iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by germanier » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

mehrdada wrote: post #327

germanier wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do anything you want on the phone without using Touch ID at all. The fingerprint sensor is not a necessary factor in their implementation, while the passcode is.

> You can do anything you want on the phone without using Touch ID at all I believe ApplePay requires TouchID.

I can't try because Apple Pay isn't available here yet. According to this support document it works without Touch ID (emphasis mine):

> To help ensure the security of Apple Pay, you must have a passcode set on your device and, optionally, Touch ID. [...] To send your payment information, you must authenticate using Touch ID or your passcode.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027

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

#352

Post by charlesarthur » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 10:55 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #334

whorleater wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's Razor says that you should select the hyposthesis with the fewest assumptions. Saying Apple is a "rent seeking asshole" assumes that Apple did this maliciously, which is a huge ball of assumptions when they've literally put out a security paper[1] on how Touch ID and Security Enclave works. [1]: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Does that document explain Apple's motivation for bricking phones that never had the fingerprint reader enabled, and that didn't even use traditional lock passwords? No? Well, then it makes sense to look elsewhere for that motivation. Additional data appears to be needed. Lacking such data, assumptions are all we have.

Possibly you're stretching for Hanlon's Razor, except you've got the wrong end of it. Hanlon's is the one that says "never assign to malice what can be assigned to stupidity". This feels like a screwup. The reason why it happens is consistent with security. But the effects are maddening.

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

#353

Post by charlesarthur » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

ericabiz wrote: post #289

Dylan16807 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do you damage a chip on your motherboard? Or need to replace non-capacitor parts on it? This is such a problem because it's stuck to the screen, and people need to replace screens all the time.

This only affects the home button. If you replace the screen and keep your original home button, there is no issue. I co-own a repair shop. We have known about this for a while. We won't replace home buttons for this reason. But we replace hundreds of screens a month with no issues.

Apologies if this sounds rude, because that's not the intent. How can you be sure that people whose screens you've replaced don't then get an "error 53" when they later come to do a software upgrade? Because that's the only time it shows up. Would they know to come back to you about it (possibly shaking fist)?

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

#354

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 11:59 PM UTC

charlesarthur wrote: post #352

CamperBob2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that document explain Apple's motivation for bricking phones that never had the fingerprint reader enabled, and that didn't even use traditional lock passwords? No? Well, then it makes sense to look elsewhere for that motivation. Additional data appears to be needed. Lacking such data, assumptions are all we have.

Possibly you're stretching for Hanlon's Razor, except you've got the wrong end of it. Hanlon's is the one that says "never assign to malice what can be assigned to stupidity". This feels like a screwup. The reason why it happens is consistent with security. But the effects are maddening.

Could be. At least your assumption, unlike mine, is testable. If it's an unintentional bug, the policy behind "Error 53" will become more consumer-friendly in an upcoming iOS update. If it doesn't... well, Occam wins the day.

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

#355

Post by kolbe » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

niccaluim wrote: post #229

integraton wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. There are jobs that discriminate against people with eyesight disabilities (some aircraft pilot jobs, for example) and there are many products that don't account for people wearing glasses. People with glasses are widely stereotyped as nerds or geeks and often experience bullying. People wearing glasses were also reportedly targeted in mass killings by the Khmer Rouge due to that same stereotype.

It's not discrimination if the ability in question is a bona fide occupational qualification. If you can't see well, you can't fly safely.

Would you consider it discrimination if, for example, consumers are more likely to be influenced by a white athlete spokesman than a black one? And so, the white ones gets paid more?

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

#356

Post by zepto » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #341

zepto wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before update to iOS 9, the affected phones functioned normally, but with disabled Touch ID. This is irrelevant. The problem is that those affected phones could still have had compromised fingerprint sensors. Apple did the right thing in protecting people from this, but did communicate about it poorly. The only malice in this situation is on the part of the people accusing apple of being motivated by 'revenge'.

> This is irrelevant. The problem is that those affected phones could still have had compromised fingerprint sensors. ... which wouldn't be used after the phone determines it's an aftermarket part. Equally well the attacker may have installed a malicious piece of brick inside. > Apple did the right thing in protecting people from this Sure, they protected users from using phone with replaced home button and disabled…

Stop saying they bricked the phone. It's untrue. The phone is producing an error message and the problem can be rectified by visiting an Apple Store.

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

#357

Post by dawnbreez » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #347

dawnbreez wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fingerprint, like any piece of data, is handled at the lowest levels as a number. A number with some constraints, but a number. By feeding numbers into the scanner instead of fingers, you can accomplish the same effect as feeding random strings into a password box. Further, it's also possible to take fingerprints through social engineering, or by getting at the database of a company that uses fingerprints as securi…

> By feeding numbers into the scanner instead of fingers, you can accomplish the same effect as feeding random strings into a password box. Isn't this exactly why they DON'T allow you to use the iPhone with a potentially tampered with HW/TouchID -- e.g. the very feature/issue we're discussing?

Well, yes.

I'd argue that fingerprints for security are just silly to begin with.

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

#358

Post by qb45 » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #356

qb45 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is irrelevant. The problem is that those affected phones could still have had compromised fingerprint sensors. ... which wouldn't be used after the phone determines it's an aftermarket part. Equally well the attacker may have installed a malicious piece of brick inside. > Apple did the right thing in protecting people from this Sure, they protected users from using phone with replaced home button and disabled…

Stop saying they bricked the phone. It's untrue. The phone is producing an error message and the problem can be rectified by visiting an Apple Store.

Maybe something has changed after this article, I'm not going to make such claims anymore without verification.

However, you have to understand that when I posted this, I knew about cases (including TFA) when the problem had indeed been "rectified" by visiting a store (sorry, couldn't resist ;)) but no case when the device had actually been fixed and data recovered, whether this is technically possible or not.

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

#359

Post by Yetanfou » Tue, Feb 09, 2016, 10:03 AM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #118

Yetanfou wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cas…

It sounds plausible, but none of us can know for sure as we don't have the source code and internal access at Apple. (maybe they can't just deactivate TouchID on its own, maybe they can but they want to protect the already existing fingerprint data on the device) I don't see how killing the entire 3rd party repair network worldwide can create a positive outcome for Apple, because they are unlikely to even have the re…

> I don't see how killing the entire 3rd party repair network worldwide can create a positive outcome for Apple, because they are unlikely to even have the resources for repairing every device in a timely manner and with acceptable costs.

Limiting the availability of repair services to the captive audience of apple-users probably increases sales. Those who have bought into the apple world are (for now) unlikely to step outside of the garden, so they'll replace their broken iThingy with a new one instead of 'just getting an Android this time'. Just look at this comment for an example of that attitude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11061800

> "... I've got better things to do with my time. I'd rather walk into the Apple store and replace my MBA or my iPhone when I've got a problem. That saves me time for my wife or my hobbies. Trade money for things that save you time, to spend that time on what's important to you (if you've got the money). ..."

This is the attitude apple would like to cultivate: solve problems by throwing more money at them.

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

#360

Post by nibs » Tue, Feb 09, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

juliendorra wrote: post #151

nibs wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how is that going for you so far?

Not sure what you are asking exactly (is that rethorical? Or do you expect a real answer?). If you really care :-) : I had the chance to be raised and still live in a very mixed part of Paris. There is racism, of course, and for example I can remember how kids of Portuguese descent were the object of mockery back when I was young. (That's significant because today it's put under the carpet as if it never occurred. It…

I think in practice it takes a certain level of sophistication and intelligence to understand, and be self-aware to the impacts of, racism. I have observed that it is very easy (if not entirely unnecessary) to convert higher IQ members of society to think in ways that are more equitable than race. Do you believe much progress has been made with those who are (to this day) perpetuating the racism? I think there is more awareness, but is there less racism? I also feel that certain "races" are being discriminated against (ie. Asians entrance average to Universities must be much higher than other races, due to competition). This seems to elicit less attention from those who are social justice inclined. I apologize for original message, came off colder than intended.