So basically you do not own your hardware.
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
171–180 of 363 posts
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#172Could this be a protection against selling stolen iPhones? As I remember a "broken TouchID" rates pretty high as a shady phone. Does anyone know how does this work? Can you reset a stolen phone or do they just sell those as parts nowdays?
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#173You DO have the right to repair your iPhone; it just has to be done by an official Apple repair centre. I completely understand the downsides of Apple's particular approach here, and totally get why people want the right to use 3rd party repair services. I've used them myself in the past to save (a lot of) money. But considering just how much of my life, financial and otherwise, is on my phone, I'm actually very glad…
That's a very disingenuous definition of "the right to repair." In fact, requiring that all repairs be done by the OEM is exactly the opposite of the right to repair.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>IMO bricking on touch ID issues is extreme, but maximises the security of the device.
We are all smart people here and there are several ways to have security without bricking expensive hardware.
First, the update can wipe the device instead of bricking it.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.
There would be several better solutions that the most profitable company in the world could figure out if they wanted to. It's funny how their particular solution happens to make them even more money through shutting down third party repairs and making people buy new phones.
This is like your home alarm software(made by the home builder) remotely burning down your house and telling you to build a new one because someone may have tampered with home access and could possibly enter your home.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#175There is a strong bias, and the amazing thing is that its very difficult for the people who have this bias to realize it. As far as they can tell it is fact, and this is in large part because they live in a filter bubble where they only see things that confirm their bias. For example: Articles bashing Steve Jobs get upvoted a lot more than ones praising him. Exactly the opposite for bill Gates. Now if you look at Sla…
For me, the real question is where have all the hackers gone? Years ago, there were high quality contributors here. They all had to go somewhere. When slashdot was dying, it was clear where everyone went (HN and Digg). This time around, it's not clear at all.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#176It'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…
Too bad the compiler doesn't raise a fatal error for comments like that.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#177The stated rationale is that it's reasonable for a security-critical device to self-destruct if it thinks it may have been tampered with. Unfortunately this is a phone which costs a lot of money and has much of the user's life stored on it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sued over this; I don't know what the interaction of the Sale of Goods Act and remote-bricking is. I was thinking along similar lines recently…
> has much of the user's life stored on it Stores life in fragile device Fragile device breaks Dies
You may not like it, but this is how non-techy users use computers and phones.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#178Earlier 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…
The scenario they're protecting against appears (to me) to be a bad actor changing the hardware. If the Touch ID sensor is bad, and you propose falling back to a PIN, who's to say the digitizer isn't compromised too and is recording touches? Sounds a bit like a downgrade attack if they didn't fail fast and hard at the earliest opportunity.
> If the Touch ID sensor is bad, and you propose falling back to a PIN, who's to say the digitizer isn't compromised too and is recording touches?
So why not brick the phone out of the box? Even if the finger scanner is original, somebody may have compromised the digitizer anyway.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the phone did not work perfectly after the repair. The fact that the user didn't realise it didn't work perfectly doesn't change that. The repair compromised the security of the device. Image if you have your tires changed by an independent car shop and a month later one of your wheels falls off on the highway. Do you start complaining about it to the car's manufacturer because 'it worked perfectly before'. No yo…
Your analogy is way off. This is more like your Tesla car's keyfob misfunctioning and you get it repaired by a non-Tesla dealer. The dealer could've put in a backdoor to get into the vehicle. Tesla releases a big new update for their car software and now your Tesla is completely bricked and Tesla refuses to repair it, saying you have to buy a new car. Is that acceptable?
Almost, except the Tesla store just says you have to buy a new (authentic) key fob rather than a new car.
Apple or other authorized repair shops can still fix phones that have been disabled due to security chain errors.
Re: iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you suggest instead and why?
Using the word retard victimises a group that is already significantly marginalised while simultaneously not doing much to the intended victim. The word has a greater affect on unintended, innocent, victims than the intended target. If you're talking about IQ less than 70 use whatever is relevant in the country you're in. In the US this is usually intellectual disability (which is a subset of learning disability, whi…
> If that's the level of offence you want to create then sure, go ahead.
WTF? Did you make that all up just to be able to put me down? Really, what a disgusting comment. I used a word that has a dual definition according to my goddamn dictionary and asked politely for an alternative and reason and edited my comment long before you posted this and yet you feel that you should use this to pretend that I like to create a certain level of offense when I clearly went out of my way not to.