Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 363 posts

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#101

Post by david_mitchell »

stinos wrote: post #82
david_mitchell wrote: post #12

I don't see why people are upset or surprised about this. Apple is a pioneer in making electronics difficult to open up and play with. It has always been their approach to control every interaction that every customer has with every part of their business and every product produced by it. Accept it or use something else.

upset or surprised suprised maybe not so much, but it seems pretty obvious one would get upset if his/hers go-to device is suddenly rendered practically useless?

I accept your correction. In fact, now I think about it, essentially 0% of apple customers would likely be aware of this possibility at the time they make their purchase. I should have considered that most consumers won't follow stories like this as closely as the tech crowd.

I do stand by my assertion that it is legitimate for apple to behave in this way though. They get to present their business as they choose to just like any other company and the customer get to choose whether to accept their terms. Personally I don't but, empirically, most other people seem to.

I would however support requirements (as legislation) that consumers should be made aware of such practices at the point of purchase such that they can factor it into their buying decision.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#102

Post by DanBC »

mppm wrote: post #23
minikites wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it what it actually is: short sighted, greedy, foolish, etc. Don't use a word that puts down people with disabilities.

Did you just say short sighted? Not everybody has perfect eyesight, you know, but that doesn't make us stupid. You hater, you.

People with learning disabilities face significant levels of violence and discrimination.

People with short sightedness, not so much.

No one kills a person who is short sighted just because they are short sighted, but this routinely happens to people with learning disability. Not just random fuckheads in public, but doctors will put people with LD under DNR orders without the knowledge or permission of the person or their relatives just because that person has LD and the doctor can't imagine any quality of life.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#103

Post by Reason077 »

interpol_p wrote: post #36
jacquesm wrote: post #4

It's totally dumb that a functioning phone is bricked by an update because of repairs done in the past. Imagine the same thing happening to your car. "Sorry sir, the software update done to your car has now disabled the vehicle because in the past someone not related to x (insert name of car company here) has repaired it, your car is now junk (you can't even resell it) and you'll have to buy a new one". It's just pet…

Seems more like short sightedness than "petty revenge." The new home button hardware can't be securely validated, and a future OS update fails on the unexpected condition of invalid Touch ID hardware. I can imagine that this wasn't a prioritised testing scenario, likely not even considered by Apple when developing iOS. It's a lousy way to fail — the phone should just disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, and anything that…

There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it.

In fact, when you first reboot your phone, even contacts cannot be accessed until you authenticate with your passcode to unlock the secure element. Incoming text messages only show the phone number.

You're right, however - a Touch ID sensor that cannot be verified should not brick the phone. Apple should just disable Touch ID and sever any link between the sensor and the secure element.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#105

Post by Klathmon »

izacus wrote: post #79
DominikR wrote: post #61

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand this is done to protect the customers from tampered with Touch ID sensors. It may be overly paranoid but I can at least understand the motivation behind this. Changing the display also involves disconnecting the Touch ID sensor so technically a malicious person might have done something that exposes the user of the device in some way. Statement from an Apple spokesw…

Yes, but instead of disabling authentication with the non-authenticated TouchID sensor it bricks the phone.

... until the old sensor is replaced.

Which is a good thing.

This is like complaining that forgetting your encryption password "bricks" your hard drive.

Yeah, apple deserves some flack for not making this known to 3rd party repair shops, but it's not a problem itself.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#106

Post by Yetanfou »

DominikR wrote: post #61

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand this is done to protect the customers from tampered with Touch ID sensors. It may be overly paranoid but I can at least understand the motivation behind this. Changing the display also involves disconnecting the Touch ID sensor so technically a malicious person might have done something that exposes the user of the device in some way. Statement from an Apple spokesw…

Did you really believe them when they said that?

Just like all other similar decisions made by other companies under the guise of 'protect[ing] the customers', it should be clear that this is no more than a guise. If protection is what they had in mind they'd simply disable any functionality which could be impacted by a dodgy part. Disabling the whole device has the single, self-serving purpose of channelling the cash flow from the repair businesses into Apple's coffers.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#107

Post by brador »

Reason077 wrote: post #103
interpol_p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems more like short sightedness than "petty revenge." The new home button hardware can't be securely validated, and a future OS update fails on the unexpected condition of invalid Touch ID hardware. I can imagine that this wasn't a prioritised testing scenario, likely not even considered by Apple when developing iOS. It's a lousy way to fail — the phone should just disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, and anything that…

There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it. In fact, when you first reboot your phone, even contacts cannot be accessed until you authenticate with your passcode to unlock the secure element. Incoming text messages only show the phone number. You're right, however - a Touch ID sensor that cannot be verified should not brick the phone. Apple should j…

The issue is Apple cannot verify a secure touch ID replacement over a compromised touch ID replacement. Without knowing if your replacement is secure the change potentially compromises the security of the whole device.

IMO bricking on touch ID issues is extreme, but maximises the security of the device.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#108

Post by interpol_p »

Reason077 wrote: post #103
interpol_p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems more like short sightedness than "petty revenge." The new home button hardware can't be securely validated, and a future OS update fails on the unexpected condition of invalid Touch ID hardware. I can imagine that this wasn't a prioritised testing scenario, likely not even considered by Apple when developing iOS. It's a lousy way to fail — the phone should just disable Touch ID and Apple Pay, and anything that…

There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it. In fact, when you first reboot your phone, even contacts cannot be accessed until you authenticate with your passcode to unlock the secure element. Incoming text messages only show the phone number. You're right, however - a Touch ID sensor that cannot be verified should not brick the phone. Apple should j…

That's true. I meant to say it should disable any hardware that was directly tied to the secure element, such as Touch ID and Apple Pay's NFC chip. I didn't mean to imply all encryption services in iOS should be disabled.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#109

Post by ohthehugemanate »

mootothemax wrote: post #85

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. "Anyone can access your private photos and emails! Just replace the home button with one programmed with your own fingerprints!" Can you imagine the comments if that were a story? The problem here is that Apple didn't find a way to tell repair shops and users that this could be an issue.

It doesn't have to be either or. Apple could provide a better fail over behavior for the home key, including a way for a consumer to validate the changed hardware.

For instance: "IOS has detected a change in your Secure Home Key. Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure!" add a 1-800 number and some security questions. Or automate it by requiring a login to your Apple account, email validation, and email notification of the change.

Bottom line, when one authentication method fails, you need a fail over to something more difficult.

Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

#110

Post by tshtf »

marincounty wrote: post #91
hirephone wrote: post #41

This is just the beginning. High prices and resale values have spawned a substantial and apparently growing 3rd party repair and refurbishment market for Apple mobile devices. Beyond the dodgy corner unlock shops, multiple national chains have sprung up over the last 2 years where I live that advertise heavily on broadcast TV. Apple clearly sees this as money left on the table and they're concerned about the emergenc…

People buy a high-end watch, like a Rolex. They can repair it if they have then knowledge. The problem is Rolex, and 99 percent of watch manufactures won't sell your, or your Watch Repair person the parts. You need to send the watch to the factory for service, at factory prices. So, when you buy a Rolex, your are actually leasing it? You don't truely own it, if you can't get the parts to fix it? It's just another way…

Actually a majority of the watches, besides Rolex, in the <$5000 range use standard unmodified Swiss ETA movements, which can be repaired by any competent watchmaker. Very few watches in this price range use in-house movements.
Post reply on HN