Slashdot Mirror


The iPhone 7 Has Arbitrary Software Locks That Prevent Repair (vice.com)

Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: Apple has taken new and extreme measures to make the iPhone unrepairable. The company is now using software locks to prevent independent repair of specific parts of the phone. Specifically, the home buttons of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are not user replaceable, raising questions about both the future repairability of Apple products and the future of the thriving independent repair industry. The iPhone 7 home button will only work with the original home button that it was shipped with; if it breaks and needs to be replaced, a new one will only work if it is "recalibrated" in an Apple Store.

114 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. But people will keep buying them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...so this'll continue unabated. Just like how gamers bitch and moan about unfinished games being released, and then still go out and buy the latest call of duty on release day.

    1. Re:But people will keep buying them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But people will keep buying them...

      Dude, how else am I to present an image to the world that I am so wealthy that I can overpay Apple to make a repair that any Chinese 8 year old on a street corner could do?

    2. Re:But people will keep buying them... by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that maybe if a repair shop can intercede with the authentication mechanism, so can govt. spooks (think Chinese Govt vs. Political Activists) as well as hackers after your apple pay info, or other sensitive data stored in your keychain? The independant repair industry for a $1000 product that has a practical life beyond the warranty period of just a year or two, for just a few specific parts is far, far, FAR less important that data security and protection from absolutely everyone. So while most people will not think twice about it and say "Fuck Apple.". No. Fuck you. Go buy an Android any ass-hat can repair then. I prefer my iPhone to be as secure as they can practically make it, while keeping it relatively functional.

    3. Re: But people will keep buying them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you tried bling?

      Isn't that what an iPhone 7 is?

    4. Re:But people will keep buying them... by Tharkkun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did it occur to you that maybe if a repair shop can intercede with the authentication mechanism, so can govt. spooks (think Chinese Govt vs. Political Activists) as well as hackers after your apple pay info, or other sensitive data stored in your keychain? The independant repair industry for a $1000 product that has a practical life beyond the warranty period of just a year or two, for just a few specific parts is far, far, FAR less important that data security and protection from absolutely everyone. So while most people will not think twice about it and say "Fuck Apple.". No. Fuck you. Go buy an Android any ass-hat can repair then. I prefer my iPhone to be as secure as they can practically make it, while keeping it relatively functional.

      It's not secure from the Feds. They broke into that iPhone in Texas by compromising it and bypassing the encryption altogether. They also haven't released the details of how they did it. So your using security by obscurity instead of Android where everything is transparent. Might as well install windows on your phone instead.

    5. Re: But people will keep buying them... by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Good luck rolling your own radio baseband processor code. Virtually all of that is proprietary and even if you did write one, the carriers would never let you authenticate

    6. Re: But people will keep buying them... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Hardware key loggers are a thing...

    7. Re:But people will keep buying them... by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      That was an iPhone 5. There's no evidence (yet) that the FBI could do the same thing with a 7.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    8. Re: But people will keep buying them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The San bernadino phones was a 5c , that does not have the technology discussed.

      The FBI reported to congress that they have over 1000 phones that are locked and they can't access.

      You can safely bet money very few of them aren't iPhones

  2. All the more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to never buy apple products.

    Nuff said.

    1. Re: All the more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. iPhones suck anyway.

    2. Re: All the more reason by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Honestly the Iphone 6 and prior i feel are the best phones available, but they have to be jail broken so you can use GNU tools. Far superior than 99% of android phones. Mind you i hate every other apple product because they charge more for old hardware that you cant even upgrade. but the iphone wins my heart in the mobile arena. Hopefully Linux will win the OS war since microsoft is turning more and more to shit by the update. either way. Iphone 7 is the worst phone apple has made. started with the headphone jack, and this just reinforces it.

  3. It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Former phone repair tech here, it's been this way since TouchID became a thing, with the iPhone5S I think?

    I hate to claim "it's not a bug, it's a feature" but this is done to make sure you cannot replace the home button with one that will send a "correct" signal for an incorrect fingerprint.

    Home buttons have been tied to the motherboard they shipped with as long as the iPhone has had fingerprint readers, this is not new.

  4. Not a terrible thing by mrbluejello · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This does not seem unreasonable. I say this because the home button is also a fingerprint reader, which is a security device. If a shop installs some kind of 3rd party button there, the security of the device could be compromised.

    Apple's garden is walled. It keeps the users in, but also keeps the bad things out.https://apple.slashdot.org/story/17/04/07/1734249/the-iphone-7-has-arbitrary-software-locks-that-prevent-repair#

    1. Re:Not a terrible thing by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This does not seem unreasonable. I say this because the home button is also a fingerprint reader, which is a security device. If a shop installs some kind of 3rd party button there, the security of the device could be compromised.

      Actually, it does seem unreasonable. The proper behavior would be to detect the unknown reader and purge all fingerprints from the secure enclave, forcing the user to set up fingerprint recognition again after unlocking with the passcode. That would mean that the user would be alerted to the fact that the hardware was altered (thus preventing surreptitious swapping as a targeted attack) while still allowing the device to be repaired by swapping hardware at the user's request.

      The current situation is exactly the sort of behavior that got car manufacturers a very nice set of laws that mandate repair part availability, etc. Keep going down this path, and Apple will earn the consumer electronics industry a similar set of regulations, and none too soon.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Not a terrible thing by Phoenix · · Score: 2

      The problem with this way of thinking is that once the device is one generation out, Apple will not fix the device. They'll only sell you a replacement.

      Case in point. Shattered my iPad Air screen a while back. Took it to Apple and they said that they don't repair screens for anything but what they're selling on the floor. MEANING...that if I had an iPad Air 2...they would have replaced the screen.

      They did offer to sell me a replacement iPad Air for twice as much as the local Zagg kiosk would charge to replace the screen and $75 more than one would have cost me on Ebay.

      I do see your point about security...but what do you do when the iPhone 8 comes out and they won't touch the 7 with a 12-metre cattle prod?

      --
      -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    3. Re:Not a terrible thing by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue is that the fingerprint sensor is trusted to neither store fingerprint data nor replay finger presses.

      If you accept data from untrusted sensors, an attacker could replace the sensor with a device that will store valid finger scans and retransmit them when triggered by the attacker.

      So you need both trusted firmware and a secure pairing process to ensure the device is not compromised in this manner.

      While I suspect this move is mostly motivated by a desire to obstruct third-party repairs, there is also a legitimate security concern with this particular component.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Not a terrible thing by harperska · · Score: 1

      Unless the new fingerprint reader stored your fingerprint and played it back later after your phone was stolen.

    5. Re:Not a terrible thing by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      iOS before 10.3 is affected. macOS before 10.12.4 is affected. tvOS before 10.2 is affected. watchOS before 3.2 is affected.

      That's on every entry in the list. Apple even came out and said that everything in the wikileaks page had already been fixed. Are people going to keep looking for new things to exploit? Sure. Is Apple going to keep fixing them immediately? You bet!

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    6. Re:Not a terrible thing by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      You've actually PROVEN apple's case here. If I can put a keylogger inline with your keyboard, or sniff your wireless logitec, then I don't need to *know* your password, I can just replay your keystrokes. It's just that in the case of a keyboard reversing to the password is trivial, where reversing to a useful finger is harder.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    7. Re:Not a terrible thing by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the proper behavior is to simply ignore the new fingerprint reader, and force the user to always use a passcode.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Not a terrible thing by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If you accept data from untrusted sensors, an attacker could replace the sensor with a device that will store valid finger scans and retransmit them when triggered by the attacker.

      Who said anything about accepting data from untrusted sensors? Trust should not mean trusted by Apple, because it isn't Apple's device once it arrives in a user's hands. It is the user's device, so the user should decide whether a sensor is trusted. That means if the user intentionally replaced a broken sensor (or broken screen with the sensor attached), then the sensor is trusted, or at least should be.

      However, the user should be altered to the fact that the sensor has been replaced, and should be forced to set up fingerprint recognition again, ensuring that if the user did not request replacement of that part, the user will realize that somebody is actively trying to steal access to his or her device. Such an approach in no way breaks the trust model, because the user knows whether he or she took that device in for repair.

      In other words, I don't object to trusted firmware or a secure pairing process. I object to the secure pairing process being triggerable only by external tools, rather than being able to trigger it from within the operating system while the user is signed in with a passcode. If an attacker can get past that hurdle, then the attacker already has access to the phone and does not need to compromise the reader/secure enclave, realistically, making any protection beyond that level completely moot.

      I mean, I suppose in theory, you could have a cabal of untrustworthy repair shops that use deliberately altered readers so that they can steal the phones a week later and gain access to the users' data, but that would be a pretty crazy thing to try to guard against, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that a wrench is likely to be just as effective.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Not a terrible thing by mrbluejello · · Score: 1

      I've never owned an Apple device, never want to. I encourage others to not own them either, they are overpriced and inflexible. They do work well for their customers who have different requirements than I do though.

      The thing I do appreciate about Apple is that they are the biggest advocate for the security of their customers when it doesn't conflict with their business interests. Security is hard, they at least try. I'm not a fan of a lot of things Apple does, but there are clearly ways a 3rd party could compromise the security of somebody's phone with a fake / altered fingerprint reading home button.

    10. Re:Not a terrible thing by mrbluejello · · Score: 1

      The problem with this way of thinking is that once the device is one generation out, Apple will not fix the device. They'll only sell you a replacement.

      That is the nature of Apple products. If you don't understand this when you purchase them, you are a poorly informed consumer. It is that way with their whole ecosystem, one irreplaceable button isn't going to change that.

    11. Re:Not a terrible thing by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly what happens. If you install a new home button, the fingerprint part stops working and it only works as a home button.

      Don't you feel all smart now?

    12. Re:Not a terrible thing by msauve · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. It disables more than just the fingerprint based Touch ID. From the article: "In the iPhone 7, both Touch ID and return-to-home functionality are locked by software if you replace the button." That is, it doesn't even function as a home button.

      Don't you feel ignorant now?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Not a terrible thing by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      The iPhone 7 doesn't have the mechanical button any more. It's just the fingerprint reader. So if the fingerprint reader is locked out, so is the not-a-button that servers as a home button.

      I'll refrain from putting some snarky idiot question on the end of this post, as I hope the irony has already caught up.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re:Not a terrible thing by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      yes, because every consumer should be aware of all the ways, large and small, that Apple is willing to screw them over. It's never Apples fault for being a bunch of greedy asshats, it's everyone else's fault for holding it wrong, squeezing too hard, owning too long, not going through Apple for every possible repair and just generally not letting Apple make all the decisions for your own good.

      The groveling passivity of Apple apologists is disgusting.

    15. Re: Not a terrible thing by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      That was a bug and has already been fixed ages ago: http://ifixit.org/blog/7924/er...

    16. Re:Not a terrible thing by msauve · · Score: 2

      So, you think the home function only works for a registered finger. You're dumber than you sound.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:Not a terrible thing by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      They'd have your password though.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    18. Re:Not a terrible thing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      there is also a legitimate security concern with this particular component.

      This would worry me if I had something on my phone worth protecting. My pincode is 000000. I needed a pincode enabled for another feature, but I didn't want one. Personally the ability to repair a device is far more important to me than incredibly high security on a device that has nothing of personal value on it.

    19. Re:Not a terrible thing by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      It is the user's device, so the user should decide whether a sensor is trusted.

      Apple is selling a device with a locked bootloader device, a proprietary OS, and a walled-garden app store. At what point is the user given much choice about trusting Apple (in the cryptographic sense)?

      In order to support 3rd-party sensors, both the OS and the security enclave would need new functionality. The user would have to authenticate with a passcode or Apple ID to approve the new hardware. Apple may never develop this functionality, and it is entirely their choice as a private company.

      If you do not like this model, do not purchase the product.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    20. Re:Not a terrible thing by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      This would worry me if I had something on my phone worth protecting...

      Then, quite simply, this feature was not designed to fulfill your requirements.

      the ability to repair a device is far more important to me than incredibly high security

      If repairability is important, then Apple products will not be ideal purchases. Apple has a 10-20 year track record of being difficult to repair, and they are trending away from what you want.

      Building disposable products has been a dream for many manufacturers, and Apple is doing everything it can to get there. When this desire dovetails with a marketable feature, of course they will choose this route. It's the kind of bad-but-expected behavior you expect to see in a free market without legal consumer protections.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    21. Re:Not a terrible thing by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So you think that if a sensor is locked out, that it will still work? What part of "the hardware security trust has been broken, so the phone won't listen to any inputs from that device" exactly confuses you? And you're calling me dumb?

      Be quiet, adults are having a conversation.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. Secure by design by krisbrowne42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean the fingerprint scanner that interacts directly with the secure enclave chip outside the OS? The one that could be misused by various actors if replaced with act-alike hardware? I'm not sensing the problem here - Feature not a Bug.

    1. Re:Secure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, this has been known since right around the time someone first got outraged by this back in the iPhone 5S era (4 years ago, as of the time of this post). How is this "news for nerds", or for anyone else for that matter?

    2. Re:Secure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If i had points you would get them .

      Its shitty since it makes it harder to repair, but the alternative is that almost anyone with basic electronics skills would be able to by pass the scanner and unlock your phone, and more importantly access the data on it. The feds would kill for something like this.

    3. Re:Secure by design by nbvb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are 100% correct. Don't feel the trolls - this is clickbait headlines and a BS story. If you believe in security, this is a good thing.

    4. Re:Secure by design by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Fingerprints are not the primary security on the device. "Recalibration" (pairing) should require no more than entering the PIN and/or logging into the associated iCloud account.

    5. Re:Secure by design by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, any such repair would involve shutting off the phone, so the user would know that the phone had been turned off. That said, it should be more obvious to the user than that. Nuke the fingerprints and require the user to reset them. Make it painful enough that the user will ask "Why the h*** am I having to do this" and will go online to look it up. That way, somebody swapping the part without the user's knowledge will set off actual warning bells in the user's head.

      What makes it bad is that neither the user nor third-party service centers can do this "recalibration". It should be very nearly automatic with nothing more than an alert on the user's screen ("Your Touch ID sensor has been replaced. You must reprogram authorized fingerprints before you use Touch ID.") every time the user attempts to touch the Touch ID sensor until they add the first fingerprint (thus proving that they have the passcode and can unlock the device). This gives the same security protection without raising right-to-repair issues.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Secure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Excluded middle fallacy.

      The alternative to allowing the scanner to be bypassed and phone unlocked isn't to brick the phone.

      It's to clear the fingerprint store and require an unlock code.

    7. Re:Secure by design by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Biometrics provide security inferior to that of passwords. Their advantage is that they're faster.

    8. Re:Secure by design by kwack · · Score: 1

      Indeed – what I see here is massive anti-Apple groupthink/fashion in the /.-community, which this story tries to cater to, because clicks.

    9. Re:Secure by design by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You're a 100% fucking moron.

      Says the guy who can't even spell "you're" correc....

      Wait a sec. You spelled it correctly. That's some "end of the world" levels of weirdness there, what with our trolls spelling "you're" correctly.

    10. Re:Secure by design by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No, the way it should work is that an untrusted touch sensor isn't trusted. Which is exactly what happens. They can use it as a button, but not as a Touch ID sensor to verify their identity. If the user wants to unlock their phone, they need to fallback to using their passcode or PIN instead.

      The only way that your suggestion makes any sense is if you first get the user to unlock their phone using a passcode/PIN and then explicitly opt-in to using an untrusted Touch ID sensor. At that point all bets are off, since they've chosen to trust their repair guy and his parts. If they get burned, that's on them, but I can see why Apple may want to avoid that sort of situation, just because it opens them up to bad press, security, and various QA issues, akin to what they faced with the knock-off Chinese chargers that were electrocuting people.

    11. Re:Secure by design by Strider- · · Score: 1

      What makes it bad is that neither the user nor third-party service centers can do this "recalibration". It should be very nearly automatic with nothing more than an alert on the user's screen ("Your Touch ID sensor has been replaced. You must reprogram authorized fingerprints before you use Touch ID.") every time the user attempts to touch the Touch ID sensor until they add the first fingerprint (thus proving that they have the passcode and can unlock the device). This gives the same security protection without raising right-to-repair issues.

      You're assuming that the replacement sensor is honest and/or hasn't been tampered with. If the sensor has been replaced with one that has been compromised, it would be a fairly easy vector to obtain access to the phone. A paranoid user might see that message and no longer trust the phone, but I'd bet that most would click through it and reprogram the unit. This really isn't much different, conceptually, than putting a keylogger inside a keyboard itself.

      So the question becomes, how do you ensure right-to-repair, while still maintaining security? That's a tough nut to crack. Option 1 would be for Apple to make the sensors available for sale at a reasonable price. Option 2 would be for touch-id repairs to be gratis Option 3 would be to change it so that the touch sensor no longer works, but the rest of the operating system does (as does the click functionality). For better or worse, Option 3 is probably the best option.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    12. Re:Secure by design by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you believe in security, this is a good thing

      I believe security should be optional to the end user, not something they are forced to pay when not needed. Sure flag up warnings and disable things like Apple Pay if the finger print reader has been tampered with. But some people actually use the device as a phone and a web browser, and really don't care about Apple's secure enclave.

    13. Re:Secure by design by omnichad · · Score: 1

      So the question becomes, how do you ensure right-to-repair, while still maintaining security?

      The answer is that you have the right to choose a dodgy replacement. It's your device. If you want to cheap out and go with an untrustworthy provider, that is completely your choice. Most service providers will seek out a good part, because it's financially in their best interest to provide an adequate repair and they ultimately assume the liability if the replacement part has compromised security.

      Either way, the false threat here is stolen phones getting unlocked by having the fingerprint reader replaced. No matter what way you go, that has nothing to do with the reality. The fingerprint is a shortcut for the password/PIN and not a replacement for it.

    14. Re:Secure by design by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Did anyone at all bother to RTFA before commenting???

      No. Why would we? This is Slashdot. We let others rightly correct us...and then tell them they're wrong.

    15. Re: Secure by design by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      It could use a comma after the imperative statement that he started with, given that the rest of it is a noun of direct address.

  6. Repair your BMW Fuel Injection System ??? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Not unless you have the tools and ability to calibrate the system, or it might not be set up right, or something else might still be wrong.

    1. Re:Repair your BMW Fuel Injection System ??? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      feel free to replace your insecure home buttons Fandroiders!!!

      Android devices don't have home buttons that could be insecure in the first place, dipshit.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Need federal right-to-repair laws... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and laws that establish fair-use guidelines for software that's required for hardware to function. Unfortunately this is something that would have to be grassroots and widespread, no one party would ever make any headway on this unless there were an outcry from constituents, and even then it would be hard to overcome corporate counter-push.

    We've seen this kind of problem with conventional cars and light trucks, with heavy trucks, with farm implements, with major consumer appliances, and the prolifieration of this mindset is only getting worse as more and more functions can be software-tied.

    The laws need to say that software bundled into the device is considered part of the device, and may not be used to encumber the right to service or repair the device, and that for such software that is also intended to communicate with other software, the vendor must continue to support and maintain that code for bugfixes and security vulnerabilities for the realistic lifespan of the device and must provide a reasonable means for the owner to install such an update.

    Yes, this would increase the cost of the device originally, as the concepts for update must be turned into an actual process, but on the other hand if that means that the device can function for longer then it's net effect on the consumer should be small as they can continue to service and repair devices for longer than if vendor-created blocks stop them from doing so.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Need federal right-to-repair laws... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Ahhh. You mean something like federal laws regarding the repair of your personal vehicle. Like, for example, the federal law that says you cannot replace a wheel on your vehicle with another one unless it has TPMS (tire pressure monitoring system) sensors in them compatible with the vehicle, and the sensors have been configured and interfaced with the vehicle's computer, which for many vehicles requires proprietary diagnostic hardware costing thousands of dollars. So in other words I can't undo 5 lug nuts and swap out my wheel with that off another vehicle thanks to federal law.

      Ooooooohhhhh, wait. You're wanting a federal law the does the exact opposite of what the existing federal laws actually accomplish... Yeah, fat chance. Let the feds keep their sticky fingers out of my life as much as possible, thank you very much.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Need federal right-to-repair laws... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Even more basic than that, what we need is to realize that the Fifth Amendment affirms the right to property and that any law that prohibits the owner from modifying his property -- such as the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause -- is therefore unconstitutional.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Need federal right-to-repair laws... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The law does not say you can't replace a wheel without TPMS. It says you can't disable a safety system. In the case of TPMS, the 'safety' aspect is in the form of a warning to the driver that there is a problem - either tire pressure is low or there is a malfunction in the system. You can replace a wheel without TPMS, but you can not disable the malfunction indication because it is, in fact, malfunctioning.

    4. Re:Need federal right-to-repair laws... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that many of those 'restrictions' are in there precisely BECAUSE of laws, don't you? Things like 'you must detect modifications to emissions systems' and 'you must detect modifications to safety systems'. And if you think those types of laws are going away, especially with things like self-driving cars, you're nuts.

  8. Apple gets it when it comes to security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank God we have a tech company that's on our side. The FBI would love to swap in a fake touch ID sensor to break into your phone. Not going to happen.

    Android, on the other hand, ahahahah

    1. Re:Apple gets it when it comes to security by fisted · · Score: 1

      The FBI would love to swap in a fake touch ID sensor to break into your phone. Not going to happen.

      ...because obviously *that* would be the attack vector the FBI uses, right. The home button.

  9. Wasn't this already covered a year ago? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this already covered almost a year ago? https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/06/11/1458246/apple-is-fighting-a-secret-war-to-keep-you-from-repairing-your-phone.

    I can at least understand the argument for preventing unofficial home button (or parts of it) repairs as it contains the finger print reader and it could be a lot easier to attack the security of the device if you could replace the reader.

    Or perhaps its just a conspiracy to get people to upgrade to the next iPhone about which we seem to get at least one monthly rumor around here related to it ditching the home button, or something else like that.

    1. Re:Wasn't this already covered a year ago? by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Making a replica fingerprint is easier than replacing home button.

    2. Re:Wasn't this already covered a year ago? by countach · · Score: 1

      Maybe not for the NSA.

  10. Security, yes? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As I understand it, this is a security measure, not an "arbitrary" lock. The home button is part of the Secure Enclave. If you let third parties make modifications to the Secure Enclave, it ceases to be secure.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Security, yes? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If it ceases to be secure, does it matter for most people?

      What are you protecting? Tie services that require security to the presence of the correct fingerprint reader. But there's no reason to force the fingerprint reader to be locked down if for example the user doesn't use the fingerprint reader.

  11. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The button itself doesn't need to "do[] the pass/fail decoding on the fingerprint" for a successful attack. It need only replay the signals sent by a previous pass.

  12. Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by jarrowwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine a world where in order to unlock your phone all I have to do is open it up and swap out your home button with one that will let any finger unlock the phone. The original poster is trying to paint Apple as some kind of bad guy trying to take away the viability of the repair market. The truth is, they are trying to keep their phones secure by preventing an obvious attack vector. Thank you, Apple.

    1. Re:Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      I would personally prefer the attacker to be able to replace the home button than e,g, to sever my finger, but then again I would not use a fingerprint as any sort of "security" ;)
      But, in seriousness, if, despite how easy it is to get someone's fingerprints, you decide to have it as an option for login, yes, it makes perfect sense to have the reader/home button locked to the device and tamper-proof. I can find many many things to call Apple out on, this is not one of them.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by Quimo · · Score: 1

      The original poster has no problem with disabling the Touch ID function when replacing a button and specifically states that it makes sense from a security perspective. The problem lies in disabling the return to home functionality. As long as I am ok with not having Touch ID available why shouldn't I be able to replace the home button?

    3. Re:Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      but then again I would not use a fingerprint as any sort of "security" ;)

      At best, biometrics are a means of identification, but that is not the same thing as authentication. In other words, a reasonable use of the fingerprint would be as a replacement for the username, not the password.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Man, cut the crap. Of course the phone should not allow a new home button to unlock the phone. But once the phone is unlocked by some other means (a long password), there should be a way to reset the functionality of the home button.

    5. Re:Not an ARBITRARY lock at all by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Imagine a world where in order to unlock your phone all I have to do is open it up and swap out your home button with one that will let any finger unlock the phone.

      Why go to all the effort? You can just press my home button. No need to fingerprint anything. Not everyone requires high level of security. Not everyone uses a fingerprint reader. If Apple has a problem with the hardware security, why not just disable the fingerprint functionality on devices where its been tampered with. I mean there's only several other ways to both secure and to unlock a phone.

  13. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    So they Johndeere'd the iPhone for a passable reason?

  14. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by aitala · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is really old news folks. And as the OP says, its for your own safety. /. has gone downhill if this is getting through...

    EMA

    --
    Eric Aitala
    www.f1m.com
  15. Just Bought a Google Pixel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    after years of being on iPhones. So glad to leave that physical Home button behind. The Pixel is faster, brighter, does more, and is generally better than iPhone with one exception. The sound on the iPhone is a tad better. I doubt I will go back to Apple phones. The 8 is going to be brutally expensive and for why?

  16. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2

    Actually this is illegal. There are laws in place that let you repair your own equipment. If I owned an iphone I would just take them to court and watch them lose.

    They can have the case tied up in court for years. You'll go bankrupt just paying your landshark.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  17. Is JohnDeering spreading? by sehlat · · Score: 1

    That's the real question. We no longer own what we purchase, even if the law says we do.

    TOS > law

  18. The iPhone 7? by clonehappy · · Score: 1

    The iPhone 7 doesn't even have a physical home button! It's a touch-sensitive spot on the bottom of the fucking glass!

    How would you go about "replacing" it anyway? Fake news.

  19. Re: Hey Apple... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a re-post article... and the reason for it has already been made clear: If you can replace the fingerprint scanner, you can trick the phone into giving you access. This is why apple locks the hardware together. Not that I'm an Apple fanboi or anything, and I do think that people should have a choice, but perhaps that choice should be that apple will "unlock" all your hardware if you so request, and then you can put any hardware in there you like, knowing that you assume all risk. I imagine they'll never do that because it's just more work for them, and they have a reputation to protect even in the resale market. But if I'm apple and I face a decision on whether to lock hardware (so I can advertise as having a very secure device) or not (so I can advertise having a hackable device), I at least want my advertising strategy to align with my build strategy.

    But there you go, knowing is half the battle.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  20. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point. Users certainly are free to repair the phones. Establish law there.

    Apple's way around this is to not sell replacement parts. There might be something to the security angle, but sounds mighty fishy.

    And ya, this is old news, since at least the iPhone 5.

  21. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    If i have the hardware in my hand, the game is already over. Dont make excuses for them,

    --
    Good-bye
  22. Computers used to be fun, they're not anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They haven't been for a while, now. Yes, I've read the comments, and understand that this claim is false, and this is 'fake news' and 'clickbait'. The mere fact that we have to be subjected to this.. cognitive dissonance instead of technology being just fun and interesting like it used to be. Now everything is locked down, end users locked out, and you can't even build your own anymore, for all intents and purposes it's impossible for a variety of reasons. Yes, I know there's microcontrollers, and a host of other things you can still build and play with. I also know one-off PCB fab is relatively cheap and ubiquitos. But you can't build a smartphone. You can't fix the smartphone you buy. You can't even put your own OS and software on the smartphone you buy. The stuff may as well be a brick of opaque epoxy that you just toss in the e-waste bin when it screws up. Even the manufacturers can't really repair their own products, not really; replacing a PCB is not what I'd call 'repair'. Yes, I understand the technology, I've been working in electronics for >30 years, and I know all about the 4 or 5 digits worth of equipment, special training, etc, you need to deal with BGA packages, I've done the work. It's just all gotten to be rediculous. It's unsustainable. You pay hundreds, or even thousands of dollars for this stuff, and in a year it's obsolete, maybe even unusable, and it's not even cost-effective to recycle the stuff; it gets dumped on 3rd-world countries. Seriously, how many more decades can we keep producing things like this?

    I don't even own a smartphone, for these and many more (mainly security-related) reasons. I refuse to play this game. I have the cheapest dumbphone I can get that works as a telephone, and that's all I really care about. If I could get along with a totally hardware, no microprocessor involved landline, I'd do that, but it costs about the same per month, yet I can't take it with me. There's no point in going back anymore.

    Yes, I know I'm ranting. That's why it's posted as AC; I don't care to deal with your useless tongue-lashing, calling me a Luddite, 'get off my lawn', and all the other 4chan-worthy bullshit I'd have to see in my comments section. I also know I'm far from alone in feeling the way I do about this subject, but most of you are too timid to actually voice it; no worries, I got your back.

    Do I want the 'good old days'? Hell, yeah. You got a problem with that? Tell your therapist.

  23. Not Arbitrary and Not New by slashkitty · · Score: 1

    They've had this issue for a while with home buttons. It's not arbitrary and it's not new. This is a very specific safety feature. Now, it's a bigger issue with the 7, now that that home button is built into the screen.. I'd call this FAKE NEWS with the "Arbitrary" label though.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  24. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Insightful

    EPA regulations require emission controls on tractors to be tamper-resistant

    And that's asinine by itself, because the EPA is infringing on tractor owners' property rights in order to prevent the "possibility" of those owners violating air pollution laws. Essentially, the EPA apparently considers any modification of the tractor to be an attempt or conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act, despite the fact that, since there are plenty of other reasons someone might want to modify their tractor, neither the act nor the intent has necessarily occurred.

    Moreover, because writing software is an act of expression, preventing the tractor owner from doing so is prior restraint of the owner's freedom of speech.

    In other words, that EPA regulation should be considered unconstitutional because it violates both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

    If the EPA wants to enforce the Clean Air Act, then they should go after people who actually violate the act, not destroy everyone's fundamental rights!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  25. Read the article before commenting (!) by JasonKoebler · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, author of the article here ... this is distinct from the 5S / 6 / 6S software lock and is not "old," it's a different thing that is explained in the article! Imagine that.

  26. Re: Hey Apple... by ewanm89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are saying you could replace it with one that records the data from the sensor and then replays it later at the attackers whim. Making and using a jelly finger is a much better, easier, cheaper and more covert attack vector and so you are correct that the excuse is bull for the real reason of stopping people replacing commonly failing parts in their electronic devices without paying the corporate overlords their cut.

  27. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by JasonKoebler · · Score: 1

    Read the article, this is different. "The home button has two functions: Touch ID, which unlocks the phone, and the actual "return to home" function you get when you push it. In the iPhone 5S, 6, and 6S, a new home button would break the phone's TouchID functionality, but the button's return-to-home functionality still worked. The phone could still be locked and unlocked as normal by entering a pin number, suggesting that the two functions are separate pieces of software that are not tied together. In the iPhone 7, both Touch ID and return-to-home functionality are locked by software if you replace the button. Locking down Touch ID makes at least some sense from a security perspective, but locking return-to-home functionality seems like an arbitrary and vindictive move against independent repair businesses and consumers. Apple did not respond to a request for comment about the issue."

  28. Re: Hey Apple... by gmack · · Score: 2

    There is no need to disable the whole button, only the unlock functionality. You can still have the return to home button work without compromising security.

  29. We need options by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I understand that the scanner\home button is tied to the motherboard, but a point of failure that could potentially keep you locked out of your phone, which may also be your business, we need to be allowed options for what is and isn't security on our devices. I like Stack Overflows innovation:

    https://youtu.be/VgC4b9K-gYU

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  30. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    >Essentially, the EPA apparently considers any modification of the tractor

    You can modify all sorts of crap on a JD tractor. Tires get changed all the time. You can change the entire cab if you want.

    You just can't screw with the engine controls. Contrary to your line of argument, doing that has a very high probability of changing its emissions (like 100%).

    > In other words, that EPA regulation should be considered unconstitutional

    Then get a lawyer and sue them, and see if the court agrees with your asinine argument. And then we can put it on the list along with other nerd arguments like:

    There's NO WAY Bell can stop our Blue Boxes!
    There's TOTALLY ILLEGAL for the government to spy on all our comms!
    There's NO WAY they can patent computer code!
    No one will ever get sued when using BitTorrent!
    etc.

  31. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Former phone repair tech here, it's been this way since TouchID became a thing, with the iPhone5S I think?

    The difference is that in past iPhones you could replace it with a third party button, you lost TouchID and had to log in with a PIN but otherwise it worked. Now it's Apple's button or no button at all. Maybe they just decided it's safer for some reason or it's just a side effect of a design change or maybe they had second hand sales that were unhappy they got a "fake" home button. Whatever the reason my guess is Apple won't budge and you'll probably not win a law suit so... that happened.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  32. Re:Hey Apple... by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    They might not be good players but at least there are a multitude to choose from.

  33. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    If there's more than one activation of the scan in a short period of time, you know the previous one that was just sent didn't work - overwrite it. If there's no call for another scan in the next 5 seconds or so, you know it was likely a good one and you commit it to memory. Then replay that when called to do so by nefarious people.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  34. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    On iPhone 7, the home button isn't a real button anymore - it's just more touch sensitive space.

    The old models probably still had software that triggered on the manual button click which is completely separate from the fingerprint reading / encoding software, and that software probably still exists for older models in the most modern versions of the OS. However, that button doesn't exist any more, so only the fingerprint software with the lockout ever gets used on iPhone 7. It's entirely possible that Apple didn't mean for it to be this way, or it was discovered at some point and they didn't care enough to do anything about it.

    That said, it's still shitty.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  35. Re: It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fu by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You just can't screw with the engine controls. Contrary to your line of argument, doing that has a very high probability of changing its emissions (like 100%).

    No.

    First of all, merely "changing" the emissions does not necessarily mean making the vehicle violate the emission standards. For example, if the owner made modifications elsewhere -- such as by switching to a cleaner fuel, like biodiesel -- it's entirely possible for there to be different settings that optimize the engine operation while still maintaining equal or better emissions. For that reason alone the EPA rule is overreaching.

    Second, the ECU performs an increasingly large number of functions beyond just things that affect emissions. That means the bullshit emissions argument is used as an excuse to DRM all the other computerized functions in the tractor, up to and including things like GPS tracking or self-driving modes. Even worse than that, John Deere has argued that the DRM infection means the farmer only "licenses" the entire fucking tractor , including the hardware parts!

    Therefore, this claim of yours:

    You can modify all sorts of crap on a JD tractor. Tires get changed all the time. You can change the entire cab if you want.

    ...is not true, at least from John Deere's perspective. If this sort of tyranny is allowed to stand, there would be nothing stopping John Deere from requiring farmers to obtain its permission even to change the fucking tires (using only John Deere "licensed" parts), in exactly the same way e.g. Lexmark tries to pretend it's illegal to use third-party ink.

    And then we can put it on the list along with other nerd arguments like: There's NO WAY Bell can stop our Blue Boxes! There's TOTALLY ILLEGAL for the government to spy on all our comms! There's NO WAY they can patent computer code! No one will ever get sued when using BitTorrent! etc.

    Fuck off with your strawman arguments!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  36. Yep. by XSportSeeker · · Score: 2

    I'll give people the benefit of doubt, but it sounds like a whole ton of commenters here are going on with guesswork.

    First of all, no, it's not easy in any way shape or form to create a rogue touch ID reader that would "send signals" allowing the iPhone 7 to be unlocked.
    It'd already be plenty hard for someone to open up a phone and replace it surreptiously, let alone coming up with new hardware that would be compatible.

    Do you guys even know how the TouchID reader works? Well, neither do I of course... it's proprietary. But here's an overview:
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12...
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09...
    https://support.apple.com/en-u...

    Basically, it works like a very specific and proprietary camera/microscope. It detects fine detailed fingerprint information, converts it into code and sends it to the SoC to be processed via software.
    Nothing is processed on the button itself, and even if it was, you wouldn't be able to easily figure out what it did - or it'd be unsecure by definition.

    But again, the hardware is very proprietary. You'd probably need insider knowledge of production to even come close to making something that would work like it, and it'd be expensive as hell to reproduce one. The companies that makes these things have secretive processes that not only would be incredibly hard to figure out, it'd be outright impossible to reproduce without proper technologies.

    Do people even realize how much easier it'd be to just chop up someone's finger and bypass the whole thing anyways?

    Even if you couldn't go to such extremes, it'd be easier for hackers and malicious actors to try to reproduce an entire detailed human finger complete with ridges, pores and whatnot (at it's current stage) than creating some rogue device that could bypass the security enclave somehow.
    And you cannot retrieve information from previous fingerprints used for authentication because they are encrypted in the phone storage, not in the reader.

    The only likely scenario where Touch ID could be used to steal fingerprints, depending a lot on how it works, would be to use an original unit modified to store readouts, and then creating new hardware that would send those into the system. But that's quite unlikely... if not outright impossible. Again, it depends on how exactly the reader works. Note though how no one every did anything like this, because it just doesn't make sense. iPhones will always have easier vulnerabilities to explore to retrieve data.

    It's always good to note though that fingerprint sensors should NEVER be used as the sole authentication method if you have sensitive information inside the phone. Because, like I said, it's a matter of finding a way to make a very detailed reproduction of your finger. With 3D print technology and camera technology always improving, it'll be doable at some point in time.
    It was already done for the iPhone 6, though not something that just anyone could do:
    http://www.cultofmac.com/29688...

    Apple is already facing a class action lawsuit regarding the so called Error 53, related to iPhone 6 bricking the phone if the Touch ID was replaced, so it really doesn't look good for them to repeat the whole deal for the iPhone 7.
    https://www.macrumors.com/2016...
    Australia's consumer protection agency also just filled a lawsuit:
    http://www.ubergizmo.com/2017/...

    And you know, the company has backtracked because the very same excuses some commenters are making here were not enoug

  37. Re: Hey Apple... by BorgDrone · · Score: 4, Informative
  38. Title is correct if you remove "arbitrary". by s4f · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't really do arbitrary things, what they don't often do though, is explain why they do the intentional things they do. In this case, however they have. It's a matter of securing the device so that a reader which spoofs your fingerprint can be used. It's a good thing.

  39. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!

  40. Re:Security, NO? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

    And you trust that Apple appointed "Secure Enclave" to actually be secure? What if you actually want to install a 3rd party home button because you trust them more? Imagine if all your apple computers required an apple keyboard because "security and key loggers". Imagine if the home button factory is under state control and it isn't just secure, it's "homeland security" secure.

    ...happily, this argument is moot; if you don't trust Apple's Secure Enclave, you don't trust any other part of the device, either, and you therefore do not own one in the first place.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  41. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    They could make the phone disable fingerprint auth and warn the user when they tried to enable it again. They don't have to brick the phone.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  42. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    All the user data on the phone is encrypted. How is the game over?

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  43. Re: Hey Apple... by marklark · · Score: 1

    You have to enter your PIN or password after reboot.

  44. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Encryption isnt magic, it is copyable and breakable. If i have the hardware i can hammer the device,or a copy of the data to my heart's desire.

    --
    Good-bye
  45. Courage by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    It takes courage to piss off your customers and drive them to Android.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  46. Score:-5, Pwned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  47. How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  48. This is really a boot in the face... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    This is really a boot in the face for people trying to sell stolen iPhone parts on eBay.

    Won't someone think of the childrent^WiPhone theft rings?!?

  49. Re: Hey Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Tim! Tim! Someone just signaled displeasure on slashdot!"

    "Where?"

    "Slashdot!"

    "Wow. That's still alive?"

    "Well... sort of."

    "I guess we have no choice but to change our design. We wouldn't want them to think it was lame. Anyone have a copy of the Nomad specs handy?"

  50. Re:It's for your own safety, trust us you dumb fuc by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    Here's a list of numbers for you to crack. All you have to do is factor them. Please post your results. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  51. What features cannot be repaired by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    a new home button would break the phone's TouchID functionality, but the button's return-to-home functionality still worked. The phone could still be locked and unlocked as normal by entering a pin number, suggesting that the two functions are separate pieces of software that are not tied together.

    The first concern I had was whether the entire button would refuse to work, and that would be bad. If only the security features are disabled, and there are alternate ways to log in, this sounds perfectly reasonable.

  52. Re: Hey Apple... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    > If you can replace the fingerprint scanner, you can trick the phone into giving you access.

    No? Your fingerprint isn't stored in the home button. Replace that shit all you want.

    So instead put a device between the home button and the chip the fingerprint is stored in. Log what the finger print sensor sends to that chip. Then re-send that on command when you want access to the device.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  53. Re: Hey Apple... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    They are saying you could replace it with one that records the data from the sensor and then replays it later at the attackers whim. Making and using a jelly finger is a much better, easier, cheaper and more covert attack vector and so you are correct that the excuse is bull for the real reason of stopping people replacing commonly failing parts in their electronic devices without paying the corporate overlords their cut.

    Sure. But for the jelly finger you need a good, clean print of the correct finger, several hours of work, and the right tools (like everything used to make your own printed circuit boards), Which is why we hear of people doing that all the time - in fantasies written by Apple haters, or by hardware repair industry lobbyists.

    While the "record" strategy would always work, much faster, always the same way. In the case of the hardware repair industry while the customer pays for it.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  54. Re:Hey Apple... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    They might not be good players but at least there are a multitude to choose from.

    it doesn't matter they are all shit, at least there's a whole lot of shit.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.