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

261–270 of 363 posts

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

#261

Post by neohaven »

scholia wrote: post #120
Reason077 wrote: post #103

Earlier 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…

> There's a lot of stuff that depends on the secure element - in fact the phone would be quite useless without it. Disclaimer: I don't own an iPhone with Touch ID. However, it seems to me that the phone should still work if you logged on with your PIN instead of with TouchID. It should therefore be as useful as most phones that didn't have TouchID in the first place (which happens to be all my Android and iOS smartph…

On TouchID phones, the PIN is held in the same secure enclave as the TouchID data.

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

#262

Post by germanier »

fixermark wrote: post #259
jdhawk wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldnt it be more logical to simply disable the Touch Functionality and treat it like a Pre-TouchID button when not replaced by Apple with an OEM part?

Why? Then the user is left guessing why their phone is acting like it has no TouchID when it does.

Would you rather guess why Touch ID isn't working or have a completely unusable phone?

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

#263

Post by neohaven »

unscaled wrote: post #197
interpol_p wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touch ID is a fingerprint scanner, but the Touch ID system is paired with the "Secure Enclave" in Apple's AX chips. Secure Enclave is a separate coprocessor running its own L4-based microkernel. This hardware is directly paired with security-sensitive hardware (Touch ID, Apple Pay NFC chip, etc). It provides all cryptographic operations for data protection key management and maintains the integrity of data protection…

I'm pretty sure there was no direct malice here (except for the usual Apple disregard for 3rd party components), but the security reasoning behind this move is still questionable. The only danger of a compromised Touch ID sensor, is that it could record your fingerprint and let the attackers replay that fingerprint to access all your encryption keys on Secret Enclave. That would be a huge vulnerability, if there hadn…

THE critical security system of your phone has been tampered with. PIN data, TouchID data, crypto data and everything else related to security is on that same bus. You do not detail secure info over that channel.

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

#267

Post by qb45 »

fixermark wrote: post #259
jdhawk wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldnt it be more logical to simply disable the Touch Functionality and treat it like a Pre-TouchID button when not replaced by Apple with an OEM part?

Why? Then the user is left guessing why their phone is acting like it has no TouchID when it does.

It's a well known issue and every independent repairmen will warn you before replacing this part or else they would quickly get sued out of existence.

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

#268

Post by skywhopper »

I think it's utterly reasonable for the device to shut down if it detects what looks like tampering with a high-security component. It's frustrating, sure, and the error message is beyond poor, but the behavior makes sense. It's not about preventing third party repairs.

It is unfortunate but true that high levels of security ultimately require trust, and that means that some things we used to take for granted will fall by the wayside. Third party repair of what are now secure components may be one of those things.

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

#269

Post by tristanj »

jdhawk wrote: post #258
tristanj wrote: post #255

I posted this earlier today, but the current article (from bbc.co.uk) does a poor job covering the issue. In summary, Apple iOS uses a validation system to ensure Touch ID sensor is not maliciously replaced or modified. The Touch ID sensor has access to the iPhone Security Enclave, where fingerprint data is kept. A malicious sensor could, hypothetically, steal fingerprints from an iPhone user unknowingly. This could…

Wouldnt it be more logical to simply disable the Touch Functionality and treat it like a Pre-TouchID button when not replaced by Apple with an OEM part?

From the Daily Dot article, it looks like what you described is what happens (TouchID is disabled) and the phone will function mostly fine, but the author also encountered other bugs possibly related to the issue. However, the bigger problem was whenever he tried to restore or update the device, Error 53 occurred and it failed. Restore from backup still worked though. So essentially, his iPhone was locked to that iOS version and could not be modified.

http://www.dailydot.com/technology/what-is-error-53-iphone/

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

#270

Post by baddox »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #247
DanBC wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That clearly isn't what the word means today. "Our son was having trouble in school and his counsellor suspected he might be retarded. We brought him to a retard house with a reputation…

I haven't heard the word "retarded" used in earnest to refer to intellectual disability (the replacement term) for at least a decade, and probably closer to 15 years. Note that this is a textbook case of the euphemism treadmill, where whatever term is used to intellectual disability eventually starts getting used as an insult and thus the term is changed. Eventually the old retired terms become fairly acceptable as insults, like "idiot" and "moron."
Post reply on HN