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

Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

issuetracker.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#121

Post by c0d3z3r0 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #119
c0d3z3r0 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read again. It does. The boot ROM fails to verify the bootloaders (XBL) signature for some reason.

Read what again? If the flash bootloader is failing to verify, I should be able to send a new one over the USB port, even if that requires wiping the device for security purposes. Defending against an evil maid attack doesn't explain why I can't do that.

Read the post from dmitrygr again or mine. The bootloader does not get loaded, because the verification fails. That means there is no way to wope or reset the device. Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you.

More details: https://blog.quarkslab.com/analysis-of-qualcomm-secure-boot-...

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#122

Post by Dylan16807 »

c0d3z3r0 wrote: post #121
Dylan16807 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read what again? If the flash bootloader is failing to verify, I should be able to send a new one over the USB port, even if that requires wiping the device for security purposes. Defending against an evil maid attack doesn't explain why I can't do that.

Read the post from dmitrygr again or mine. The bootloader does not get loaded, because the verification fails. That means there is no way to wope or reset the device. Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you. More details: https://blog.quarkslab.com/analysis-of-qualcomm-secure-boot-...

> The bootloader does not get loaded

I get that, but there should be something in the ROM that can reflash the device.

It already has signature verification code, which is the hard part to fit into a tiny ROM.

> Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you.

So... either they should release a firehorse binary that can wipe devices, or they should add a small bit of code that can wipe and flash without needing a firehorse binary.

As I read it, dmitrygr was saying that the ostensible reason you can't do anything is fear of evil maid attacks, but that ostensible reason doesn't explain why there isn't a wipe+access mode. And "the bootloader is corrupt" isn't the reason, because this is about the pre-bootloader code.

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#123

Post by c0d3z3r0 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #122
c0d3z3r0 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the post from dmitrygr again or mine. The bootloader does not get loaded, because the verification fails. That means there is no way to wope or reset the device. Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you. More details: https://blog.quarkslab.com/analysis-of-qualcomm-secure-boot-...

> The bootloader does not get loaded I get that, but there should be something in the ROM that can reflash the device. It already has signature verification code, which is the hard part to fit into a tiny ROM. > Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you. So... either they should release a firehorse binary that can wipe devices, or they should add a small bit of code t…

> So... either they should release a firehorse binary that can wipe devices, or they should add a small bit of code that can wipe and flash without needing a firehorse binary.

And how should they add code to a ROM of yet bricked devices?

> As I read it, dmitrygr was saying that the ostensible reason you can't do anything is fear of evil maid attacks, but that ostensible reason doesn't explain why there isn't a wipe+access mode. And "the bootloader is corrupt" isn't the reason, because this is about the pre-bootloader code.

Well, ask Google? :-)

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#124

Post by Dylan16807 »

c0d3z3r0 wrote: post #123
Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bootloader does not get loaded I get that, but there should be something in the ROM that can reflash the device. It already has signature verification code, which is the hard part to fit into a tiny ROM. > Without a signed firehorse binary you can't do anything, because EDL just won't talk to you. So... either they should release a firehorse binary that can wipe devices, or they should add a small bit of code t…

> So... either they should release a firehorse binary that can wipe devices, or they should add a small bit of code that can wipe and flash without needing a firehorse binary. And how should they add code to a ROM of yet bricked devices? > As I read it, dmitrygr was saying that the ostensible reason you can't do anything is fear of evil maid attacks, but that ostensible reason doesn't explain why there isn't a wipe+a…

> And how should they add code to a ROM of yet bricked devices?

I'm criticising the original design. Read that "should" as talking about the past.

> Well, ask Google? :-)

Why? I don't care what they have to say (unless they have something surprisingly interesting to contribute), I'm just accusing them of doing this wrong.

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#125

Post by jfrunyon »

SilverRed wrote: post #86
jfrunyon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence when Apple still slows down phones and uses their flawed design as a scapegoat (and originally did it secretly and lied about it)? Okiedoke. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

They slowed down phones to prevent them from crashing on peak voltage. If you remember the android scene around the same time, the Nexus 6P would just crash constantly when the battery got degraded. If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash. Of course this should have been more visible to notify the user to get a bat…

> If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash.

No. If you asked the average user if they would rather their phone have the speed decreased, or have a slightly thicker battery (and thus phone), they would all rather it be slightly thicker.

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#126

Post by jfrunyon »

foxpurple wrote: post #105
rzzzt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash. Certainly the average user would choose "no crash _and_ not get slower", conveniently ignoring the either-or nature of the question. (Maybe "get less battery life out of a single charge" if they are trying to come up with an alternative.)

That’s not an option. It’s not that the battery was flat. It’s that when the CPU hit peak power consumption the voltage of the battery would drop low enough to cause the CPU to fail. The only option is to limit power draw or to crash.

No, actually, it IS that the battery was flat, and it IS an option. Apple chose to use a battery which was not durable enough for the requirements imposed upon it by their design. I'm not sure why you think that they couldn't have avoided it like LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PHONE MANUFACTURER (including themselves at one time).

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#127

Post by jfrunyon »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #89
jfrunyon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence when Apple still slows down phones and uses their flawed design as a scapegoat (and originally did it secretly and lied about it)? Okiedoke. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

> You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence Yes. The big problem was the deception, not the slowing. If they wanted to remove the speed difference between new and old phones, they'd have to slow them all down. And especially because you can get a new battery, I find updates getting cut off so soon with android to be significantly worse than anything apple does.

No, the deception was what got them fined. However, why do you think they chose to go with the deception, knowing that they were risking fines? Oh, right, it's because the slowing definitely would've been a problem if they had disclosed it up-front.

And you can't get a new battery, by the way. Apple's batteries are not designed to be replaced, remember?

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#128

Post by jfrunyon »

SilverRed wrote: post #85
jfrunyon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An iPhone SE from 2016 has about 2 hours of battery life left and is slow as molasses to eke even that little out of it. I know because we have one that my toddler gets to play with once in a while. That's the only thing it's useful for.

Apple does battery replacements on them for a reasonable price. Might not be worth it for a phone that old. But it is nice that Apple keeps updating devices until virtually no one is using them anymore.

> for a reasonable price

Sorry, excuse me while I go burst my sides from laughter. Apple does battery replacements for more than a (entry-level, admittedly) new phone costs. And that new phone includes a battery. ;)

Moreover, Apple refuses to do battery repairs if your phone has other problems, even if those problems have absolutely no relation to the battery, like... a cracked screen. (I'm not kidding, but hey, props to them for actually being honest[1] for a change. That's a refreshing surprise.) Personally, I know very few people with Apple phones over a year or two old who don't have a cracked screen.

[1] https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service/battery-powe...

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#129

Post by rzzzt »

jfrunyon wrote: post #126
foxpurple wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not an option. It’s not that the battery was flat. It’s that when the CPU hit peak power consumption the voltage of the battery would drop low enough to cause the CPU to fail. The only option is to limit power draw or to crash.

No, actually, it IS that the battery was flat, and it IS an option. Apple chose to use a battery which was not durable enough for the requirements imposed upon it by their design. I'm not sure why you think that they couldn't have avoided it like LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PHONE MANUFACTURER (including themselves at one time).

I was thinking whether this problem could be alleviated by building in extra capacitors as a reserve for transient high current consumption.

Re: Google Pixel 3 (XL) bricking out of nothing

#130

Post by Dylan16807 »

jfrunyon wrote: post #127
Dylan16807 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence Yes. The big problem was the deception, not the slowing. If they wanted to remove the speed difference between new and old phones, they'd have to slow them all down. And especially because you can get a new battery, I find updates getting cut off so soon with android to be significantly worse than anything apple does.

No, the deception was what got them fined. However, why do you think they chose to go with the deception, knowing that they were risking fines? Oh, right, it's because the slowing definitely would've been a problem if they had disclosed it up-front. And you can't get a new battery, by the way. Apple's batteries are not designed to be replaced, remember?

> Oh, right, it's because the slowing definitely would've been a problem if they had disclosed it up-front.

If they made the turbo a bit less aggressive, so slowdowns happened on fewer phones, and made it say "your battery is failing so the phone can't reach peak speed reliably", it wouldn't have been a big problem.

Batteries can only put out so many watts as they age, and apple didn't cause that to spite people into having to buy new products.

> And you can't get a new battery, by the way. Apple's batteries are not designed to be replaced, remember?

I see that as a separate issue.

Post reply on HN