.

Look at the disassembly process, there's a distinct lack of soldering iron.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Indeed, the claim is that the fingerprint hash is stored in the secure enclave and can not be read from it. It's actually pretty damn smart, honestly; enclave gets placed into storage mode and is fed a fingerprint hash, which it stores; then, enclave receives a hash in comparison mode and only has to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether it's a match. As for Apple Pay, the secure enclave stores a token generated by the card issuer and uses that token to generate authorization responses for given transactions. In that way, data that is written to the secure enclave never need be read from it, so it's perfectly reasonable to not be able to read from it; erasing is simply a matter of overwriting with zeroes.

That said, for the security vulnerability that Apple wants us to think they're protecting us from to actually exist, the secure enclave itself must be flawed or Apple must be lying about how it works. In either case, Apple is lying about something.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[93 Escort Wagon]

They certainly replace iPhone screens on site - there was a bunch of stories a year or two back regarding the specialized hardware being distributed and training going on at the various Apple Stores for that. And if they can replace screens, it's hard to believe they can't do other repairs on site as well.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Dixie_Flatline]

Why don't you just add one finger to her list? My partner and I each have one finger that unlocks the other's phone. My passcode is well over 10 digits, and it would be a pain for her to remember it in an emergency.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Dixie_Flatline]

I'm pretty sure the device will notice right away now. The problem is that previous versions of iOS didn't, and the new version did and immediately bricked the phone without warning.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

I'm fairly certain they don't open up a Mac for anything beyond replacing/upgrading RAM and storage; and that's on the models where such is even possible. I also find it interesting that, if they are capable of replacing screens on-site, they rather insist on replacing the entire device; for a fee, of course. Perhaps it's just select locations, but I can tell you for certain that the Apple stores in my area (East Bay, just an hour north of Cupertino) do not do repairs.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[mattventura]

From what I understand, that IS what happens - until you update, at which point the device gets bricked. If there is some legitimate security concern, it should be all or nothing, not "until you update".

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Because there is no need. I wasn't complaining about having to type in a PIN I was pointing out that the fingerprint is unnecessary; adding my finger to her phone would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, worthless effort.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

The fact that you think there is no security risk in replacing hardware with unknown hardware indicates a *huge* lack of imagination on your part

And the fact that you think I think that indicates a *huge* lack of understanding on yours. My point was that the potential for attack is more than adequately mitigated by the measures Apple assured us (during the iPhone 5s launch) they implemented; only if Apple lied about implementing those measures, or implemented them with 1st-year CS student levels of incompetence, is there a possible attack vector here.

Imagine a malicious 'Touch ID' sensor that recorded the last fingerprint used.

This is precisely what the key exchange pairing prevents; if the scanner's private key has changed (e.g. because it was replaced), it can no longer communicate with the secure enclave in a way that the enclave can understand, rendering its ability to authenticate itself to the secure enclave null, which allows the secure enclave to deactivate it by way of disabling power and data pins for the device, which would prevent it from probing at the rest of the system. It can still function as a dumb button as it did for the iPhone 5 and older.

Again, either the security measures Apple bragged about during the iPhone 5s launch exist (in which case replacing the home button should immediately result in a non-functioning fingerprint reader, which does not happen) and they're lying about the possibility of an exploit, or they lied about those security measures.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[squiggleslash]

Is the touch sensor for the touch screen, the camera, and the microphone, also similarly connected to the CPU via a signed encrypted connection?

(If so, I'm wondering how third party repair outfits were able to "repair" iPhones before the software update, if not, I'm wondering what the point is when it comes to protecting just one part of the system, one that isn't even used for data entry.)

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Dixie_Flatline]

Man, I can barely unlock my own phone when I'm in a panic (it happened once when my house was being robbed)--it may be worth considering for emergencies. It really is handy, and she probably doesn't need all those slots dedicated to her own fingers. Anyway, it's just a suggestion, I'm not meaning to be critical. :)

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to unlock to make an emergency call.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[omnichad]

In an emergency, you don't unlock your phone - you just dial an emergency number.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[omnichad]

A basic software engineer will say "we'll just re-pair the sensors". Which is great, until you realize you just created a security hole - what if what you just attached wasn't a sensor, but something more sophisticated? Perhaps it's something that pretends it's a sensor, but is really an attack device.

So disable the sensor and fall back to a PIN unlock and don't allow the user to re-pair until the phone is unlocked. And of course the re-pairing process would have to explain why re-pairing is necessary.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

If I need to make a call in an emergency, I have my own phone. If at home, well, I needn't unlock my landline. Plus, as two other users have already pointed out, you don't unlock for emergency calls, you tap "Emergency Call" and dial emergency services.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[omnichad]

Anyway why would I trust an apple approved repairer, more than anyone else all it takes is one individual doing the repairs to be corrupt.

And if you go that far, why even trust Apple itself?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tibit]

The CPU should be doing the authentication anyway, with the sensor simply sending the bitmap (or whatever) to it.

LOL, Heck no! Read about Apple's security architecture on iOS devices. You'll understand why it's done that way. There's no other way.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tibit]

The way they designed the system is that not only things "don't work" when a wrong fingerprint scanner module is present, but also various assumptions about the system are validated on an ongoing basis. The fingerprint scanner doesn't match the expectation: the best the software can assume is that the security system is under attack, and it clears the keys and stops. That's the right response.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tibit]

do power monitoring and other things to try to divulge secret encryption keys

The other things might include attempting to fuzz the enclave's software and see if there's an exploitable bug lurking there.

I agree with you completely. The phone's reaction to the unauthorized component substitution is correct.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[solidraven]

Just pick it up once and most of your hand is on it... Maybe back of your hand *might* be an option. But still silly looking.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Immediately cutting off the avenue of attack (disabling the power and data pins to the unauthenticated device) does the trick, actually. What doesn't protect the data on the device, however, is letting the unauthenticated hardware continue communicating with the functioning device for weeks or months until the next software update is applied. I might be inclined to agree with you if Error 53 happened as soon as the home button was replaced, but it doesn't, it gives potential attackers plenty of time to get at the user's data before locking the user out of it permanently. That's the wrong response.

I know this is Slashdot and nobody reads the articles, but you can't possibly have not been following this for weeks at this point. Do you seriously not understand what the actual issue is, here?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[currently_awake]

Bio-metric security is like writing your password on your shirt.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lot of paragraphs about security but all a hacker has to do is install altered fingerprint reader and NOT update iOS. The bricking happens when you update or restore iOS. The Brick does not happen on bootup.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[inflex]

At this point it still just waits for you to upgrade the iOS or factory-reset before it'll lock out with E53.

I do a fair number of these repairs each day, usually people who have smashed their screens so badly that they've lost the home button (or torn it).

These days we simply warn them of the impending doom and give them the option of how they'd like to proceed (repair and never upgrade, or get their data and ditch the phone).

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[ChumpusRex2003]

Considering that the whole purpose of touch ID on the affected devices is to enable "apple pay", and apple pay works by storing a private key with authority to authorize payments from your bank account into the secure enclave. To make a payment, you re-verify fingerprint, which authorizes the secure enclave to sign a transaction message.

Because the finger print sensor is intended to communicate with the secure enclave, it is a potential avenue for attack; replay attack, fuzzing attacks on the secure enclave software, power/time cryptanalytic attacks, etc. Given the high value of the keys stored in the secure enclave, the latest version of the OS software is designed to fail even to boot if it detects a failure of pairing.

Earlier versions of the OS software would run with a mis-paired sensor, but apple pay would fail to work. The latest software update recognises that hardware attacks on the secure enclave might be possible, and pro-actively locks down the entire device if it detects a potential tamper attempt.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and if the system disables the touch sensor, in that case the user can not activate the touch sensor. This is a serious problem because the Apple Experience (TM) is to have the touch sensor available.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you start working with BGAs and DFNs and chip-scale packages, it's really not.

Haven't tried BGAs but DFNs are easier to solder than QFP.
Just heat it up, push gently on the top with a screwdriver or whatever you have handy to squeeze out the excess solder and you will get a perfectly soldered DFN.
If you use too little solder you can just run the soldering iron with some excess solder along the side of the IC to get it fixed.
There is never the issue with excess solder getting collected between the pins causing short circuits. Always nice and easy.
Also, 0805 is huge. Unless you have bad eyes you should be able to go down to 0402 without much problem.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

That is so true, after all, we can compare Apple's engineering to the better designed with easily replacable elements that so many Android phones... uh, well actually they don't have anything better... Oh yeah gotta get back to criticising Apple or the Android geeks will down vote me.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

....or you could just not but apple. Problem solved.
Fingerprint scanners alone are kinda useless as the finger may be coerced, copied or chopped off.
It would take quite a lab to replace BGA SMT parts with xray inspection equipment etc.
I bet the three letter agencies would like to get in to these devices.
Repairs other than screen, connectors or batteries may not be economical, even if you had the tools.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

Most of the hand != fingertips, which given how people normally hold things rarely give good prints (confirmed by the fact that they are extremely rarely in any databases or used to solve crimes) but are just fine for TouchID.

It's funny that so many people who are so inventive when finding ways to call TouchID inadequate are so lacking when choosing what part of which finger would be useful to diminish their claimed drawbacks. Oh no, people MUST use the balls of their fingers, or else it MUST be the backs of their hands.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Show me an Android phone that bricks when you replace a part with a functional equivalent of the correct specifications. It means nothing that the iPhone's home button is replaceable if replacing it bricks the device weeks or months later. Don't be a dick.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

I'd suggest tucking in your shirt but that's probably too much to hope for.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

Says who? You? Ah, forgive me for not seeing directly how your world look should define how I live my life. How dare I not see that you hold the ultimate truths and can define any word to mean whatever you want it to, I didn't recognise you in your spire disguise Dear Leader...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

So, all recent Android phones come with a functional equivalent to TouchID? Ah, no, they don't and even when they start adding them, it's going to be the usual dogs breakfast of incomplete, incompatible and mostly broken implementations. But you'll be so happy knowing that you can replace parts with clones that claim to be the same and never worry about it -- because we all know that couldn't make Android's security any worse.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[countach74]

All don't but many do come with such things. And they actually work really well.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

I had a fingerprint scanner on my Atrix nearly 5 years ago; I'll admit it didn't work that well. What I'm saying is "when they start" came and went long before Apple even tried. I suggest you go look at a Nexus 6P or 5X, then talk; they use the same technology as the iPhone for their scanners, but they work a bit quicker and don't brick the device.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

No android fingerprint sensor is accompanied by a secure enclave and thus fingerprint data ans functions are open to abuse by any malware that wants to. It's like trumpeting that your new home has a safe but omitting that the access code is engraved on the safe's door. Only a fool would use such a safe or an android fingerprint sensor for anything important.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

No android fingerprint sensor is accompanied by a secure enclave and thus fingerprint data and functions are open to abuse by any malware that wants to. It's like trumpeting that your new home has a safe but omitting that the access code is engraved on the safe's door. Only a fool would use such a safe or an android fingerprint sensor for anything important.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tibit]

That was because their validation wasn't tight enough prior to the update. Hopefully that'd be obvious. Yet everyone seems to be screaming that Apple should have what? Kept the old behavior and prolong potential security lapses to appease people who don't know better? Meh.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[solidraven]

So you take your phone out of your pockets without using your inner hand surface or finger tips. Interesting...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Eunuchswear]

That is so true, after all, we can compare Apple's engineering to the better designed with easily replacable elements that so many Android phones... uh, well actually they don't have anything better... Oh yeah gotta get back to criticising Apple or the Android geeks will down vote me.

Well, I have a Fairphone 2, so yes, I feel free to criticize Apple on this one.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Eunuchswear]

That is a well written response. The real answer is "if you want to use your touch ID and it needs repair, it must be repaired by an Apple approved shop". Otherwise, turn off Touch ID and work without it. The OS gives you no other options

But that isn't what Apple do. They don't "turn off Touch ID and work without it" -- they brick the phone.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

I once again suggest you go look at the Nexus 5X and 6P, you're making yourself look deliberately ignorant now. Anddoid has supported (and high-end moddls have utilized) what Apple refers to as a Secure Enclave since Gingerbread, a little over 6 years now; it unified the APIs for hardware and software keystores with Ice Cream Sandwich, about 5 and a half years ago, so apps automatically make use of the haddware keystore if present. All of this was done before the Secure Enclave was even a glimmer in Apple's eye and, in fact, have had one i every Android phone I have owned for the past 4 years, starting with the HTC One X. Apple didn't release the iPhone 5s, the first phone with a Secure Enclave, untiil a year and a half later, and the One X wasn't even the first to use it; they've been in use since Gingerbread began supporting them, which was a reaction to Qualcomm, nVidia and Samsung starting to integrate them with their high-end SoCs. By now, every ARM manufacturer integrates them into at least their high-end chips; in fact, most (including Apple) base their decigns on ARM reference blocks.

Let's not let facts get in the way of our fanboyism, though; we might have a civil discussion if we allow that. I mean, it's not like I'm surrounddd by MacBook Pros and iPads [looks around] oh... wait. I am. At home, none the less; and I willingly married an iPhone user. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that disqualifies me as a fanboy, while your deliberate ignorance of facts just screams it out loud.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Typos... This is why I don't usually post from my phone.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

As I clearly labeled which part of my fingers I use and you have displayed insufficient comprehension/intelligence to follow here is an URL you should read:
http://www.tpub.com/maa/179.ht...

Do you see both examples of typical fingerprints? (hint: they are labeled A & B). Do you see what part of your finger is not present on either example? That is what is called the fingertip and as I explained earlier (I'm repeating as you seem to have an extremely short attention span) fingerprints rarely give good latent prints but are more than sufficient for TouchID.

I, like most normal people grasp objects use those parts of my fingers that are typically registered when registering fingerprints. Fingertips, palm prints toe prints, nose prints and whatever it is that you use (I'm guessing tentacles) rarely give usable prints which is why most fingerprint registers do not include them.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

You mean the hardware-based validation done by the Secure Enclave? Sorry, that occurs outside of the control of the OS; the CPU (you know, where the OS executes) doesn't play any role in that validation, it only looks at the result. Try again.

To further my point, the old behavior still exists, Error 53 still does not occur automatically; still only after a software update.

If you're going to argue with someone who has been following this issue since the iOS 9 internal beta, you might want to know WTF you're talking about before you open your mouth, or, at the very least, listen and learn when corrected. Don't let your rabid fanboyism blind you from facts; if iOS is still your preference, great, keep using it (I love my iPad and have yet to find an Android tablet I can actually use), but open your eyes to reality and learn the limitations of the OS and the devices that run it, so they don't bite my in the future. For the record, I handle Android with the same gloves.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

As the subject is TouchID which is a secure fingerprint reader and no fairphone includes one, your criticism is baseless and your judgement clearly faulty.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

Ah, yes, Android's fingerprint APIs & implementations are so wonderful that Google pay has been using them from day one, leading an ever growing number of developers to depend on them... Except that that is patently false unless you replace Android with IOS & Google with Apple.

I do not dispute that Android has had various fingerprint implementations, but differing specifications and implementations have meant that none have had the uptake that Apple has imposed with TouchID and even the best have been no more than barely useful gadgets.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Ah, yes, Android's fingerprint APIs & implementations are so wonderful that Google pay has been using them from day one, leading an ever growing number of developers to depend on them... Except that that is patently false

Then why did you just say it? It certainly isn't what I was claiming. Was that a lame attempt at a strawman, or did you simply misunderstand what I wrote? I suggest you go back and read my post again and figure it out.

Apple has imposed

Imposed? Upon whom? Themselves? Who else makes iOS-based phones? Nobody. If they did, there would be cheaper models without fingerprint scanners.

The fingerprint scanner, by the way, has nothing to do with Apple Pay; it is a novel way to unlock it, but that novelty wears off. With Android Pay, you unlock your phone (if you have a fingerprint scanner, you use that) and tap to the terminal; with Apple Pay, you unlock your phone, and tap to the terminal. Both allow you to tap first, only in the sense that the NFC antenna doesn't become active until you unlock, meaning that you must hold the device against the receiver while unlocking if you don't unlock first.

As for secure storage, which is what I was specifically talking about, Android has used that for Android Pay since day one; in fact, it is required for Android Pay. Google Wallet (the predecessor to Android Pay, predating Apple Pay by 3 and a half years), on the other hand, allows for the use of software-emulated secure storage (e.g. an encrypted filesystem image) on devices that lack a hardware solution, which are few and far between when looking at devices just slightly older than the iPhone 5s. Because Google Wallet is potentially less secure (in the case of devices lacking a hardware keystore), Google Wallet no longer supports NFC payments; that said, the number of devices that both support NFC and lack a hardware keystore is a statistical anomaly; if your Android phone supports NFC, you'll find yourself in the extreme minority if you can't use Google Pay.

But facts aren't as much fun because you can't really argue against them. Right?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Eunuchswear]

your criticism is baseless and your judgement clearly faulty.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Oh I am so stung.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming a replacement reader is "good". What about the attack vector where a hax0r hooks up malicious "fingerprint sensor" that sends hundreds/thousands/millions of attempts per second until it breaks in? Or what if they replace the reader with hardware that both reads, logs, and transmits the fingerprint pattern?

Once the physical environment has been compromised, all bets are off. That's why they tell you to always lock server rooms...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you've never worked with distributed systems. One example would be Point of Sale systems. PCI-PTS REQUIRES external card readers to encrypt the card data stream; the CPU doesn't even have access to the unencrypted data. Instead, it gets a transaction token that it uses to interact with the payment gateway. The CPU is never "trusted".

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Rakarra]

They HAVE to allow 3rd party parts, just like the automakers had to eventually be forced to.,

Uhhhh... yeah, about that. That's not really the case anymore either. Automakers have found ways to force out 3rd-party competition through the use of proprietary electronics systems that most components in new cars require. You can still put whatever tires you want on a modern car (for now) and do your own oil and fluids changes. Maybe the battery, too. But for everything else we're back to square one.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Rakarra]

Says who? You? Ah, forgive me for not seeing directly how your world look should define how I live my life. How dare I not see that you hold the ultimate truths and can define any word to mean whatever you want it to, I didn't recognise you in your spire disguise Dear Leader...

Ah yes, the person who argues you should have the freedom of your choice of repair people is the dictatorial one here.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Ol Olsoc]

Why don't you just add one finger to her list? My partner and I each have one finger that unlocks the other's phone. My passcode is well over 10 digits, and it would be a pain for her to remember it in an emergency.

My wife shows me one finger all the time.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[phayes]

Considering that a member of the Python troupe is a close friend of my mother, that I'm half French and that your blathering on about how your phone without a fingerprint sensor somehow gives you relevance on how Apple has engineered TouchID, the more apt reference is Now go away or I shall tant you again.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

But the CPU and sensor are paired up because you don't want to send the sensor data unencrypted across the bus where it's then subject to spoofing attacks.

I don't understand why this is an issue for a phone, especially with the fingerprint sensor.

If an attacker has access to your hardware to perform a spoofing attack, they are probably also able to obtain a copy of your fingerprint. Why go to the trouble of cracking open the hardware and spoofing the fingerprint signal, when it is easier to spoof the fingerprint itself.

In other words, why bother putting a titanium link in the security chain when it is connected to one made of paper?

As for state actors, if you are subject to their attentions, and they are willing to devote the resources to perform this sort of attack on you, you're probably fucked anyway.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[solidraven]

Oh gosh, ink and powder, how cute. Our lab SEM/FIB heavily disagrees with your assessment. Even had luck with an interferometer without even trying... Even regions you deem difficult/impossible to find often show up clearly. We see them by accident if something was touched by someone who doesn't wear gloves, you think a state level actor won't find them when trying? That is assuming they don't just force your finger on the sensor...

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Eunuchswear]

Tant? Taunt or tante?

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[tibit]

Error 53 still does not occur automatically; still only after a software update.

OK, I bit your bait. Went to the store yesterday and got a brand spanking new iPhone 6 that came with iOS 9.2 out of the box. I didn't do any updates nor any setup other than enabling touch id and adding one finger. So: no wifi, no carrier setup. I then opened it up and swapped the button with the one from wife's phone. Took me 3 fucking hours, as I've never done it previously. Thankfully a local computer store had all the iFixIt tools needed for iPhone service.

What do you know: powered it up, boom, phone stuck in recovery mode. That's what I refer to by "error 53", the source of the problem is the same although of course it doesn't involve any update attempts. I replaced the buttons to their original spots, and closed up wife's phone before she'd kill me - thankfully it works OK. I will attempt closing up the tryout phone and returning it to the store today. That's all I have to say about it.

BTW, I now don't consider iPhone to be repairable by the end user - even a very tech-savvy one. It's way, way too much hassle. I could pull the engine from a fairly recent Volvo SUV in that amount of time (BTDT a couple months ago).

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[BronsCon]

Wow, you really went all out, there, thank you for confirming. I do know that, prior to 9.2, it only happened during software updates (and yes, this was an issue prior to 9.2), so I had no reason to beleive that had changed. This was first covered on Slashdot a few months ago, likely weeks after it was covered everywhere else (hey, it's Slashdot after all) and I was really wondering why it was getting so nuch attention recently when the story mostly flew under the radar last year. You have answered that question and corrected my undersyanding of the issue.

That said, Apple's next update is supposed to fix this by only disabling the fingerprint sensor and not the entire device. Clearly, Apple agrees it was overkill; likely even unintentional, as this is merely a more eager presentation of a previously known issue.

And, for the record, I wasn't baiting. None the less, thank you for taking the time (and risk) to test that. Also, please excuse any typos, I'm posting from my phone.

Re: It really is about security, not repair

[countach74]

Ah gotcha.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't use TouchID. Wouldn't work for what you want, because after every reboot, you have to use your PIN, and also after 48 hours of not using TouchID. So you'd still have to type in your PIN.

Re:It really is about security, not repair

[Anonymous Coward]

I initially didn't use TouchID, because the courts have ruled that you can be compelled to put your finger on the sensor, even though you can't be compelled to divulge or enter your PIN. I finally figured a simple solution - reboot the phone in the presence of police. That will require use of the PIN. You can put your finger on the sensor all they want, it won't unlock a rebooted phone.

If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[bulled]

No, but this is the trade off people make when buying devices like the iphone/ipod. Clearly people value having the fashionable/trendy/"Just Works*" that Apple provide over being able to fix something that is broken. Until that trade off tilts harder against the consumer it will continue to be made.

* - For some values of "Just Works"

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Lab Rat Jason]

I'm curious how the other side handles this... it can't JUST be Apple can it? I can't think of the name off the top of my head, but doesn't one of the Nexus devices have a fingerprint scanner on the back?

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[h4x0t]

Apple store genius: Can I help you?
Any sensible human: No you cannot.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[oh_my_080980980]

What fucking trade off. This assume people know this will happen. Base on reports, they don't and they're fucking pissed when it does. So stop.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'other side' stores your fingerprint data in a file on the file system, where any process with sufficient privileges can read it and send it to anybody.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Anonymous Coward]

They already solved this problem on the MacBook. Yes you can replace the logic board. But it's going to cost you $1200. Go buy a new MacBook.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[MrKrillls]

I want to be the one to decide if I think something represents sufficient security danger. I want the right to decide where to repair it.

  I own an old iphone. It is the first apple product I have purchased. It is also the last.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[janimal]

Screw my mod points; had to answer.

"Just Works*" that Apple provide over being able to fix something that is broken.

I have had many laptops, tablets and phones over the years, including: Toshiba laptop, Dell XPS, Dell Latitude x4 over the years, Lenovo Thinkpad x2, Mac Book Pro and Air, Nokia phones galore, iPhones galore, iPad, Samsung Tab, Sony Netbook, Asus Eee, early Samsung smartphone.

Of all these, by far and away the Apple, Thinkpad, and Asus products have been problem free in terms of reliability. The rest have had different components and/or software die on them, sometimes this could be fixed and sometimes not. Overall, some of the worst offenders were Sony, Toshiba, and some of the early and the later Nokias.

The only Apple product failures I have had were due to physical damage. The Mac Air took a swim in champagne (yes), several iPhones shattered/drowned. I have mostly been able to fix these devices on my own, but I would not be angry if I couldn't as long as I could take them in to get fixed somewhere. They have still proved to be more robust than most competition.

While I appreciate that other manufacturers make things that can be fixed, I have to admit that I prefer stuff that doesn't break in the first place. Say what you will, I have lately opted to buy only Apple stuff and make sure I buy Apple Care or other insurance for the accidents that I know can happen. I'm not worried about them breaking on me. Even without serviceability, they still beat the competition on reliability.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take the apple version with all its flaws over the nexus setup any day. If my phone bricks, I got a backup 4s that can last 6 more months until I get a new one.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[BronsCon]

You also have to remember the original stated reason for the sensor being paired to the iPhone, which is that slight manufacturing differences from one sensor to the next necessitate that each sensor's output is different. The same applies to the sensors on the Nexus 5X and 6P, being based on the same technology. This renders the fingerprint data useless for any purpose other than verifying whether the hash sent by the sensor (and I mean the exact same sensor) matches or not. It can't be used to recreate, even partially, someone's fingerprint. Beyond that, the Nexus devices in question utilize dedicated security storage, similar to Apple's secure enclave.

Thankfully, Huawei and Google have learned plenty from the past and the Nexus 6P does not fall into the insecure fingerprint implementation trap. Nexus Imprint adopts a very similar approach to Apple’s Secure Element for Touch ID; this hardware partitioning provides the kind of isolation that is required to nullify the exploits that would have been possible with earlier fingerprint implementations such as found on the HTC One Max.

So, not only are you wrong about what the 'other side' does, you're wrong about what it means.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

That has not been my experience. Granted, Apple products are in the upper echelon when it comes to quality control. Fit and finish are superb and DOA's are non-existent. But when it comes to random failures, they are just as likely to go as any of the PC's I maintain. I have seen a fleet of Macbook Pros fail with the same logic board flaw, group of a dozen iMac hard drives fail within a year of each other, and about 20 eMacs (Yeah, I know I'm going back a bit for this one) all die from the capacitor plague of 2005. They apparently used the same component provider as Dell.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why so many people run around with shattered screens everywhere. Incidentally, the touch sensor is near a weak point since there's effectively a "hole" in the glass. I hope your "reliability" works wonders - I see more shattered i devices than all other device combined.

Excluding one Samsung Nexus device that got waterlogged (which, incidentally still works save the charging port; thankfully I can pop out the battery stupidly easily) and a water ressistent charging door hinge on my Galaxy S5 fall off (they know it's easy to happen since it's so small, so they even have a screw just for it; took like 1 minute to fix it myself) I've practically never used a case for any of my devices.

I have an IBM Thinkpad T42, although slow now, is still running after 14 years.. Most of my older Sony phones from this era still continues to work. An NEC Multisync 2A (released 1989) still works albiet a little fuzzy. I'm typing this on a 2008 Sony Viao (1080p screen) with no hardware issues. I have a Pentium 3 somewhere that still boots... and I'm a heavy user.

Considering you have "i phones galore" and it's only been barely 7 years (assuming you were an early adopter), I somehow think your sense of "reliability" needs a bit of re-evaluation. Since 2008, I've had 3 smartphones, all of which still work (I gave one away to a family member who's still using it today).

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[The-Ixian]

I have worked in a computer repair shop. I have seen plenty of Macbooks come in with all the same problems as every other computer.

Failed hard drives, heat damaged components, bad RAM, failed back lights... you know... normal stuff that usually fails in computers.

Just because it is Apple doesn't make it magically immune to the same types of hardware failures that every other electronic device has.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[Matheus]

Similar angle: Why is this even a discussion? When you buy an apple product you have already, I hope by now knowingly, bought into the walled garden / limited definition of ownership universe. If you have a problem with that then buy a device from someone else.

Re: If you can't open it, do you really own it?

[hucker75]

Anyone buying Apple after this is a moron. To brick MY phone is THEFT, and I'll have none of it.

Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't open it, do you really own it?

Mere common sense tells us that that the answer is NO. If a person sells you a product, yet retains the right to forcibly dictate how you use that product, then you haven't bought anything at all, but rather leased it.

Re:Of course not

[stealth_finger]

If you can't open it, do you really own it?

Mere common sense tells us that that the answer is NO. If a person sells you a product, yet retains the right to forcibly dictate how you use that product, then you haven't bought anything at all, but rather leased it.

Especially if they reserve the right to brick it irrecoverably because you had the gall to try and get repaired by someone other than them.

Re:Of course not

[mrchaotica]

If a person sells you a product, yet retains the right to forcibly dictate how you use that product, then you haven't bought anything at all, but rather leased it.

You've got the right sentiment, but reached the wrong conclusion: the actual situation is that you genuinely bought it, but then the manufacturer STOLE IT back from you!

Re:Of course not

[bws111]

Of course you own it. Do you ever have to give it back? No? Then you own it. Can you sell it? Yes? Then you own it. Does anyone else care what you do with the device, including destroy it? No? Then you own it. Does your ownership (of anything) put requirements on someone else? NO.

Re:Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't open it, do you really own it?

Mere common sense tells us that that the answer is NO. If a person sells you a product, yet retains the right to forcibly dictate how you use that product, then you haven't bought anything at all, but rather leased it.

Especially if they reserve the right to brick it irrecoverably because you had the gall to try and get repaired by someone other than them.

Can you be this naive? It's ONE FUCKING PART of a whole device. Yes, I expect if I have a fancy one-of-a-kind lock to have to get copies from the vendor.

It's not like they're bricking for the screen replacement.

Re:Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is not bricking this phones.... Tim Cook is not sitting in his office thinking: Well, let's brick some IPhones with this big red button.

1) User breaks button
2) Someone replaces button
3) Apple offers upgrade
4) User chooses to install upgrade

So.... Did Apple brick the phone? Or was it maybe just a result of number 1 and 2 that made the device unusable.

Things are a bit more easy for Android, they just skip step 3) and 4)

Re:Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, you could take the phone back under consumer rights laws even after the warranty has expired. Goods have to perform in a way that you might reasonably expect them to at the time of purchase. So, it is reasonable to assume you would have bought the Iphone if you knew it was going to brick in 18 months? Probably not, so refund,repair or replace please.

You would need to prove you took it to a competent repairer, but you don't need to take it back to the manufacturer regardless of what they claim.This argument was mounted by car manufacturers when people took new cars for service at non-dealer repair shops, but didn't fly.

I believe the U$A doesn't have such a useful law though, I wonder why?

FFS

[Big Hairy Ian]

9 times out of 10 the repair is simply replacing the broken glass/digitizer. So if you don't use Apples exorbitantly over priced certified repairers aka Apple Store they'll brick your phone. If only the build quality was as good as a brick!

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

9 times out of 10 the repair is simply replacing the broken glass/digitizer.

I don't think glass replacements can trigger error 53. The buttons on the other hand is an issue and they really shouldn't be. Something as simple as buttons/switches should be a matter of connecting two pins together or now, or connect output to one of the input pins. Anything else is overengineered.

Apple like so many other companies engineer their devices to gain marked shares if they can get away with it. Think of iPhone charging from USB. It requires data or specific resistors on the data pins in order to charge and they state it is to protect the charger from using more power than it can handle. If that was really the case, then how about complying to the USB standard if the data is missing and only pull 2.5W?

Despite not being happy with Apple's unfriendly repair designs, I do have to say they have a point in trying to avoid 3rd party listening in on the data and that 3rd party components with data access is a security risk. They just have to restrict this policy to components with data access and not provide data access to components, which really shouldn't have it (like switches).

Just for the record I used mac since the mid 90s and have repaired my own computers. I'm generally quite happy with them, but I'm disappointed with the post-Jobs designs. Repair/upgrades can no longer be done by yourself. Also while the switch to SSD looks good on paper and makes small computers, I really consider moving away from mac because I can't get something as simple as a desktop with room for 2-3 mechanical HDs I can replace myself. HD space used not to be a problem, but now it has become ridiculously expensive and likely requires adding external HDs. Jobs was happy with iMovie, but with the modern resolutions and their SSD only approach, video editing doesn't seem feasible at consumer prices anymore.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing broken glass/digitizer will not cause the error. What causes the error is the touch id sensor or sensor cable. Unfortunately with the way the button is designed on the phone it is very easy to break the button or the cable while replacing the screen. The is especially true if the screen is cracked badly of the frame is a little bent. The prying required to get the phone open in these cases can lead to a broken touch id button.

Re:FFS

[Grishnakh]

Think of iPhone charging from USB. It requires data or specific resistors on the data pins in order to charge and they state it is to protect the charger from using more power than it can handle. If that was really the case, then how about complying to the USB standard if the data is missing and only pull 2.5W?

Seriously, iPhones won't even charge at 500mA from a standard USB jack? That's really shitty.

Android phones (at least my Samsung, and my older HTC) do exactly what you say: you plug it into a standard USB jack and it draws 500mA or less. To draw more, the data lines have to be shorted. Unfortunately this is different from Apple's stupid method (using some specific resistor), and most of the chargers are "optimized for Apple" because of their huge marketshare, so they'll only charge Android devices at 500mA. To get more, you need a cable that has the data pins shorted, or an Android-specific charger. I'm not sure why these stupid chargers (like high-current car chargers) can't just put a small switch in there to select between Android and iOS.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you use your same touch ID sensor. Since, you know, it is a separate piece from the glass/digitizer. Dumb fuck.

Re:FFS

[gnasher719]

Replacing broken glass/digitizer will not cause the error. What causes the error is the touch id sensor or sensor cable. Unfortunately with the way the button is designed on the phone it is very easy to break the button or the cable while replacing the screen. The is especially true if the screen is cracked badly of the frame is a little bent. The prying required to get the phone open in these cases can lead to a broken touch id button.

I think what really happens is that the sensor is not really fixable (due to the pairing problem), but it doesn't break often, so to repair it Apple replaces the whole inside of your phone but only charges some reasonable amount. So Apple loses money on that repair, but it's rare. However, if some third party breaks the sensor, or you break it yourself through some bodged repair, Apple isn't willing to carry that cost.

In the UK, out-of-warranty-"repair" for any iPhone 6,6+,6s,6s+ is £236 to £256 (that's replacing the iPhone with a refurbished one), so that's the worst that happens.

Re:FFS

[brantondaveperson]

iPhones won't even charge at 500mA from a standard USB jack? That's really shitty.

Don't be silly, of course they charge from a standard USB jack - such as one might find on the side of a computer. They may or may not charge from a third party USB power adaptor however, although I've personally never found a USB power adaptor that an iPhone complained about.

Popup

[bondsbw]

"Would you like to use this new fingerprint scanner? [Yes] [No]"

Yes -> "Please enter your password."

See that wasn't so hard.

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even just fall back to only allowing the passcode.

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer: "Hi, my home button stopped working, could you fit a new one for me please?"

ShadyRepairShopAssistant: "Sure, that will be $50, also I'll need you to unlock your phone for me"

Customer: "No problem, here you go" ... later ...

ShadyRepairShopAssistant: "Lol, we totally got that guy to unlock his phone so we could clone it, install compromised security hardware etc."

Re:Popup

[bondsbw]

What's stopping them from pulling off the same trick today?

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

If they pull this trick today, Apple bricks your phone. You are protected, but you don't have a phone anymore :)

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize, I hope, that ShadyRepairShopAssistant could just as easily be at the Apple-approved shop. So Apple isn't actually protecting you from him.

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

Fingerprint readers are inherently compromised security hardware. Unlocking a phone with a reader is a convenience, not a security feature (in fact, it's a convenience at the cost of security.)

Re: Popup

[TheReaperD]

This is not even a concern for 99.99% of the population. If you are this paranoid about security, you should not be using ANY smart device. If you are in this 0.01%, you should be using a burner dumb phone with the GPS hard disabled.

Re: Popup

[TheReaperD]

A warning message "Your phone has been altered and can no longer be considered secure" would do just fine.

Re:Popup

[BronsCon]

How are you protected? You've unlocked your phone and they've cloned it prior to the repair that bricked it. The bad guys have you data, but you no longer do.

Re:Popup

[The-Ixian]

Um... they brick your phone at a much later time, well after it has been in the hands of the unscrupulous repair person.

Property

[Anonymous Coward]

Property for peasants is so last century.
Welcome to the 21st century, where property is only for corporations, copyright is eternal and everything is under license.

EULAs ...

[gstoddart]

We pretty much lost this fight when judges upheld the right of corporations to make EULAs binding, including the ability of corporations to change them as they see fit.

Combine this with the DMCA, and the rest of the copyright/IP bullshit, and, no, you don't own it any more ... you have the right to use it according to their terms, but in no way do you own it in terms of being able to take it apart, modify it, fix it, repair it, or otherwise do anything they haven't licensed you to do.

This is the direction corporations want to go, and they've been getting lawmakers to enable them.

You, the consumer? You have no rights other than what they've chosen to give you.

Until we see lawmakers shift the other way (and they're heavily influenced by lobbying and campaign contributions), you can expect with shit like the TPP and everything else, you'll see less and less "rights" to the products you think you own.

Welcome to the awesome future, in which the corporations hold all the cards.

Re:EULAs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We pretty much lost this fight when judges upheld the right of corporations to make EULAs binding, including the ability of corporations to change them as they see fit.

The thing I would like to see tried here is for someone to buy a reasonably costly amount of software and put on the shelf. Then pick it up some years down the road when the software is outdated, reject the EULA and request a full refund.

Re:EULAs ...

[ihtoit]

where's this then? I'd like to strike this jurisdiction from my holiday list. Nowhere in Europe would this kind of behaviour be allowed.

Re:EULAs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire US.

The Supreme Court ruled that not only are click-wrap EULAs legally binding, but so are binding arbitration clauses. Which means that a company can screw you, and you can't sue them but instead must go to a private "arbitrator" of the company's choosing whose primary goal is to ensure that they get repeat business from the company that screwed you, and it's all perfectly 100% legal and can't be made illegal because the Supreme Court said that banning such clauses is unconstitutional.

Re:EULAs ...

[gstoddart]

At the very least in the US.

But, don't forget, all those treaties have been harmonizing IP laws .. the TPP and other treaties are likely in the process of shoving this stuff up your asses too.

All of those treaties the US are pushing will really only benefit multinational corporations and strengthen their hold over what you can do. When that TTIP comes into play, guess what? You'll suddenly have the same kinds of framework.

Have you missed the bits where the US government exists to advance the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of humans? The intellectual property aspects aren't there to make your life better.

Re:EULAs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You, the consumer? You have no rights other than what they've chosen to give you.

are we forced to buy these things? no? then let the market solve the problem

Re:EULAs ...

[mrchaotica]

The Supreme Court ruled that not only are click-wrap EULAs legally binding

Which decision was that?

Re:EULAs ...

[kheldan]

You, the consumer? You have no rights other than what they've chosen to give you.

We always have the right to NOT purchase things from companies that conduct themselves in a way that doesn't suit us, and voicing your opinion with your dollars, works.

Re:EULAs ...

[Grishnakh]

Yep, and don't forget that Obama and Hillary are both big, big supporters of the TPP with this kind of crap.

The only Presidential candidates who don't support this are the anti-establishment candidates, and there's only two of them.

Re:EULAs ...

[GLMDesigns]

We didn't lose this fight at all. Look at the rise in free software; the rise of creative commons.

As more authors and musicians publish on their own the abuses are mitigated.

The pendulum will swing the other way in due time. It's fair for a corporation to retain rights over it's trademark.

The question has yet to be resolved are:

1. how closely related an object is the essence of the corporation. (The relationship between "Disney" and "Mickey Mouse" is very close.)
2. how much time needs to pass before competitors or others take control (and hurt the image of the corporation - Commercials with Mickey Mouse p0rn will not be in Disney's interests.).

It gets tricky. Don't think we lost. We didn't. Not by a long shot.

Re:EULAs ...

[fbobraga]

yes, when employer buys iThings to employees (pretty common here, in Brazil...)

Re:EULAs ...

[Chris Mattern]

Which decision was that?

I'd like to know too. My understanding is that software companies have avoided driving EULA cases to a legal decision to avoid the risk of having the decision not go their way. It this has changed, I'd like to hear about it.

Re:EULAs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

are we forced to buy these things?

This is a fraud issue, not a force issue.

let the market solve the problem

Actually, they thought of that. (You might even generalize and say The Strategy of All Fraud is to circumvent customer knowledge.) They don't have to tell you there's a EULA until long after they already have your money. These court decisions were purchased with the intent of avoiding market forces. Market forces were the problem that they were trying to solve.(Experience can teach you things like "These companies will try to trick you," just like experience can teach you to not buy snake oil to cure appendicitis, but for whatever reason we have anti-fraud laws anyway.)

I'm amazed that someone in 2016 could be that naive about EULAs. Go buy something. Did you see a contract? Probably not. (Because that would have discouraged you from buying!!) Now it's at your home, still in its box. See a contract yet? Open it. (At this point, maybe you see a suggestion that they would like to offer you some sort of contract, but there probably won't be any clues that there's an assumption that you already accepted the offer.)

If it's a computer, turn it on. (If it's software, install it.) Now you might see something about not being able to use the product until after you agree to a EULA (but remember: to the Blizzard case judge, this is irrelevant; you already agreed to the EULA in the past, before you knew it was there: title did not transfer when the money transferred. And you, the buyer, had no way of knowing.)

So: how did that "market forces" thing work out for ya? Free markets are great, but once you add criminals, you need governments too. Literally thousands of years ago, criminals figured out how to exploit markets whenever there's no government. Criminals (and their use of fraud or force) are why we invented governments.

Re:EULAs ...

[mrchaotica]

The question was half-rhetorical: I'm fairly sure that if such a decision had happened I would have heard about it (unless it happened within the last month or so, in which case the news might not have made it to /. yet!), but I could be wrong.

Your government is untrusted with your data.

[tlambert]

Your government is untrusted with your data.

But escaping that is "fashionably trendy".

Got it.

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know the best way to protect your data from the government is to secure it with a fingerprint. There is no way that if you were arrested and your phone was confiscated that they would also get your fingerprints too.

Re: Your government is untrusted with your data.

[TheReaperD]

99.99% of customers, Apple or other, could care less about government intrusion into your devices. Here on /. it seems otherwise because we're not a fair sampling of the general population. This is nothing more than a poor excuse to force people to only repair with Apple, at a highly inflated price, or buy a new device. For the few that really care about keeping our data away from the government, smartphones should never be an option in their current form. They're a tracking and security nightmare.

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Coren22]

I assure you, the government could get into the phone far easier than this hack. How hard is it to make fake fingerprints to use to unlock a phone anyways?

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hysterical that whenever someone posts the words "got it", it always always always means the person doesn't "get it" at all.

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard is it to make fake fingerprints within 48 hours that don't fail within 5 attempts? Seems easier to just force the registered owner to use their finger, as "something you are" doesn't violate the 5th amendment's "something you know". Of course the end user could then drag out the process beyond the 48 hours and still be good.

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[yodleboy]

"I assure you, the government could get into the phone far easier than this hack. How hard is it to make fake fingerprints to use to unlock a phone anyways?"

Assuming a government out to get you, how hard would it be to head to your home and lift as many fingerprints as they want to? yeah, not that hard. If your lifestyle creates a serious concern regarding well funded entities accessing something important on your devices, then I'd like to suggest that any consumer level products are probably a risky idea...

For the rest of us...I see this as less "Apple Defending Your Rights" and more "Apple Creating Yet Another Way To Encourage Early Device Replacement"... Personally, I think Apple will keep adding "features" like this here and there until they finally add one too many and get hit with the mother of all class action suits.

Re:Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Anonymous Coward]

The iphone doesn't have a finger print reader, instead it actually images the blood-vanes in your finger.
This will make it harder, as it doesn't help you lift a fingerprint from a surface.

However the goverment probably already has imaged blood-vanes from when you ordered your passport or driver's license.

Re: Your government is untrusted with your data.

[Toshito]

99.99% of customers, Apple or other, could care less about government intrusion into your devices.

So, what you're saying is that they care about it? Since they could care less...

If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[tlambert]

If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III... do I really own it?

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[ihtoit]

the difference being that the FPU is a fully integrated part of the wohle. A biometric sensor in a phone (be it fingerprint or CMOS light sensor behind a spherical lens) is a modular component. Think mainbrace on a car chassis versus engine block. You can replace the engine, but not the mainbrace.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[drinkypoo]

Are there any tamper-proofing features in the P3 that would prevent you from doing this? Or is your inability simply due to your not having the right tools, not that anyone does?

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely due to his desperate grasping for a counterpoint.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[david_thornley]

Integration doesn't have to be physical. Currently, my steering-wheel ignition switch won't let the car start without one of the right keys in the switch. If the switch is a modular component, then it can be swapped out for one that will let the bad guy drive my car away, or a signal (perhaps a replay attack) can be passed down the bus. If it's integrated, so the car systems know that this is the switch to listen to, and it has to give the go-ahead (consider a signal that says "Start the car. Signed, your ignition switch. Here's time and date to prevent replay attacks.", then (a) it's harder to start without the key, and (b) it can't be simply swapped out.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[zenith1111]

Well, as far as analogies go, you turned your hyperbole right to 11, didn't you? :D

This is a complicated matter and the apple fingerprint sensor isn't certainly the first to make a compromise between security and repairability, just look at car security devices that are paired to each other like key readers and electronic steering wheel locks.

I don't own an iPhone, but as far as I know, the Touch ID scanner is a security device and, even if it's a low security one, they need some confidence that the sensor was not compromised, so I guess it might be a good idea to refuse non-compliant parts. I concede that completely disabling the phone AFTER it was working fine for a long time with the "fake" button is a total dick move, but if Apple argues that those devices were improperly repaired they are technically correct (still dicks).

Maybe in cases like these the manufacturer should be forced to ship a card with the device HW codes so repair shops can reprogram paired parts, the same way we use our car security code cards provided by the car manufacturer at the time of purchase to program keyfobs in locksmiths that are not affiliated with the manufacturer?

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[nbritton]

Yes. Some manufacturers shave off the part numbers on chips, some pot the chips, some epoxy heatsinks on chips, and some implement anti-tamper-proofing measures inside the chip itself. There are plenty of videos on EEVBlog discussing this.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[BronsCon]

If the switch is a modular component, then it can be swapped out for one that will let the bad guy drive my car away, or a signal (perhaps a replay attack) can be passed down the bus.

The first assertion you make here is flat-out wrong, which you seem to realize in your second assertion. The ECU makes the "start/no-start" decision and replacing the ignition switch cannot change that. In the case of a replay attack, the malicious part would need something to replay; that means a valid key would need to be inserted. In order to pull this off, the 'bad guy' would need to break into your car, remove the ignition, transfer the key pattern to his malicious replay-enabled ignition, and install that, all quickly enough to not be seen and without damage so you don't notice; he, then, would have to wait for you to start the car at least once, then would have to break in again to steal the car. All of this could be mitigated by cryptographically pairing the ignition switch to the ECU so the malicious part can't successfully record the exchange between the key and ECU in the first place, and requiring a dealership visit to pair a new ignition or key (this is what they already do); it can be further mitigated by using a secondary key which changes for each transaction, so even if a successful recording is made, a replay is impossible.

And that's precisely what Apple claims to be doing.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[BronsCon]

just look at car security devices that are paired to each other like key readers and electronic steering wheel locks.

Yes, look at those indeed. They don't brick the car, you can have it towed to a dealership, get the pairing updated, and drive off. Apple, on the other hand, won't update the pairing unless they also do the repair; therein lies the problem.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[zenith1111]

Technically they do brick the car, that's why you need the tow truck :D

And you can't take it to any shop, you need to take it to a shop with the correct hardware for your manufacturer, the same with the iPhone (well, I know that with the iPhone you are stuck with the prices of a single chain). I do agree with you that the repair procedure should not be available just to Apple, hence my " the manufacturer should be forced to ship a card with the device HW codes so repair shops can reprogram paired parts". On the other hand, the software apple uses to reprogram those components might allow people to do other stuff they don't want (like unlocking iCloud locked devices). I'm not an Apple customer at the moment, so I don't really care that much about the issue, but after Apple's response to the iPhone 4 antenna problem (essentially "ahahah, deal with it!") I don't expect they will change the "Touch ID scanners need to be replaced by authotized apple technicians" policy.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[BronsCon]

Bricking is irreparable, like Error 53.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[thegarbz]

And there are plenty of videos on other sides of people none the less completely uncapping such devices and exposing the raw silicon.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Manufacturers have been removing part numbers and embedding circuitry in resin for decades. I remember taking apart (after it died) my dad's answering machine, which he got back in the 1970s. The component side of the circuit board was covered with a hardened, black plastic goo. Where I was able to break off bits of the plastic, the chips I found had their part numbers and other identifying marks sanded off.

For those who are curious, the machine had dual, full-size, audio tape cassette drives. The drive for the outgoing message was play-only and had a pair of rounded metal contacts to sense a short piece of metal tape stuck on the loop of audio tape in the outgoing message cassette. The drive for recording and listening to incoming messages was also used to record the outgoing message by loading the loop-tape cassette into it. Once recorded, the loop-tape was reloaded into the outgoing drive and a normal (non-loop) tape cassette was loaded in the incoming drive. To enable the machine to receiving incoming messages, the mode switch was set to "Answer" and the record button on the incoming drive was pressed and locked. To play incoming messages, press and release the stop button, set mode switch to "Manual", press the rewind button, then, after the tape drive stopped, press the play button. If you didn't want to keep any messages, you would rewind the tape, again, then mode to "Answer" and press record. To keep all messages, don't rewind. To keep only some, use rewind and play to find the end of the last message you want to keep.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[kimvette]

> This is a complicated matter and the apple fingerprint sensor isn't certainly the first to make a compromise between security and repairability, just look at car security devices that are paired to each other like key readers and electronic steering wheel locks.

What is the intent of the marry/divorce mechanism in cars?

The intent is to reduce thefts of an item costing anywhere from $20K to $1mil, not to prevent your being able to use third-party items. I can tear out the head unit in my cars and replace them with third-party head units without having to marry the new head unit to the car. I will lose some functionality (the car's warning tones, speed-sensitive volume, etc.) but providing I install a CAN bus to bypass the OEM head unit, the car will not be bricked.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[zenith1111]

But in MOST modern cars cars you will not replace, as in my example, an electronic steering column lock with an aftermarket one, you would also have change the keyfob reader, trip computer and ECU (at least in my car). The same way that if you install a properly pre-programmed touch id scanner the phone will work just fine.

My point is that I don't understand why all the hate for the phone to lock when a device that is protecting your data is bypassed. Sure, they are being assholes for not providing a way to unlock the phone, even if it would erase all your data in the process, but it's Apple, they make very cool stuff and are known for locking their stuff up as tightly as possible, that's why it isn't for me. If they decided to lock every component, including LCD, digitizer, speakers, back covers, batteries (they could easily do it), I would agree, but it's probably a critical security component, and after that iCloud shenanigans they are probably a bit paranoid.

I'm not discussing the merits of their HW implementation, and I concede that locking stuff up after the replacements worked fine for several weeks is just wrong, but it's Apple, why the surprise? Consumers have a choice between shiny and locked or a bit less shiny and open, take your pick and don't be surprised if your brand new iPhone comes with proprietary connectors and can't be repaired or if your 50USD smartphone doesn't come with iOS. If you bought a 900USD phone and can't spare 150USD for a repair after the 2 year warranty is over you probably should have bought a cheaper phone in the first place.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[kimvette]

err... CAN bus HUB

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[david_thornley]

Thank you; your automotive knowledge is clearly greater than mine, and I learned something.

Is that what Apple is claiming? When I poke around their announcements and websites, I find them annoyingly devoid of technical details. I know I'm not really their target audience, but I'd like to see more information available.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[Anonymous Coward]

They ran through it in the keynote when the 5s was announced. Admittedly, they oy strongly hinted, as technical details tend to ruin the mood and excitement that drives attendees and vieweds to rush out and stand in line for weeks awaiting the new release, but they did explain it for those interested. Beyond that, I don't think they've ever published any specs or anything useful like that; typically another sign that things aren't as secure as claimed.

This is why my Macs have become spare PCs, my iPad is a gaming device, and I will never use an iPhone. Of course, under Jobs, security would have taken the front seat and my MacBook Pro would still by my primary machine; I never did like iOS as a phone OS though, even if I do prefer it on a tablet. Posted AC due to posting limits -- BronsCon

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[MiSaunaSnob]

If the dealership... aka apple can replace the ignition switch and pair it... aka apple replacing the fingerprint reader and re-pairing it... then what is to stop a state level actor from doing the same thing... There is obviously a mechanism to pair the reader to the secure enclave.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[BronsCon]

Well, Apple can re-pair after replacement, so...

It is only 3rd party repair shops who don't have documentation telling them how to do this and once Error 53 is registered, it is irrecoverable. When Apple does the repair and pairs the new home button before any software updates are applied, all is good; if repair shops could do the pairing, the same would be true for them.

Re:If I can't fix the FPU in my Pentium III...

[david_thornley]

Apple tends not to want to go into technical details that I've noticed, and the hardware security is going to require a lot of technical details. Their target market tends to be non-technical.

Moreover, if I had the technical specs, I wouldn't know how to evaluate them, nor would I know if those were the right specs for the phone in my hand. Someone else who knows more about chip hardware security could evaluate them, but I really don't see how that would enhance my security.

They have a point, for a small subset of users

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I'm a guy who wants all his iDevice data to be secured from law enforcement types, and the law gets their hands on my device. Would it not be possible for law enforcement to replace the real digitizer with one that reports "oh yeah, that's the fingerprint I know" whether or not my finger is being used? In that case, I might like the fact that Apple will brick my device when the cops replace the sensor. However, I would like that to be an affirmative choice for me to make ("Brick your phone if the sensor is replaced [yes] [no]"), and even then I'd want the checking and bricking to be immediate, rather than waiting for the next iTunes backup/restore. I mean who even uses the abortion called iTunes anymore?

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[ihtoit]

I still use iTunes 7 because it still works with Gracenote, which is handy when I'm ripping CDA.

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[greenfruitsalad]

from what i've read on arstechnica and ifixit, error 53 can take weeks to appear. sometimes it bricks the phone, sometimes it just stops os updates. so it isn't really what they're presenting it to be.

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[Anonymous Coward]

Law enforcement wouldn't need to. Unlike a password, you can be compelled to give up a fingerprint. Fingerprint readers are not secure.
But to answer your question, no, not if the thing was designed with one iota of sense. The reader would take your fingerprint, turn it into the hash, and send it to whatever does authentication. Much like how you can't rig a website to just tell the server you entered the right password (again, unless it was designed by morons.)

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[BronsCon]

Would it not be possible for law enforcement to replace the real digitizer with one that reports "oh yeah, that's the fingerprint I know" whether or not my finger is being used?

According to Apple, who claims that the fingerprint data is irretrievably stored in the secure enclave (which, if you follow the logic, necessitates that the secure enclave make that decision), no. Of course, if replacing the home button is the security issue they're now claiming it is, it appears they're lying about that. Either way, they're lying.

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[omnichad]

If you're on a Mac, try out XLD.

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[ihtoit]

I'm not, I used to wish I were (back in the pre-SP3 days of xp), but I was poor so had to make do with Redhat and later OpenSuSE. Windows 7 won me back when I bought a laptop with it on in 2011 (I'd originally intended just to wipe it and put Linux on it, but curiosity got the better of me and I figured, try it for a week, see what I think...)

Re:They have a point, for a small subset of users

[omnichad]

I am on a Hackintosh (something not possible in the XP days) but XLD is very nice - it's open source, but there's no Windows port. You get two choices of music database (MusicBrainz and Freedb) and it makes it very easy to tweak after pulling through the data. I love iTunes for playback and its display of album art, but I hate it for ripping. Literally anything is better, because iTunes has a tendency to corrupt the tags such that other programs (or even itself sometimes) won't read them correctly.

I hate Apple but they're right

[technomom]

Think of it this way. Do you own your Visa card and your tamper-proof Driver's license? Sure, but if you screw around with the chip in either of them, then you shouldn't expect that they'll work anymore. Older New York State driver's licenses turn black when you try to peel off the laminate.

So you can own stuff but if they have security built in for identification or monetary protection, I think it is reasonable for it to be rendered useless if tampered with.

Re: I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you do not own the VISA nor the driver's license. They are not your property.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

that makes sense.

it should also naturally extend to running unapproved software, since that might cause problems
with other software, harm the hardware, or actively or passively cause harm to the security system of the phone.

and by extension, should also cover any online services you may choose to use, for exactly the same reasons.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a rational argument (a rarity here these days), so I will counter with the rational argument from the other side.

Apple is overcharging on their maintenance.
Other ID/monetary security devices are very cheap to replace (credit cards are generally free, ID cards often have a small labor cost to pay the guy who prepares it for you). The price Apple is charging for repairs is significantly more than the hardware, labor, and security factor as seen by pricing all three on their own.

(My personal view is that Apple overcharges on nearly everything and that their obsessed fanbase complaining about relatively cheap repair costs is laughable.)

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read the text on the card, or in the cardholder's agreement you signed on to when you choose to keep and use the card? I believe not, because you'd have come across the text "The card provided is the property of [company] and must be returned or destroyed upon our request." It is literally one of the few things you think you own that you actually don't.

Have you read your statutes regarding your driver's license? I also believe not, because you'd note that most all governments retain the right to revoke the license (at which point, again, return the license or destroy it) and, in fact, in some places, possession of the license after that is illegal (sometimes effectively making you a criminal without your knowledge if they cancel it due to parking tickets while you're driving). The province I live in just fixed that issue last year allowing you to retain your invalid license card on the understanding it is no longer legal for any purpose other than identification. Still, to ensure there's value to the identification, the license is designed to show tampering. Again, one of the few things that it seems like is yours, but by the classical definition of property, really isn't.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

> turn black when you try to peel off the laminate.

Which was forced upon us by those Republicans so that they could deny the right to vote by minorities. They hate us and don't want us to have a voice.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen ass-hole this about people's phones stop working after a fucking update and NOTHING WAS DONE TO THE PHONE. So fuck off.

Not quite. The hardware is compromised already and potentially somebody is listening in on your private data. The update fixes the bug that it wasn't detected. Think of it this way: a disk scanning tool is updated and suddenly it detects data corruption on your HD. While the update is responsible for revealing it, it isn't the cause for the corruption.

Arguing that the update is the sole cause of the problem is like killing the messenger and hope the problem he reported will go away on its own.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[MacTO]

There are other ways to address this issue.

For consumer devices, it's probably best to disable fingerprint authentication and use an alternative method of authentication. This may be temporary or may be permanent. Yet it should not disable the device altogether.

For devices used by corporations, it's probably best to disable the device and securely erase the memory. Third party modifications are rarely authorized and the device may have landed in the hands of an untrusted third party.

How do you distinguish between the two uses? The easiest way would be a non-resettable flag.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Overpriced repairs doesn't change the fact that the security problem is real. It's like a man selling umbrellas at 3 times the usual price when it rains. Arguing that they are overpriced doesn't change the fact that it is raining and that an umbrella can keep you dry, or mostly dry.

I will counter with the rational argument from the other side.

Not a counter as one post/statement doesn't rule out the other and they can easily coexist. This is what divides up people when arguing about this issue.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, between the two of you, which of you do you think comes off like the asshole? Think real hard, now, your brain can use the exercise.

Re: I hate Apple but they're right

[TheReaperD]

It would only be shooting the messenger if it warned you rather than bricking your device. Analogy that I think works: Your dog gets bit by an animal, you take it to a vet but, not the one the breeder recommends. The breeder could choose to warn you that the dog might have rabies as they can't verify that the vet is competent but, instead, they shoot your dog... Just to be safe.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[RatherBeAnonymous]

If a disk scanning utility detects an error it doesn't and prevent you from reading the resident data and force you to replaced the computer.

I'm cool with Apple taking action to alert owners that there is a problem. Disabling scanner functionality temporarily would be fine. Even disabling the phone until properly repaired would be defensible. The disabling the phone entirely and permanetly with no option for recovery or repair is the real dick move, and probably illegal. Dell doesn't destroy your computer anytime malware is detected. Ford doesn't repossess your car if you get the locks replaced. Class action suites are already starting to roll against Apple over this, and they will loose if it goes to court.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Grishnakh]

Well the driver's license thing is somewhat understandable because it's a government matter, not something sold to you by a private party. Government-related stuff can always be different.

It's still kinda crap that you don't technically own it, because in every state I've lived in, you have to *pay* for the thing. At least with credit cards, you don't actually pay for those, the company just gives it to your for free (at least for Visa/MC usually, Amex is different but that company is a scam anyway). Your province that let people keep them for ID purposes did the right thing I think, but if the government wants to retain ownership of licenses, I think they should provide them for free.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[SvnLyrBrto]

Also, what not many people are considering is the fact that there may be a third party in play here: the credit card industry. No one knows the exact details of Apple's contracts with the credit card providers. But ApplePay transactions are processed as qualified card-present transactions and get the lowest transaction fee that the industry offers. (Walmart is especially butt-hurt about, and has complained publicly. That's why they're so ardently supporting CurrentC.) To get that concession, Apple would have had to go above and beyond the usual security region and possibly even agree to absorb some of the cost of fraud, should ApplePay be compromised. This whole issue could be part of that same security regime. That's speculation, of course. But I've had to deal with PCI compliance before, and it does seem to logically follow.

It's not devices that self-destruct when their security systems are tampered with are unknown, or even uncommon. Ever had to carry one of those key fobs for 2-factor login authentication? I thought so. And I also agree that this is a good idea. The amount of personal information in my iPhone is staggering, and even with the security measures that *ARE* in place, it still concerns me. It's not just the credit cards in ApplePay. My 1password vault is also on there. And that would be even worse a breach than the credit cards.

If anything, I wish Apple were making the iPhone more secure. Passcode vs. fingerprints should not be an either-or choice, but should be configurable as true 2-factor. And I'd also like a code that immediately wipes the phone, instead of just waiting for the requisite number of failed attempts. (At least you can reduce this number with a custom profile.) What'd be even better is to set an alternate fingerprint to launch that wipe.

Re: I hate Apple but they're right

[wowbagger999]

And what has this in any sense to do with hardware you buy, or don't you own your car either? You know, comparing apples and oranges.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[fbobraga]

obsessed fanbase complaining about relatively cheap repair costs

Wow, this is really laughable!

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you tamper with the chip, the visual and magstripe still work fine independent of the chip.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[JesseMcDonald]

Do you own your Visa card and your tamper-proof Driver's license? Sure, ...

No, you don't. The Visa card belongs to the bank that issued it, and the driver's license is owned by the issuing state. The same goes for many other forms of identification. You are granted the card only for the purpose of identifying yourself as an account holder / licensed driver / employee / etc. Any other use is prohibited, and you are required to surrender the ID card on demand from the issuer. You are not the owner, only a temporary caretaker.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[JesseMcDonald]

Government-related stuff can always be different.

Private ID cards issued by banks, employers, etc. are usually the same way; they belong to the issuer, not the recipient, are subject to restrictions on how they can be used, and must be surrendered on demand.

It's still kinda crap that you don't technically own it, because in every state I've lived in, you have to *pay* for the thing. ... if the government wants to retain ownership of licenses, I think they should provide them for free.

It's not really all that unusual to pay for something without becoming the owner. Just think of it as a rental rather than a purchase.

Also, while most Visa cards may be issued and renewed "for free"—meaning "cost included", as they fully expect to recoup that expense in fees and interest—that doesn't apply to all of them; and if you lose or damage your card you'll probably find that you are expected to pay for its replacement.

Re: I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

It would only be shooting the messenger if it warned you rather than bricking your device. Analogy that I think works: Your dog gets bit by an animal, you take it to a vet but, not the one the breeder recommends. The breeder could choose to warn you that the dog might have rabies as they can't verify that the vet is competent but, instead, they shoot your dog... Just to be safe.

The problem here is the breeder can just walk away and nothing happened. Instead if the breeder will be frontpage news and responsible according to the news if the vet fails, then the breeder might shoot it just to be safe. The media will flame Apple if some 3rd party component creates massive data theft and/or an iPhone botnet. Also shooting the dog isn't a great analogy because inserting a genuine Apple component will fix the problem. A dead dog will not wake up if taken to a different vet.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with credit cards, you don't actually pay for those, the company just gives it to your for free

Maybe in the US, but the rest of us usually pay a fee to get a VISA card and usually even more for MasterCard. You can get a debit card for free if you have a bank account, but that one only works in the countries the bank is present in (up to around 5, but usually just one). To make matters worse, fees involved in using visa are much higher than using the local one, making visa a bad choice unless you actually plan to use it internationally. Sadly "places" like Amazon and Steam are international in this context.

Re:I hate Apple but they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ontario is the province with the recent change. You can read the change to the law here:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK67

This is what is not legal:

35. (1) No person shall,
35 (1) (b) display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in his or her possession a cancelled or suspended driver’s licence or a driver’s licence that has been changed in respect of its class, other than a licence card that has been marked by the Ministry as valid only to show the driver’s photograph;

This is the new exception:

35 (3.1) Despite clause (1) (b), a person may display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in his or her possession a driver’s licence that has been suspended under a provision or for a reason under this Act that is prescribed by regulation made under subsection 211 (5). 2015, c. 14, s. 5.

I'd post 211 but it's just a twisty pile of crap that says you need to give your license back when told to by a judge, except if the minister says it doesn't count (typically not personally, but because he makes a blanket decision that for X reason there is now an exception).

Mostly this was in response to Ontario's new-ish "one beer = drunk" laws (0.03 BAC = short term suspension). People weren't surrendering the license (because at 0.03 you're still sober and aren't going to comply with what seems to be an outlandish request) and cops didn't want to arrest people for it. The compromise is the minister says no need to surrender the license, keep it for the few days you're suspended, but you still can't drive.

stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[sittingnut]

i have not much sympathy for anyone who willingly buy in to the apple ( and other big tech corp) hype, and buy products when similar quality products with almost all the functionality are available elsewhere at much lower prices. what is more sellers of those products wont have to wherewithal to hound you if you change stuff as you see fit.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[oh_my_080980980]

I have little sympathy for ass-holes like you thinking people deserve this when the manufacturer did not point out this would happen. Buyer beware, but the buyer needs to be informed up front. So fuck off.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[sittingnut]

"every single person I know who has switched to android from iPhone has regretted it"
facts contradict that, given the ever decreasing apple market share. stick to facts, not hype.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[sittingnut]

anyone buying a product from a company run by shyster marketers like steve jobs and tim cook should be doubly beware.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[gstoddart]

anyone buying a product from a company run by shyster marketers

Sorry, but that's pretty much every corporation these days.

So, stay home, whittle yourself a phone out of a block of wood, and knit yourself a computer, grow your own internet in your garden.

You think Google or Microsoft or Samsung or the car companies are any different? Based on what exactly? Certainly not reality.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[david_thornley]

The market share and its first derivative don't tell us enough here. Look at absolute numbers.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Archangel Michael]

I've known plenty of people who have had both, switched, and switched back. Both ways.

People want what they want, and there is a choice. Apple or Android are both perfectly fine as consumer choices for everyday people. Some people prefer (gasp!) Apple, others prefer (gasp!) Android even after trying the other. I know, really hard to understand how anyone can like either, considering how awesome Windows Phone (or whatever it is called today) is!

IMHO the biggest limitation to what a phone can do, is the user using it.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[suutar]

Your statement really only challenges the "[that] I know" qualifier.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[sittingnut]

not good with logic are you ? even half a statement seems too much, so please don't bother with rest.

Re: stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[TheReaperD]

The problem here is precedent. If we allow Apple to do it without contesting it then other companies can start to do it and point to Apple as the reason they are allowed to do it.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[sittingnut]

your mistake . work it out.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[gstoddart]

No, I'm saying your separating out Apple as ran by shyster marketers is pretty much meaningless bullshit ... all corporations are ran by shyster marketers, asshole lawyers, and greedy MBAs.

Apple is no different from anything else in that regard.

Good luck finding a company which doesn't have any of that stuff ... none of them give a crap about you, and they'll all fuck you over in the exact same way given half a chance.

Apple is hardly the first company to take great steps to keep people from being able to do anything to their own products, not by a fucking long shot.

Re: stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[TheReaperD]

iOS being "better" than Android is a matter of opinion, not fact. It all depends on what you value about the device. If you don't want to think about setup and configuration of the device and you like the way Apple does things, than iOS is for you. If you prefer being able to customize you device or really hate the way Apple does things, than Android is preferable. As far as people switching, if Apple was your first choice for a purchase than it is likely they preferred the Apple way to start so, they aren't likely to like anything else. Me, I have never liked the Apple way. I have never owned a Mac or iDevice and I loathe it when I have to work on them for other people. Though I know how they operate and have quite a bit of experience with them, I hate the way they operate and the fact you can't make any serious changes to it.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[suutar]

he has stated that his sample (admittedly limited) shows one result. You have asserted that a larger sample shows a different result. Both can be true; it simply points up that his sample is limited and apparently not representative of the whole population.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your assertion (similar quality products with almost all the functionality are available elsewhere at much lower prices) is that it's false. Android is not up to iOS's quality as an OS. You can bitch and moan about open source, side loading, etc, but of every single person I know who has switched to android from iPhone has regretted it. The bugs with app-badging are particularly annoying, IMO. Only one has stuck with Android, and he freely admits it's because he's cheap. He wants an iPhone, but won't pay for *any* new phone.

So yeah, Android is a cheap, walmart-esque clone of iOS that does most of the things people seem to want their phone to do worse than Apple's device.

Sure, you can pick up a shitty droid for less than an ifone, or you can get something like an Samsung Galaxy S6, with hardware that is better than the ifone 6, and a better OS. I fucking despise iOS, it's crippled toy. I guess it's fine if you happen to be retarded or brain damaged, but I'll stick with the droids.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[KGIII]

Gotta tell ya, the Windows phone isn't bad at all. I've had one since October of last year (kind of based on advice here on this site) and have been very happy with it. I don't use apps but I'm not seeing any apps that are missing that I'd want. It's got the ability to do all the things I want natively but there are a bunch of apps - regardless of what people say.

This is gonna sound strange but - I make phone calls with. I know, I know... I also text. I send emails. I even browse the web with it. It has GPS but I don't bother with that. The battery life is pretty good. I don't even run any additional anti-malware applications on it 'cause who's gonna target a Windows phone? I must say I'm pretty damned happy with it.

I don't have it on anything else, really. I do have it on my phone. I guess I can get 10 on there too - it's supposed to be free. I haven't been bothered about it or gone looking to figure it out. My computers all run Linux so I'm not actually turning to the dark side or anything. I do like the Surface Pro tablets. Those are kind of sexy but I looked not too long ago and they weren't quite ready to run Linux on 'em. If I can get Linux on 'em then I might just try a tablet out again.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Anonymous Coward]

The company has never refuted the statement that "no reasonable person should believe our advertising"... so even if they are informed by the company in questionm they should still be extremely skeptical of it.

Even ignoring this, it's public knowledge that they are the king of vendor lock-in. Proprietary everything. Never plays nice with any other platform. You can't even find apps that just simply writes about other platforms on their store. Can't download apps without their say-so (even if it's outside the store now, they still can flip-the-switch at an time for any developer) Practically impossible to even open their laptops to perform a simple memory or disk upgrade.

As far as I'm concerned, this is completely expected behaviour from this particular company. I'm not sure what people were expecting....

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Anonymous Coward]

brew or java micro are better phone platforms "consumer choices for everyday people", than either android or ios (or blackberry, or windows) ..

dumb phones, simpler operation, significantly longer battery life, fewer distractions, and lower carrier fees. we got along just fine for thousands of years without carrying computers in our pockets.. i think we still can do that.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Archangel Michael]

We can still do that. In fact, Walmart still sells plenty of feature phones with T9 txting on them.

But my phone is really a second computer. Sometimes, just sometimes, I think I could live on my phone, instead of my computer.

Re:stop buying overpriced overhyped apple trash

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Jobs was consistent in this. He got brocken and refused to let a doctor get him open.
Unluckily the Apple certified surgeon services appeared a few keynotes too late, and the CEO died after his warranty period expired.

Thus Apple guides us with his teachings.
Praised be Jobs,
deliver us from bricks,
Amen.

No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's 100% about vendor lock in. Stop shilling.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Fine, it's vendor lock-in that makes it harder for law-enforcement to get into my phone. I'll take it.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[silas_moeckel]

If you think relying solely on fingerprint will stop law enforcement from getting into your phone? They will force you to put your finger on the reader. Something you are is not a protected thing something you know may be.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If you think relying solely on fingerprint will stop law enforcement from getting into your phone?

I think my phone shitting its memory when Law Enforcement tries to tamper with the hardware is a good thing, not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems.

They will force you to put your finger on the reader.

Perhaps. But they only have a 48 hour window. The "everything or nothing" philosophy isn't serving you.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[BronsCon]

This. Fingerprint + PIN would be protected ad the PIN is something you know. Password + PIN for when the fingerprint sensor fails, still protected as it's something you know, rather than something you are.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Jason Levine]

Or they could obtain your fingerprint from somewhere that your fingers touch a lot. You know, like your phone!

To use a car analogy, this is like thinking your car is secure thanks to needing the key to get in - but then placing the key on the roof of your car.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

Security is not convenient.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that once they unlock your phone it takes maybe a second freely download all your shit, right? They just plug it in to a computer and call it a day. Sure, they have to give it back to you in 48 hours, but who cares by then?

Also, given that this is public news, you think law enforcement would try replacing the hardware with one that they know will "shit its memory"? No, they'll just use your fingerprints they have on file and "print" a fake set or they probably already have a device that emulates an authentic sensor. If you're a conspiracy / hypersecurity kind of person, you should assume they have even if they don't say they have one.

48 hours is waaaaaaay more than they need, especially if it's not law enforcement.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

Something you are is not a protected thing something you know may be.

What?

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Also, given that this is public news, you think law enforcement would try replacing the hardware with one that they know will "shit its memory"?

This is EXACTLY the point I was making. They've been deterred from screwing with the hardware, and now it's an issue of the legality of man-handling people, which is something that Apple did not invent.

The gov't can legally break into your house, but the question of whether or not they can compel you to confess things like passwords is being challenged right now. Apple took a step in our favor. Sorry, I know that's hard to hear, but they did.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you shouldn't be using your personal phone for criminal activities.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Perhaps you shouldn't be using your personal phone for criminal activities.

They are, by definition, looking into your phone to see if you've performed any criminal activities, meaning they're looking whether you're a criminal or not. Here's a practical example for you: Suppose you get pulled over for a traffic stop and they decide to rifle through your phone. You're then busted and jailed because furry-porn is illegal in your state. You'll change your tune then.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[squiggleslash]

They don't even need you to put your finger on the reader. One of the first things law enforcement will do after detaining you is take your finger prints.

A finger print scanner is virtually useless against law enforcement, even ignoring xkcd 538.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not understand this fear towards the government. If the government wants your data, it will get your data. If you don't want the government to get your data, stop putting it on your phone. By the way, when you live in a modern democracy, your data is safe for the government anyway. Police can not just take your phone and demand you to unlock it without any warrant. And when you really do something that might get you in trouble, well DON'T PUT IT ON YOUR PHONE.

Security is not only the software and hardware to secure connections or data storage. The most important thing is to know where to store that important data. I want a secure phone so someone who picks up my phone can't browse through my notes, messages and contacts. But I'm well aware of the fact that a hacker or government or even a marketer might have access to my data. This might be because of buggy software, my own fault, security failure by design, ...
 
  I don't do anything illegal, not even something in the grey area. But if I would be dealing illegal things for example, I would never use my own phone or internet or computer to make the deals.
 
That's what I learned about studying cryptography and security in general. It doesn't matter how good your math is, or how secure your hardware and software is, there is still the user on the other side, the future you who might be drunk, someone eavesdropping, new technology, whatever, that will some day compromise your data. But that is only a problem when you put very important data on a device that is not made to keep data safe.

Re:No, it's really about vendor lockin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I do not understand this fear towards the government. If the government wants your data, it will get your data. If you don't want the government to get your data, stop putting it on your phone.

Part of the concern about the government getting your data is that it needs to follow the established procedures to obtain it. There's nothing good about them being able to take it without a warrant. Even 'probable cause' is so vague, at least where I live, that a DUI traffic stop could end in one's phone getting searched. Why? What does the phone show related to that stop? You don't have to be up to anything illegal for this to be scary!

This is not at all about getting away with crime it's about reigning in the power of the gov't. Sometimes it's a matter of getting the laws changed, sometimes it's a matter of evolving the technology. What you're suggesting is akin to giving law enforcement the keys to your house and inviting them to come rooting around your closets on their whim. You don't actually have to have anything to hide to not want that.

Why only brick on updates not on first use?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is about security, which makes sense, why does it only brick the phone on updates?

Let's say I fell asleep and an NSA ninja snuck into my hotel room and replaced my finger-print reader; I'd want my phone to brick instantly, not 3 months later when I update from IOS 9.x to 9.y. That's 3 months that the NSA will have been exfiltrating all my data from the evil fingerprint reader / screen.

Typical obfuscation journalism

[SensitiveMale]

From what I understand and I could be wrong, but this issue isn't repairing an iPhone. I don't see how there is a problem replacing a screen or battery. It's when a shop replaces some part that is within the Apple Pay environment. Apple could have a point that using third party hardware can compromise security.

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[gmiller123456]

Apple could have a point that using third party hardware can compromise security.

"Security" would be a good reason to not trust a third party component and refuse to all that piece to opperate. But "security" is not an excuse for bricking an entire device, even the parts that haven't been altered, months after the other alteration was done. If someone is going through the trouble to replace the fingerprint scanner to access data on the phone, the damage would be done long before the device would be bricked. This is about making money, plain and simple.

Re: Typical obfuscation journalism

[TheReaperD]

The issue is that the devices have a fallback PIN number that can be used if the fingerprint reader is considered untrustworthy. It would cause a lot less problems than bricking the device.

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Two problems with your post: First, the Apple Pay security is potentially broken starting from the time of the repair to the next Apple update or user restore, so Apple's explanation doesn't fit the circumstances, and if the trusted hardware cannot detect the security flaw, then I would submit that the hardware aspect of the Apple Pay system itself is flawed. Second, if, and only if, the Apple update (or user restore) had bricked only the Apple Pay capability, then that would be an appropriate response to the potential introduction of a security flaw by non-certified repairs, but bricking the entire functionality of the phone is an unacceptable response to the situation.

- T

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[thegarbz]

Apple could have a point that using third party hardware can compromise security.

Of course it could, at which point Apple could disable the offending piece of hardware and move on. Why would you brick the entire device because of a single component? There's no justifiable reason for it.

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[Waccoon]

Then perhaps the best policy is to inform the user so they can make an educated decision.

But, you know, information these days is dangerous. Decision paralysis and all that. Might as well make things easy and just disable everything, just to be safe.

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[SensitiveMale]

Well, think of it this way. Let's say there could be a hardware hack. I'm not 100% sure of that, but there could be. What would the worldwide headlines be after someone "broke" Apple Pay? How much business would Apple lose?

Rather than think of an actual loss, think about it this way. How could such a hack occur? The first step is replacing Apple's hardware with their debugging/hacking hardware. Apple refusing to let an iPhone work with third party hardware stops the hack immediately.

Re:Typical obfuscation journalism

[thegarbz]

The first step is replacing Apple's hardware with their debugging/hacking hardware. Apple refusing to let an iPhone work with third party hardware stops the hack immediately.

Given how the piece of hardware in question does not perform the actual authentication, that there's a central core chip as part of the iPhone which does it, I'm going to call bullshit on those fears. If apple knows that the fingerprint reader is compromised there's no reason to brick the device, before you use the finger print reader you're forced to setup an alternative method of authentication.

Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[JoeyRox]

Think of it as a three-legged stool. The first leg is to mete out feature and function improvements so that each new model has just enough goodness to entice an upgrade. The second leg is to release iOS updates that run so slowly on existing models that users are forced to upgrade just to restore the relative performance they used to get on their current phones. The third leg is to charge exorbitant prices for authorized repairs while making it impossible for third-parties to provide affordable repair services.

This strategy is designed to gently encourage and then forcibly coerce users to keep upgrading their phones.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[david_thornley]

Apple wants to keep making better phones. They normally succeed (although I'm not a fan of the size of the 6 and 6S). Apple keeps upgrading the software on their phones more than pretty much anyone else, but usually when a phone gets old it's a trade-off whether to run an OS designed for a much more capable phone or fall behind on the software. I read the reviews first. Third, nobody's stopping you from getting repairs of the non-security-sensitive components.

The thing is that Apple works hard to make iPhones secure, and since Apple doesn't sell many different models you don't get an option to buy a less secure one.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace Apple with "anybody who can get away with it" and you are most likely right. I just got screwed by Samsung. Overnight my battery died and works for like 2 minutes, but the phone isn't the newest model and went out of production and the same goes for the batteries. The method is different from what Apple is doing, but the result is the same. Once the phone is out of warranty and it breaks, you should go buy a new one. If they genuinely wanted a good customer experience, they would do the same as with the cars: one battery fits all a new one fits the model you bought 10 years ago.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[turp182]

Well spoken, I just picked up a newer iPad to replace an iPad 2 where several of my sons games have been failing to start for the past couple of weeks (some reviews describe exactly what we are seeing).

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[Grishnakh]

What are you talking about? That's a bunch of crap.

Samsung batteries are easily available on Ebay and Amazon; there's countless third-party battery options for those phones, plus the OEM batteries are still available if you bother to look. My S4 is several years old now, and I can easily buy all kinds of 3rd-party parts for it, including batteries.

And no, using the same battery is dumb, as that constrains their design too much. No one has any problem with them having a bunch of different battery sizes; there's no shortage of aftermarket companies making compatible batteries for these phones, even with the assortment of sizes. And no, cars don't all use the same battery size either. Go look at the battery shelf at Autozone sometime: there's at least a couple dozen sizes, and a bunch more that you have to special-order. And any cars with the new "start-stop" or other mild-hybrid systems have to use special batteries anyway.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[jeffb (2.718)]

If they genuinely wanted a good customer experience, they would do the same as with the cars: one battery fits all a new one fits the model you bought 10 years ago.

10 years ago, I had an analog cell phone. (Analog service wasn't discontinued in the US until around 2008.) All my TVs tuned in analog signals, too.

You may have a good point, but the car analogy ruins it. The pace of change in consumer electronics is unlike anything else in history, and it's not just companies trying to get more of your money (although, of course, that's what most companies always want).

I don't really care that my new smartphone won't seat into the cups of my 300-baud acoustic coupler modem. Backward compatibility isn't everything.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[SensitiveMale]

You're kind of correct, but it's technology not greed.

I have no doubt that companies withhold certain features for later models. That's true.
The problem with your second point is that's just how technology works. Electronics get more powerful. As the hardware gets faster and optimized for some functions , it can process software faster so more functionality is added. While the new hardware can handle the new software easily, the old hardware is naturally slower and had to process some functions in software since the new hardware isn't there.
As electronics get smaller and faster, less can be repaired and more is necessarily disposable.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung batteries are easily available on Ebay and Amazon; there's countless third-party battery options for those phones, plus the OEM batteries are still available if you bother to look. My S4 is several years old now, and I can easily buy all kinds of 3rd-party parts for it, including batteries.

The last time I got a 3rd party phone battery the side turned out to be a sticker and wires were sticking out. Peeling off the sticker it had a smaller noname battery inside, which screamed "explosion alert" on it. Considering Ebay to be an even less trustworthy source than the shop I used, I would worry about using 3rd party batteries. Batteries are prone to explosions if not made correctly and it does happen occasionally. Some Chinese guy made headlines a few years ago because a 3rd party battery exploded while he had his phone in his breast pocket and fragments went into his heart and killed him.

While I generally don't mind using 3rd party products, I do avoid 3rd party lithium batteries because some of them are prone to fires and explosions and downright illegal because of that. Since I can't tell them apart, I have nothing else to do than to avoid all 3rd party lithium batteries.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[Dixie_Flatline]

They're doing a piss-poor job of it, then. I kept my iPhone 4 for 4 years, which is about as long as I've ever kept any computing device in my life. I could've kept going with it, but I like having new devices now and then.

The first leg of that stool is the one that matters, and I don't know any company that doesn't try to entice people to upgrade that way.

As for the second leg of this metaphorical stool, the iOS updates have all run relatively well on my devices. Certainly well enough that I was willing to keep using them. But if they DIDN'T issue updates for their phones, that would ALSO be a flaw, wouldn't it? I'd be encouraged to upgrade because I was missing out on new OS features. So there's literally no way to win in this scenario. I don't think Apple is making iOS slower on purpose, it's just that time marches forward and making new things sometimes requires new hardware. As a games industry programmer, I've worked on 3 generations of console hardware, and it's the same thing. That's just how progress looks.

I don't think the repair costs are exorbitant, but then again, I've never needed to repair any of my phones in the 6 years I've owned them. Or my iPad. In fact, the only repair I ever needed to do on any of my Apple devices is when my cats knocked my iMac over while jumping up to a window. Apparently it wasn't designed for that.

I dunno, I think your three legged stool metaphor itself is lacking a leg to stand on.

Re:Apple's planned obsolescence profit strategy

[Grishnakh]

It sounds like you did a poor job of buying a 3rd-party battery. Go to Amazon and read the reviews; some batteries are good, others are crap. Or you can just buy an OEM battery. They do sell them, especially for the big-name flagship phones like Samsungs.

Not disabled immediately?

[The-Ixian]

From all of the accounts that I have seen or heard about this I gather that the "Error 53" problem only rears it's head during an upgrade or restore operation.

That is all well and good, but it is not clear to me whether or not the fingerprint scanner, once "un-paired" from the secure enclave continues to function immediately after the repair.

If it continues to function until an upgrade/restore then how the hell is that adding any kind of security?

And, as far as the right to repair, it has been stated many times already, but this whole thing is easily avoided with a few strategically placed user prompts.

I just get the impression that this entire thing is Apple dropping the ball and then trying to change the narrative after the fact by insisting "SECURITY!"

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[sjames]

According to what I have read, the repairs worked fine and the phones so repaired worked flawlessly for months after, until they were updated.

Naturally it has nothing to do with actual security.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[david_thornley]

Yup. A later upgrade had better security features, and caught this case. Presumably, with the new OS, it will detect replacement of security-linked hardware much faster. This is about security.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[The-Ixian]

Except the part about the restore operation.

Presumably you are restoring the same version of the OS you already had on your device.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[sjames]

So why not just disable the fingerprint scanner and leave the rest functional?

Or better yet, accept the various alternative authentication methods and then take the user through a re-pairing procedure?

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[Grishnakh]

And, as far as the right to repair, it has been stated many times already, but this whole thing is easily avoided with a few strategically placed user prompts.

No, it's easily avoided by not buying anything from Apple.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[The-Ixian]

That too, though the implications are much wider in scope than just Apple products.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[KGIII]

While you might be correct, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow...

It might be a horrible idea, it might be nothing to do with security, and you may be correct. But, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[sjames]

If there is an obvious and harmless solution and a less obvious and very harmful solution, and they choose the harmful one, it's either malice or stupidity. Which better describes Apple?

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[KGIII]

Oh you're probably right, it's just that the preceding statement doesn't necessarily follow.

Re:Not disabled immediately?

[david_thornley]

I don't know. I assume there are reasons that at least looked good at the time, don't know what they are, and would like to know and judge for myself. It's not like my fingerprint sensor has worked twice for every year I've owned this iPhone, after all. (I have that effect on some sensors that want to know things from my fingers, so it's not like I'm just holding my fingers wrong.) Unlike lots of other people in this discussion, you're asking good questions.

I don't know how the re-pairing (as opposed to repairing) process would work, really, since I don't know the security hardware and software architecture. Specifically, given possible hardware integration, I don't know that it would be cheap enough to warrant repair rather than replacement, although I'd think it would.

Shills will shill

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're shilling. Stop it. This is no different than the $20 cord. It's extortion.

Buy apple and get what you deserve

[stealth_finger]

If you get your phone bricked for having the absolute audacity to take to phone

For example, an unauthorized or faulty screen replacement

. Who authorised the failure dickheads? They should be made to replace every single device they bricked with no reason or warning. Maybe this is how they plan on getting over their stagnation in sales, make all the dumb fucks who bought one in the first place buy another one just because. And you know most will because they can't be without their idevice.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[david_thornley]

As it happens, Apple had reasons to brick the phones, although definitely without enough warning, which I will interpret as informing customers that their security system is hosed and this upcoming update will check for it.

Most iPhone repairs are screen and battery and stuff like that, and that's not security-sensitive. Very few people break the fingerprint reader, so the error 53s will never be all that common.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times are you going to post this drivel? Apple said "bring it in" and they'll handle it on a case-by-case scenario.

If you're not careful enough with an expensive device that you need to frequently replace a rugged button, maybe applecare is a deal, no?

If the sensor is replaced by a third-party, it's their RESPONSIBILITY to make sure it works.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason being, of course, that you didn't pay them again to fix their deliberately defective design.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[fbobraga]

It's still a big problem for not buyers: there's various employers that buy iThings for his employees...

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[thegarbz]

Apple had reasons to brick the phones

False. Apple had reasons to inform customers. The bricking they did for their own fucked up reasons. I mean it's not like they are in control of the entire OS and can say flash a checkbox or something at startup, or disable the offending piece of hardware right?

But hey you sound like the perfect customer. How about I send you a nice phone for $50. It won't work, but that's fine I'll send you another as long as you pay me another $50. And we'll keep going like this until you realise you're being scammed by a scumbag who is dominating you, or until you run out of money whatever comes first.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[stealth_finger]

How many times are you going to post this drivel? Apple said "bring it in" and they'll handle it on a case-by-case scenario.

If you're not careful enough with an expensive device that you need to frequently replace a rugged button, maybe applecare is a deal, no?

If the sensor is replaced by a third-party, it's their RESPONSIBILITY to make sure it works.

Unless there was a big warning box saying that an "unauthorized" in the past that was completed successfully and has resulted in no further issues will render your device useless then it's apples fault. Was there any pre warning this was a thing?

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[david_thornley]

To repeat, Apple had reasons. I'm not saying that they were good reasons, or that they did the right thing.

Apple tries to make products that are good at what they do. They don't offer much consumer choice on that. If you want low-end, you don't buy Apple. Apparently, Apple has decided that iPhones will be secure, and that iPhones with broken security features won't work. Apple doesn't seem to believe in flashing up disclaimers for their customers to ignore while clicking through. If they flashed up an "Insecure iPhone" warning, people would click through without noticing, and blame Apple for any security breaches anyway.

Now, let's look at the sequence of events. A guy breaks his phone in a way most people don't. Given that, there's no reason to think that an adequate repair won't cost more than a replacement. He finds someone who repairs the phone to normal usage, but doesn't inquire what the consequences may be. As it happens, there are consequences that aren't apparent. There's all sorts of things that could go wrong in reasonable circumstances. Another possibility would have been a repair that would have caused the phone to catch fire under certain circumstances. You can't assume that a field repair is a complete fix, and you can't assume that something that usually works fine after a field repair is fine. Instead of figuring that the inadequate repair made the phone usable, and avoiding upgrades, the guy figures it's as good as new and accepts upgrades. The new upgrade notes that the security process has been broken, and doesn't boot.

There are legitimate criticisms of Apple, which you aren't making. Their customer did not know that the fingerprint sensor was part of the security system. He did not know that Apple was introducing more stringent security checks. (On the other hand, insisting that the customer check out enough documentation to catch rare cases isn't going to fly either.) Apple takes no-compromise positions on things when that may not be best, and hence their determination that there will be no iPhones running without adequate security is open to question.

The thing I really want to know is why they didn't just disable fingerprint identification. For whatever reason, my fingers appear to have some hidden incompatibility with the sensor, and it almost never works for me, and so disabling mine would have almost no perceptible effect. There is a reason for that, I'm sure, but I don't know what it is, and hence not how good it is.

Apple produces high-quality stuff, reasonably priced for what it is. If you're not interested in the entire package, it may seem like overcharging, but in that case you're not really in their target market. Despite making some stuff that's wonderful for some sorts of techies, we aren't who they're primarily selling to. Apple also has customer service that's well above average, which you can verify in surveys. (This also, I'm sure, figures into the price. Having a first-tier help line employee who knows what she's talking about has to cost more than a guy in India or Uganda running off a script.) Apple is not into annoying their customers, although that happens. They're not interested in trying to milk all the money they can from me for my current phone, since they'll make more money keeping me happy enough to buy more iPhones in the future. Apple really, really isn't into pissing off their customers.

Re:Buy apple and get what you deserve

[thegarbz]

To repeat, Apple had reasons.

Which were nothing to do with security as the same level of security could be implemented without bricking the device. Sorry I'm not buying into your argument at all. Read the white paper on Apple's security mechanism in the iPhone and you will realise there was a zero compromise alternative to the action they took.

Right to Repair?

[mveloso]

I'm not sure there's a right to repair, but it was always convenient that I could repair hardware. As things go more solid-state and have tighter tolerances the repairability obviously goes down...and security adds another level of issues on top of all that.

I think it's prudent for Apple to lock down hardware, especially given the world we live in. It would be nice, though, that instead of locking everything down the OS could run in a reduced state. Of course, for some components that would be impossible - like if the screen got replaced you'd be screwed. How do you tell the user that "the screen is unauthorized - do you want to use it anyway?" if the screen has been compromised and could tap on anything?

As a first-gen feature, I'm not surprised that the 53 lock was all-or-nothing. Hopefully future revisions will be more granular in their disabling.

Re:Right to Repair?

[The-Ixian]

How do you tell the user that "the screen is unauthorized - do you want to use it anyway?" if the screen has been compromised and could tap on anything?

There is a speaker and a few external buttons.

Audio could prompt you to hit a button sequence...

Re:Right to Repair?

[KGIII]

I'm kind of old. That might not seem relevant but it is.

A number of years ago, my son asked, "What does solid state mean?"

I replied with, "It means you can't fix it." That's not strictly true but it seems to be getting more and more difficult to repair things. I kind of like repairing things. It gives me something to do and I learn new things. I've looked under the hood in my new car and just closed it. Yeah, I can still fix that - mostly, maybe... It's not that I like fixing cars, I kind of hate that. But, it's just really damned complicated and they stuffed a huge engine, two turbos, and a whole lot of stuff into that space.

I've got an old "woods truck" at home. It's got a 350 ci engine in it. I can still climb up in and actually kind of fit in there and work on it if I want to. In fact, I have. It's not so old that it doesn't have any computers but it's so old that I can identify them and, probably, fix them if I really had to. No, no I'm not going to - but I could.

Right now, I can still fix the car that I have with me - if I had to. I'm slated to pick up a Tesla this year. I'm sure I can do a brake job, I'm sure I can figure out a lube job. However, what about when something dies in the dashboard? I've pulled dashboards apart before and repaired them, put in a new speedometer cable, replaced lights, soldered connections, and things like that - but what's that gonna look like in a Tesla? What about replacing cells in a battery pack?

Re:Right to Repair?

[vonart]

Twist it. Shake it. Bop it. -security confirmed-

Fair to build a self destruct.

[plague911]

I am not a fan of Apple by any means but "If you can't open it, do you really own it?" Is a nonsense question. In my time I have been in possession of several devices that if I tried to open them, they would self destruct. That was the intent, and that intent was fair and a very valuable feature. Apple is fair to build in this feature, and it could be very valuable to the right crowd. BUT the problem is that that the sheeple are buying IPhones without any clue about their functionality. That is a problem with the sheeple not with Apple.

Re:Fair to build a self destruct.

[The-Ixian]

So then you wouldn't mind at all if the manufacturer of your car stated in their EULA that you may not alter the vehicle in any way. So adding that snazzy after market stereo or muffler will render the vehicle inoperable because security.

Re:Fair to build a self destruct.

[plague911]

I would never purchase said car. But others, most likely the stupid, would be willing to. That is their problem. Conversely if I was the paranoid type and thought that bad people were out to get me. I may want that feature. IE if the car had been tampered with it may be of value to me to not let the vehicle start at,all. If a fool buys a product with features they do not want or need, they are the fool not the producer.

Re:Fair to build a self destruct.

[dkman]

The bad part is that it wasn't a feature when they bought it. It was added retroactively via an update.

And we thought updates were supposed to make things better.

Profound misunderstanding of what ownership means

[Brannon]

Ownership means you have every right to tamper with something. It DOES NOT mean that you have any guarantees that the hardware will continue to work if you do so. It never has, EVER, in the history of mankind, EVER meant that.

Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons--does that mean you don't own your microwave? An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?

A biometric sensor may be tamper-proofed for security reasons (which is exactly what happened here)--doesn't mean that you don't own it.

Speak with your Wallet!

[wkwilley2]

I think the real story here should be, Put your money where your mouth is.

Don't buy an Iphone and bitch about how irreparable it is.

If I don't support a companies practices, rather it be in their EULA or in the things that company does, I don't invest my money into that company. Simple.

Re:Speak with your Wallet!

[fbobraga]

Employers (which understand vaguely technical concepts behind the subject...) buy iPhones for this employees: how this case adapts to "Speak with your Wallet" thing?

Separate issues

[sjbe]

Where outside of China are you going to find the components and the equipment to repair any of these electronics, anyway?

Umm, you can buy things from China. If you need proof of this please visit your local Walmart.

Everything's microsoldered to a circuit board the size of a credit card, and the tiniest slip of your all-too-human hands and you've ruined a trace on a different circuit.

The practicality of actually doing a repair or modification is not relevant to whether or not one should have the right to attempt the repair or modification. Those are separate issues.

If that whore ask me

[Anonymous Coward]

She gonna get a loud fucking NOT on her ears.

Why, oh why???

[eeyore]

If you don't people messing around with "their" phones - license them, don't sell them.

You think you own that phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think you own that phone?

I'm just going to sit back and laugh at your gullibility, you're just paying for privilege of using that item.

repair a bricked iphone (non touhid button)

[Anonymous Coward]

I see some vendor propos non touch id button for iphone5 or 6.
Will they be usefull to unbrick an error 53 affected iphone.
(even if it wipes all the content I don't care)

Please

[Holi]

Error 53 is just a way that they will have public support when they backtrack on key escrow.

You don't own the kingdom, cough: ecosystem

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. Clear and simple.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Grishnakh]

An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?

No, but for good reasons there have been various laws to prevent carmakers from forcing consumers to use their dealerships for service, such as the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 (which prevents carmakers from voiding your warranty if you don't use their OEM parts and dealership service, unless they can prove that you caused the problem that way), and also the Massachusetts "Right to Repair" law which requires carmakers to provide the same information to independent shops as they do to their dealers, and which is binding in all 50 states.

Also, citation needed on disabling a car. I've never heard of that. Tampering with emissions control on a car usually yields a "check engine" light and an OBDII code, which makes it impossible for you to pass emissions checks if you have to do that in your state/region. It doesn't "brick" your car. Cars always come with "limp-home" modes because the bad press of having a car that refuses to work for some silly reason is going to kill sales for that automaker: no one (except maybe an Apple cultist) wants a car that refuses to drive for some dumb reason, as people depend on their cars for transportation. Even when something is seriously wrong with the engine, cars will attempt to "limp home" because it's better than being stuck somewhere dangerous.

Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons

What are you talking about here? I've taken my microwave apart, it's pretty easy. If you're talking about "tamper-resistant" screws, don't make me laugh. You can get some screwdriver bits at Harbor Freight for a few dollars to open these, or you can just find another screwdriver that you can manage to jam in there and turn it with.

Security Breach

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is a breach in security not right to fix. The Error Code 53 could trigger a secure wipe and reset. The problem with this will be stolen phones. If you secure wipe a phone it eliminates the secure-key and find my phone feature. Hiding a software feature or hardware feature to allow a fix may work for a period of time, but once published it becomes a security flaw. Secure Android and Windows do this security by obscurity thing. So if the finger scanner breaks should Apple emulate the insecure practices of it's competitors?

I must point out, anyone can take apart an electronic device if you break the warranty seal. This does not mean the person doing the fix will know what they are doing or the warranty will still be valid afterwards.

What I find interesting ...

[Qbertino]

... is that iPhones are so expensive and yet so widespread that it acutally is feasible to repair them with stunts that would make no sense at all with just about any other device. Here in Germany we have *Billboard ads* on iPhone Screen repair kits!
It's the same effect that opens up an own market for tons of 3rd party iPhone extras.

All in all this actually has somehwat become a reason to buy an iPhone, if you're concerned about the environment or sustainablity of hardware.

I'd like to see Apple losen up a little on this - a solid 3rd party market is good for them in the long run, imho.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't replace an O2 sensor in my vehicle myself (or at least take it to the shop down the street) instead of paying the "official" dealership twice as much to carry out the repair, that's NOT a car that I would want.

planned obsolescence

[roc97007]

Making devices unrepairable isn't really newsworthy, it's in line with Apple's business model of selling expensive periodic incremental upgrades to a fiercely loyal following. Tying the parts that have very long lifetimes (CPU, northbridge, southbridge, memory) with parts that have very poor longivity (batteries) insures that you periodically throw out perfectly good computer parts and purchase small incremental improvements at boutique prices. As a market plan, it's absolutely brilliant. I didn't think the business model was sustainable, but so far it seems to be. Kinda sucks for electronic waste, but I'm sure Apple is donating to save some trees somewhere.

It's a natural part of the process for Apple to gradually make their devices less and less repairable. I see the day coming very soon where every one of their devices are single blocks of epoxy with no repairable parts inside. And the arguments will be "security" and "user experience" and "quick turn-around" and a bunch of other logical sounding stuff.

The danger to Apple as I see it is one of perception -- there are now two classes of unrepairable, use-awhile-and-throw-away devices -- the high end, boutique, trendy brushed aluminum Apple products, and the extreme low end, bubble pack, by-the-register, impulse items. When people start associating the two, things could go badly.

Re:planned obsolescence

[dkman]

The danger to Apple as I see it is one of perception -- there are now two classes of unrepairable, use-awhile-and-throw-away devices -- the high end, boutique, trendy brushed aluminum Apple products, and the extreme low end, bubble pack, by-the-register, impulse items. When people start associating the two, things could go badly.

Nice observation. I think that's one of the reasons Apple keeps their boutique pricing - to reduce the likelihood of that association.

Re:planned obsolescence

[roc97007]

The danger to Apple as I see it is one of perception -- there are now two classes of unrepairable, use-awhile-and-throw-away devices -- the high end, boutique, trendy brushed aluminum Apple products, and the extreme low end, bubble pack, by-the-register, impulse items. When people start associating the two, things could go badly.

Nice observation. I think that's one of the reasons Apple keeps their boutique pricing - to reduce the likelihood of that association.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that. So I guess you could say that Apple's value add is their high prices. For some reason that reminds me of the old Dilbert cartoon "we used to say that people were our most valuable resource. Turns out that was wrong. Money is our most valuable resource."

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[KGIII]

Not sure if it's relevant but the Toyota Tundra will put it into limp-mode if the check indicates a sensor is not connected post catalytic converter. I do not know what other protections it has. It also uses limp-mode if it's not getting the right information. I don't know what other protections it has nor does it, technically, disable the vehicle. I know other vehicles do similar things but I can only speak to that one as I've first-hand knowledge. (He brought it to my house and we fixed it in my garage.)

they can lock out jiffy lube with that as well.

[Joe_Dragon]

they can lock out jiffy lube with that as well and use the DMCA to sue any one giving out the oil change light reset code.

So they can change $30-$50 + labor for an oil change at the dealer.

Following other manufacturers

[Virtucon]

Rolex, Omega, Nikon and others have all stopped selling parts to third parties. Auto makers have tried it in the past and are trying it again. Granted, most of the supply of parts for these is a manufacturer only item but with electronic components it really should be up to the owner of the device to have it repaired. Obviously Apple wants to protect it's markets and this should be considered as predatory practice but as long as consumers are willing to fork out big $$$ for this stuff and put up with it, consumer rights be dammed.

If you don't like these kinds of practices let Apple know or don't buy their shit it's as simple as that.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[atticus9]

Apple's fine with users using the "tampered" parts until they do an OS update, as long as I avoid that I could install whatever biometrics hardware I want to gain access to someone's phone. What are the security reasons exactly?

This is like I made a duplicate key for my car at the local store, which works fine, until I bring it in to the dealership for an oil change. The dealership announces that I won't get my car back unless I purchase a $200 genuine certified replacement key "for my own safety"

I'd be outraged too, this sort of thing is why I don't buy Apple products.

error 53 keeps you going to the "authorized" shop

[p51d007]

Sorry, if I purchase a product (off contract), then I OWN IT. I have repaired numerous phones in the past couple years. Mostly broken screens or charge ports. It's harder now than it was in the early days of mobile phones for a couple reasons. One, parts WERE LARGER, and my eyes WERE BETTER, but even with the tiny crap on phones these days, along with having to use bifocals all the time, I use one of those gizmos that have the huge magnifying glass/solder iron holder/do-dad roach clips to fix stuff. If you have RIGHT tools, the patience, and skill it's not that hard. I always say when I see "no user serviceable parts inside" as a challenge....it was put together wasn't it? I've been involved with electronics as a hobby since I was 12 (vacuum tube days) to a career in electronics since I was 20, so for a little over 40 years, so there isn't much I can't repair.

They discovered a security hold and closed it.

[Brannon]

Just as has happened thousands of times before. They didn't sucker anyone into getting their iPhones repaired at an unauthorized dealer just so they could brick it. There's a far simpler explanation: Apple just didn't test the update on any phones which had undergone unauthorized service. Why would they?

They also didn't test the OS update on phones which has be soaked in kerosene for an hour, so sure it's possible that an "OS update" might cause a phone to explode.

What's it like to be outraged all the time? Seems pretty horrible.

Then don't buy it.

[Brannon]

Problem solved.

The meaningless "right of repair."

[westlake]

The practicality of actually doing a repair or modification is not relevant to whether or not one should have the right to attempt the repair or modification. Those are separate issues.

If repair is impractical, your "right to repair" is meaningless.

Unless, of course, what you really want is assurance that the manufacturer will bail you out if you screw up badly enough.

Re:The meaningless "right of repair."

[Obfuscant]

If repair is impractical, your "right to repair" is meaningless.

I cannot afford a gun. Does that mean my right to keep and bear is meaningless? I.e., no, repairing the vast majority of electronic gadgets is beyond the imagination, much less the ability, of the vast majority of gadget owners these days. They can't see, much less properly desolder and replace a surface mount thingy that's so very very small, or even the ones that are large but have a hundred or more pins holding them down. (Yes, I'm sure someone will post how easy it is for him to do that because he has the hot-air rework station and access to the parts, but he's an aberration, not the norm.)

That doesn't change your right to try to repair something you own.

Unless, of course, what you really want is assurance that the manufacturer will bail you out if you screw up badly enough.

Yes, that's the crux of the matter. You are free to try to repair your Apple devices, but Apple is free to say "you void the warranty when you do that." I've seen many of those "warranty void if opened" stickers on things, and not one of them has been a serious impediment to my repair efforts. Voiding a warranty doesn't prohibit you from trying to repair something; you are free to do that.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that you would accept your car being permanently disabled (and destroying everything inside at the time) if it discovers that an unauthorized repair shop touched the emissions system?

What if you didn't even have a choice, because your car had a problem in a country that didn't have authorized repair shops?

Or would you just naturally pay to ship your car back to your home country and finish your trip in a rental car?

dom

Thanks for proving my point.

[Brannon]

For cars they had to pass special laws governing "Right to Repair", no such laws exist for smartphones nor for most consumer electronics. Third party repair shops exist for some electronics & appliances (even for Apple products), but they are 'authorized' repair shops.

Tamper resistance wasn't invented by Apple, it's common and often done for good reasons (safety, laws, security)--of course it is frequently abused as a form of revenue protection. One thing we can absolutely say for certain is that Apple didn't invent it and there is ample precedent here.

The real problem here are "outrage monkeys". Please go hurl your feces somewhere else.

Here's your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamper_resistance

Re:Thanks for proving my point.

[rahvin112]

They had to pass a law because the car companies were being dicks about it.They should pass another law to take care of Apple and the phone companies being dicks about repairing phones as it's obviously become an issue.

Right to repair shouldn't only apply to cars, it should apply to any product that the consumer owns.

Re:Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous Coward]

They had to pass a law because the car companies were being dicks about it.They should pass another law to take care of Apple and the phone companies being dicks about repairing phones as it's obviously become an issue.

Right to repair shouldn't only apply to cars, it should apply to any product that the consumer owns.

No law should have to be passed in the USA, because we already have one that covers situations like this: the Bill of Rights.

Repairing one's stuff is reasonable conduct. Reasonable conduct is protected under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people), as are all other rights not explicitly listed in the other Amendments. The 10th Amendment provides backup (unspecified rights reserved to the people).

If the legal profession creates and enforces laws to the contrary, that creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals by making people scared of their own government and by making it harder to understand the law. Hence, such conduct is unethical practice of law, itself a violation of a one of the most fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment.

This applies not just to specific laws, but to whole classes of law, including IP law and contract law. In other words, no contract can take away this right. As with other matters arising under the Bill of Rights, as the highest law in the land, it supersedes federal law, state law, and the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. Any law or precedent to the contrary existing in violation of the highest law in the land, and is illegal.

In practice, of course, the USA has so many illegal laws it is hard to get anything done through the system. The habit of passing, enforcing, and using illegal laws has proven to be a difficult one for lawyers (and government officials at all level of government: federal, state, and local) to break.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[thegarbz]

Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons--does that mean you don't own your microwave?

Err no. They have safety interlocks but nothing at all in them that bricks the device when you take off the cover. Actually the only electronics I've seen with any such thing are EFTPOS machines, and some high end security devices like home alarms.

An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?

Again no. There's nothing in any modern car that disables a car if the engine is modified with aftermarket parts, especially for something as trivial as emissions.

Lies

[dkman]

If they wanted what they claim they wanted then they could simply show a warning that "certified parts were detected" or a "tamper detected" every time the phone boots, or more annoyingly every time it wakes.
What they really want is for you to come suck from their teat any time you need help with their device so they can enjoy the cash flow and laugh all the way to the bank with their 18 billion in profits.

Vote with your dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy products that do not fit your needs. Vote with your dollars, boobus Americanus. Stop whining to the nanny state.

So do you own the home alarm, or not?

[Brannon]

The whole question here is whether the existence of tamper-resistance calls into question the whole notion of ownership. Does the existence of tamper-resistance mean that you effectively don't own the product? I claim that the two concepts are not related. Ownership has never granted you any guarantees that a product will continue to function correctly if you tamper with it.

BTW: Many modern cars certainly have "limp home" modes invoked under various conditions for both safety and emissions control reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_throttle_control

Re:So do you own the home alarm, or not?

[thegarbz]

Most high end home alarms are not owned. They are leased as part of a security service.
Most low end off the shelf purchased ones conversely are owned and the anti-tamper stuff is disabled when the alarm is off (i.e. you type in your code).

BTW: Many modern cars certainly have "limp home" modes invoked under various conditions for both safety and emissions control reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Limp mode is not engaged as part of an after market modification, and best of all you're in control of this as it can be disabled in the ECU. If your concerns were true the aftermarket performance market wouldn't exist. It does. Also it's quite massive. You're in control of your car despite what you think.

Heck man I see modded cars spitting unburnt fuel out of the exhaust environment be dammed, and they are certainly not limping, actually quite the opposite usually.

A lot of this is just click bait

[mschwanke97402]

I recall that it wasn't all that long ago that disassembling an HP All-In-One past a certain point would brick the FAX function. Some tripe about preventing nonsense on the phone system.

On the other hand, if Apple expects people to have secure repairs done then they need to make sure there are authorized repair facilities conveniently situated wherever they sell their phones.

Fixed a mistake in the article

[Khashishi]

How can I avoid Error 53?
Don't buy Apple

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Anonymous Coward]

Ownership means that I can tamper with something, and if I break it then it's my own damn fault.
It does NOT mean that THEY can tamper with it in any fashion, whether I've tampered with it or not.
I even have the right to decline 'upgrades', and if I lose functionality that's MY choice as an owner. ... and that's why I don't own any Apple products ...

PS: I can remove safety controls from my microwave and use it to melt sidewalk snow; the vendor will not remotely disable the microwave for my doing so.

Is there proof these exploits have ever happened?

[MrKrillls]

I realize that given enough "shady repair shops", and enough time, eventually someone, somewhere will have their phone compromised in the way Apple describes. But, at least till now, is there any verifiable evidence that evil repair shops are planting rootkits or whatever into third party part replacement jobs on iphones? I hear a great deal here that there exists a *potential* for malfeasance, and that argument sounds credible, but has anyone actually been taken to the cleaners by a technical exploit by a crooked shop?

I think I'd be reacting differently were this a story of hundreds or thousands of people getting ripped off by compromised phones. What I'm hearing is that people are suffering damage perpetrated by the maker of their phones, not people damaged by small time crooks.

The real owner ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is the one who controls it.
If you can tell them to leave it alone after you buy it, then you're the owner.
If they can tell you to leave it alone after you 'buy' it, then you didn't buy it ... you leased or rented it.
If you bought the 'right' to use it under certain circumstances, like software, then you licensed it.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Waccoon]

Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons

...meant for people who don't know what the hell they're doing. Whether the anti-tamper measure is meant to prevent repair is a separate issue. Laws are supposed to take intent into account when regulating corporations.

does that mean you don't own your microwave?

Of course not. The repairman doesn't own your device, either. As the owner, it should still your choice who you pick to do the tampering on your behalf.

A biometric sensor may be tamper-proofed for security reasons (which is exactly what happened here)

Well, technically yes, but the security was meant for the manufacturer, not the owner.

Apple didn't remotely disable anything.

[Brannon]

The user chose to upgrade his software, clicked through the terms and conditions and picked up the new features and security updates. One of the security updates identified that the finger print sensor had been tampered with and that lead to problems. In all likelihood Apple just never tested the update on devices that had been "repaired" in an unauthorized way.

I suspect Apple will figure out a way to unbrick the devices and let people continue using their phone, with the fingerprint sensor disabled.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Brannon]

There are good security reasons to detect whether the fingerprint scanner has been tampered with--the reasons are pretty fucking obvious. There is no evidence to suggest that Apple was intentionally trying to prevent repair. If they wanted to do that then they would figure out how to brick devices when the battery was swapped or the screen replaced--both of which are far more common than replacing the fingerprint sensor.

Well, write your congressman.

[Brannon]

But just to be clear, Apple isn't violating any laws, isn't doing anything unprecedented or even uncommon, and isn't somehow compromising the whole notion of "ownership" or whatever the fuck the OP was claiming. Right? Right. Okay, good.

Re:Profound misunderstanding of what ownership mea

[Anonymous Coward]

Ownership means you have every right to tamper with something. It DOES NOT mean that you have any guarantees that the hardware will continue to work if you do so. It never has, EVER, in the history of mankind, EVER meant that.

Microwaves and other electronics will frequently have tamper avoidance measures built into them for safety reasons--does that mean you don't own your microwave? An emissions control system might disable a car or generator if it discovers it's been tampered with, does that mean you don't own your car?

A biometric sensor may be tamper-proofed for security reasons (which is exactly what happened here)--doesn't mean that you don't own it.

Microwave ovens radiate energy that is capable of harming tissue, so putting in a door switch to disable the magnetron whenever the unit cannot confirm a closed door is reasonable, even if that means TEMPORARILY disabling the oven whenever the door switch malfunctions. It is my oven, however, so I reserve the right to use a third party "counterfeit" door switch to repair my unit (and I have repaired my microwave oven with a third party door switch). If that door switch fails in the closed position and microwave energy escapes and harms me, the original manufacturer is not at fault (but I've never heard of that happening). If my microwave oven PERMANENTLY bricked itself whenever I installed an aftermarket part, I'd be pretty upset. I'd view any safety argument (we just did this to protect you) as pure BS.

"If you can't open it ..."

[RockDoctor]

Don't buy it.

There, that was difficult, wasn't it?