iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair
341 comments
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.
"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.
I highly recommend reading up on Apple's Security white paper that details how it all works... https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
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 petty revenge because you had to temerity to go to another party other than apple to get your phone repaired and maybe even saved some money in the process. So now, in retaliation we'll destroy your phone in software. I'm sure this will go down well with the various EU courts.
It's just petty revenge because you had to temerity to go to another party other than apple to get your phone repaired and maybe even saved some money in the process. So now, in retaliation we'll destroy your phone in software. I'm sure this will go down well with the various EU courts.
This is still not as bad as the newer laptops in which TPM is soldered onto motherboard and the OS won't boot if it's damaged. You can't even get it repaired, even by the manufacturer without getting a brand new motherboard.
Hardware level security is important, but one must know that whenever you involve hardware into the equation you must allow for collateral damage.
Trusting trust is hard. You can't expect the verifier to verify the security module you got changed from the guy in a basement. Might as well get the OS and kernel from the same guy too.
The reason this disables your phone is the same reason you see a red page when using self signed certificates. The guy vetting you isn't vetted himself. Now there is a case to be made that Apple should just show you a warning and let you use the phone. But this isn't about protecting your privacy, this is about protecting privacy of the guy whose phone you found.
Hardware level security is important, but one must know that whenever you involve hardware into the equation you must allow for collateral damage.
Trusting trust is hard. You can't expect the verifier to verify the security module you got changed from the guy in a basement. Might as well get the OS and kernel from the same guy too.
The reason this disables your phone is the same reason you see a red page when using self signed certificates. The guy vetting you isn't vetted himself. Now there is a case to be made that Apple should just show you a warning and let you use the phone. But this isn't about protecting your privacy, this is about protecting privacy of the guy whose phone you found.
Alternative: Apple stops NSA, China, crooks meddling with TouchID during repair.
https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/695709113964195840
https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/695709113964195840
The 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 when someone sent me an email to an old PGP key - I was able to dig up the key, but had long since forgotten the password. Do you want your computer security system to fail-open (leaking your stuff and potentially exposing you to fraud) or fail-closed (losing data which may be irreplaceable and of emotional significance)?. It's not obvious. But if you store your photos on your phone, you should probably back them up to the cloud - and to a different system that is not under the same account, either locally or another cloud. User-friendly crypto may be possible, but user-friendly key management is a total nightmare.
I was thinking along similar lines recently when someone sent me an email to an old PGP key - I was able to dig up the key, but had long since forgotten the password. Do you want your computer security system to fail-open (leaking your stuff and potentially exposing you to fraud) or fail-closed (losing data which may be irreplaceable and of emotional significance)?. It's not obvious. But if you store your photos on your phone, you should probably back them up to the cloud - and to a different system that is not under the same account, either locally or another cloud. User-friendly crypto may be possible, but user-friendly key management is a total nightmare.
Albeit necessary to check the authenticity of components such as the TouchID sensor for security reasons, bricking the phones seems extreme. Why not simply disable Touch ID? This is them asking for a lawsuit.
It is frustrating the the language of MA 'right to repair' doesn't extend to devices.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Right_to_Repai...
All these comparisons to car warranties, and more specifically how in some countries there may be a question of legality. The U.S. has similar laws that car dealers can't deny warranty coverage because of third party repairs. IANAL, but it would be interesting to see how this translates to phones (or any other similar asset).
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-ro...
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-ro...
Has someone made unintentional medical joke with this error? It reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53, which is responsible for apoptosis - programmed death of cell.
The way they've reported on this seems a bit misleading. Isn't it just that the third-party repairers haven't reset the security mechanism after replacing the home button?
Wouldn't a better idea be to simply display an error message to the effect of "your phone has undergone untrusted changes, please bring to your nearest Apple store" rather than bricking the whole thing?
People in the US should be complaining to the FTC. In the very least, for phone's under warranty, Magnuson-Moss should apply if Apple isn't fixing these problems for free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
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.
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.
I guess "iPhone 'disabled' if Apple detects key security component replaced with unauthorized version" wouldn't get as many clicks.
I'm not sure I understand what exactly happened here. Was it previously possible for non-apple engineers to replace the home button or was it not? The guardian's article seems to suggest it was: "Indeed, the phone may have been working perfectly for weeks or months since a repair or being damaged."
If that is the case and it was possible to replace these sensors before, apple's narrative that the "error 53" code was introduced for security reasons doesn't seem to make a lot of sense: If the hardware sensor wasn't designed with secure authorization (e.g. via asymmetric cryptography) in the first place, all they could do now in a software update would be to add some kind of cosmetic device ID check.
However, any such newly introduced check in software could not actually prevent "malicious sensor" attacks but would only add a (possibly trivial) additional step to the attack where you have to spoof the correct device id.
Or maybe my reading of the guardian article is imprecise and replacing the home button has always meant loosing access to at least some security-relevant features?
If that is the case and it was possible to replace these sensors before, apple's narrative that the "error 53" code was introduced for security reasons doesn't seem to make a lot of sense: If the hardware sensor wasn't designed with secure authorization (e.g. via asymmetric cryptography) in the first place, all they could do now in a software update would be to add some kind of cosmetic device ID check.
However, any such newly introduced check in software could not actually prevent "malicious sensor" attacks but would only add a (possibly trivial) additional step to the attack where you have to spoof the correct device id.
Or maybe my reading of the guardian article is imprecise and replacing the home button has always meant loosing access to at least some security-relevant features?
Now might be a good time to make a donation to the EFF.
https://www.eff.org/issues/right-to-repair
https://www.eff.org/issues/right-to-repair
Could 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?
One more proof that you don't own your device?
I love the sentence:
>He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.
He was so furious that he bought a second iPhone which had the same fundamental design decisions and would fail in the same way if he got it repaired by a non-Apple repairer. No wonder Apple doesn't give a damn about this - everyone is just buying a new phone from them.
He was so furious that he bought a second iPhone which had the same fundamental design decisions and would fail in the same way if he got it repaired by a non-Apple repairer. No wonder Apple doesn't give a damn about this - everyone is just buying a new phone from them.
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.
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.
I feel like a hypocrite criticising this one. Security has always been a tradeoff against convenience. I've been, overall, happy that Apple's starting to take the security of personal data on a very losable device seriously.
I mean, not to gloss over it. I just got stung €320 for a screen repair, and I won't pretend I'm at all happy with that. But I have to accept we can't have it both ways - if we're demanding tough encryption, we have to accept the inconvenience that comes with it.
I mean, not to gloss over it. I just got stung €320 for a screen repair, and I won't pretend I'm at all happy with that. But I have to accept we can't have it both ways - if we're demanding tough encryption, we have to accept the inconvenience that comes with it.
So much for owning something you thought you owned. This has happened again and again, and will increasingly happen in the future under whatever disguise, security-wise or not.
Something suspiciously like this happened to me on a second-hand iPhone 6 I bought a few weeks ago. Talk about crappy timing.
Everything pointed to a software issue, but every repair person I took it to (both apple and non-apple) kept saying it was a hardware fault.
Touch ID stopped working and the phone drains super quickly despite not being in use. Hoping Apple can provide a "fix", not gonna hold my breath though.
Everything pointed to a software issue, but every repair person I took it to (both apple and non-apple) kept saying it was a hardware fault.
Touch ID stopped working and the phone drains super quickly despite not being in use. Hoping Apple can provide a "fix", not gonna hold my breath though.
I'll take it as a positive that there is a good chance if someone tampered with my device my information is still secure.
I feel for both sides of this issue. As a consumer I am upset that I am essentially being forced to either buy a new iPhone or do my repair via Apple (do they even do all repairs?).
Although, as a business I understand not wanting third party repairs as those can damage your brand if done incorrectly.
I think it is a design flaw, putting a security component in a common fail assembly, a fragile glass cover.
Sony chose to put their touch ID sensor in a side button. I wonder if they thought of this, it sure looks like a smart design decision in light of this.
I feel for both sides of this. On one hand, as a consumer, I think it's unfair to force users to either buy a new iPhone or do repairs via Apple (do they even do them all?).
As a business, I understand how non-Apple repairs can damage a brand.
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 emergence of a comprehensive parallel supply chain for repair parts. Bricking end-user devices is one of the few levers they've got to try and shut down this industry, since there's no way to effectively identify and pursue the upstream suppliers in mainland China.
Sucks for the users, though. I wonder if Apple will still be selling devices at all in 5 years, or if they'll only rent them out for €25/$25/£25 per month. Ultimately that'll probably be the only way to get the control they want.
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 emergence of a comprehensive parallel supply chain for repair parts. Bricking end-user devices is one of the few levers they've got to try and shut down this industry, since there's no way to effectively identify and pursue the upstream suppliers in mainland China.
Sucks for the users, though. I wonder if Apple will still be selling devices at all in 5 years, or if they'll only rent them out for €25/$25/£25 per month. Ultimately that'll probably be the only way to get the control they want.
If the validation fails, the device will function mostly fine, although with Touch ID disabled. However, the device will be prevented from restoring or updating to a new version. Restoring from backup still works. I'm not too sure why restoring or updating is blocked, but my guess is that they want to prevent malicious software from being uploaded in this process.
From the Daily Dot article, if a user encounters this error, Apple's current resolution is a full device replacement. It may be overkill I don't think Apple expected many people to encounter this issue, so it seems reasonable why they chose this option.
This is a great security feature for users, and I'm really glad Apple engineers considered this situation. Unfortunately the media is blowing this and leaving crucial details about what's happening and the reasoning behind it.
Here is Apple's statement on the matter:
We take customer security very seriously and Error 53 is the result of security checks designed to protect our customers. iOS checks that the Touch ID sensor in your iPhone or iPad correctly matches your device's other components. If iOS finds a mismatch, the check fails and Touch ID, including for Apple Pay use, is disabled. This security measure is necessary to protect your device and prevent a fraudulent Touch ID sensor from being used. If a customer encounters Error 53, we encourage them to contact Apple Support.