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

by noobie • 10 years ago

438 258 10 years ago

jdsnape• 10 years ago

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?

jacquesm4• 10 years ago

Should it matter?

DiabloD3• 10 years ago

The problem is, Apple refuses to reset the security mechanism after such repairs have happened.

Ergo, Apple is bricking phones as some sort of misplaced revenge-like behavior.

zepto4• 10 years ago

This doesn't follow. Apple refuses to reset the security mechanism because it can't verify the integrity of the repair.

Call it revenge like behavior is just you attacking Apple. It's certainly incompetent or unanticipated and poorly handled, but it's an attempt to maintain their security promises.

MartinMond• 10 years ago

If third-party repairers can reset the security mechanism, then the security mechanism won't protect against actual attackers.

stuaxo• 10 years ago

The phone is still useful without the finger print reader, it should just degrade.

I don't know anyone who uses the fingerprint reader or the purchasing functionality.

jacquesm4• 10 years ago

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.

KhalilK2• 10 years ago

Imagine the same thing happening to your car.

Given that apple is working on an iCar, it's just a matter of time I presume.

Loic• 10 years ago

It may even be against the law in Europe because the phone was working perfectly after the repair and only the later update locked the phone without the ability to unlock it.

To keep with the care maker example, in Germany, the car makers used to void the 10 years guarantee on the painting of the car if the regular checks were done by an independent car shop. This was then declared as illegal.

I suppose Apple will soon release an update and declare that this was "a bug".

yulaow• 10 years ago

How will affected users get the "new update" if their phone is already broken by the previous? I mean, I hope that, in the case of already broken phone caused by their own update, apple _at_least_ give them a new iphone for free, else they are gonna get rape-sued here in EU

tajen2• 10 years ago

It would be definitely illegal in France which has a law against planned obsolescence - but EU doesn't have it yet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#Regulat...

Aaargh20318• 10 years ago

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 you don't.

The repair shop didn't repair it properly, if it was repaired properly the new TouchID sensor would be securely paired with the Secure Enclave and this issue would not occur.

mtgx• 10 years ago

I could maybe see as a good thing from a security point of view, although I'm not sure if bricking is the right solution here. If my self-driving car gets hacked (whether physically or its software), I'd rather it stopped working than let it drive hacked.

jacquesm4• 10 years ago

Where did the hacked self driving car come from?

interpol_p8• 10 years ago

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 relies on the secure co-processor.

But it feels far more like there's an `else` branch sitting in the iOS codebase somewhere where a programmer has written:

//NOTE: This should never, ever happen

//.. code that triggers error 53

taspeotis• 10 years ago

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.

Reason0772• 10 years ago

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 just disable Touch ID and sever any link between the sensor and the secure element.

DonHopkins• 10 years ago

Too bad the compiler doesn't raise a fatal error for comments like that.

benevol• 10 years ago

Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model? [0]

Apple is in the business of selling (overpriced/overengineered) hardware. Their tactics make that very clear.

The only problem with that is that there is no real competition in mobile phones anymore, it's just a giant duopoly. Sure, you can switch to Google/Android, which as the giant ad company (in other words: personal data hover/mass surveillance company) is just as bad.

My only hope is for Ubuntu to make the right moves soon.

[0] A source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2709502/Does-...

Cyph0n• 10 years ago

Do you have a source for that? Curious to read it.

sandebert• 10 years ago

"Remember the guy who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model?"

No, I don't, but I'd like to read more about it. Got a source?

DominikR3• 10 years ago

Well, regarding hardware and UI styles you actually have a lot of choices on the Android side.

And it is really hard to argue that Google intentionally slows down old Android phones.

The source is available for everyone to study and you can root most devices and install Android versions that don't even use any Google software.

fuzzix• 10 years ago

Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model?

No. Story linked from daily mail (that's not a "source") is more nuanced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-bi...

matthewmacleod3• 10 years ago

Remember the woman who proved that Apple consistently slows down sold iPhones with "updates" right before the launch date of a new model?

No, because that never was a fucking thing.

Seriously, this is supposed to be a community of reasonably well-informed tech-oriented people. Step back for a second, take a deep breath, and think before you spread nonsense like this. Jesus.

petra3• 10 years ago

> Sure, you can switch to Google/Android, which as the giant ad company (in other words: personal data hover/mass surveillance company)

While on the iPhone: Do you use Google search ? Do you use Google maps ?

Well, if you do , there's not much sense in hiding from Google. And if you use Android, you could use tools like cyanogen's "privacy guard" to hide your data from all/most app authors , which i don't think you can do in iOS.

Also , unless they target you specifically, so long that you use an alternative keyboard - i don't think Google on Android collects your key press data - so you can use anonymity apps for special circumstances, But i could be wrong about that. Same goes for encryption keys, unless your targeted.

tedmiston2• 10 years ago

No, it doesn't -- It just shows that people google "iPhone slow" more when new models come out / Apple releases major versions.

No matter how suggestive, he says, the data alone doesn't allow anyone to determine conclusively whether their phone is any slower.
There are other explanations for why an older model iPhone may slow down, he claims.
For instance, the latest version of the Apple operating system, iOS, is always tailored to the newest device and may therefore not work as efficiently on older models.

soneil2• 10 years ago

That was frankly horribly researched. They started off with a supposition, and ignored any data that didn't help prove it.

They completely ignored that a new handset release tends to come in lockstep with a new OS release. This is relevant because it means many, many people are changing the operating characteristics of their existing handsets at the same time - leaving their phone not only not a "known constant", but potentially creating the same results even if a new generation of phone hadn't just appeared at the same time.

Seriously, if you take their graph and replace the labels for each 3g, 3gs, 4, 4s etc, with ios2, 3, 4, 5 .. the data is still accurate, but the take-away assumptions change entirely.

They ignored that geekbench scores show that scores for any given generation stay roughly constant over the phone's lifetime. That's a fantastic set of data that isn't coloured by changing expectations over time.

And they were quite happy to brush off that the samsung numbers showed exactly the same changes over time, as they didn't spike around releases. Completely ignoring that Android has entirely different update strategies (having to wait until your telco 'blesses' the update, etc).

If you look at their graphs, and think of each label as an OS release rather than coinciding with a new handset (which is still accurate), the story it now tells is that ios updates receive much larger adoption in hurry, when compared to adoption of android updates.

Which we already knew. Apple's update strategy is that every compatible handset is able to update "today", whereas android updates are staggered by various levels of support from different mffrs and different providers.

madeofpalk• 10 years ago

With Microsoft shutting down Windows Phone, Blackberry giving up on making it's own OS, Palm's WebOS now just a TV interface and Firefox OS rightfully shut down, the market has very clearly proven that there is no room for a third mobile OS.

Hell, there's barely any room for a third manufacturer, let along operating systems http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10894200/android-smartphone...

atirip• 10 years ago

What if that "repair" was done by NSA, CIA, etc? Should the phone boot like nothing happened? Seriously?

givinguflac2• 10 years ago

My thoughts exactly.

dawnerd2• 10 years ago

Hell, they could, on boot, display a message with something like "This phone contains contains a non genuine apple part"

Then the question is, could the NSA/CIA/etc trick the phone into thinking the repair was valid?

takeda• 10 years ago

LOL, given how those organizations work they wouldn't do the "repair" they would ask Apple to install it for them.

I'm sure they already did that assuming they don't have better ways.

qb4511• 10 years ago

Fingerprint scanner disabled due to unauthorized modification. Please contact support or type "I want hackers to steal my data" 10 times to reenable.

Sanddancer2• 10 years ago

Looking at teardowns, like the one at ifixit [1], the touch id sensor seems to be a pretty standard imaging sensor that heads to an NXP chip. I'd be willing to bet that the encryption of the print happens on the nxp chip instead of the imager, so if the NSA/whoever were doing a "repair", they'd probably just put an MiTM chip on that insecure path for later playback. Against a state actor, Touch ID is a triviality.

[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5s+Teardown/17383

tyingq• 10 years ago

Imagine the same thing happening to your car.

That sort of exists now. There are parts, like the throttle control on Volvo's, ABS units on BMW's, etc, where the unit is coded to your vehicle.

You can't, for example, swap an otherwise identical throttle from a junkyard into a Volvo. It puts the ECU into limp mode, and the car is essentially useless.

Now, that's not the result of an over-the-wire firmware update, but that's really the only piece missing. When/If vehicles start regularly updating firmware over the wire, you'll start seeing stuff like this.

zepto4• 10 years ago

How is this the top comment?

We can see that it is clearly nothing to do with 'revenge' or 'retaliation'. The evidence clearly contradicts that.

Apple makes strong promises around security and Touch ID in particular. This is clearly designed to maintain the integrity of that system.

It's certainly a terrible failure mode - the error message should explain what the problem is.

But imputing these bizarre motives just reveals bias on the part of the commenters.

The alternative would be at some point a headline like "compromised Touch ID sends fingerprints to bad actor".

[this was obviously going to be downvoted, but for the record nobody has either made an argument for, or provided evidence for the 'revenge' motivation, while the 'poorly implemented security policy' explanation is clearly supported by the evidence.]

qb4511• 10 years ago

The alternative would be at some point a headline like "compromised Touch ID sends fingerprints to bad actor".

There would be no such headline. Before update to iOS 9, the affected phones functioned normally, but with disabled Touch ID.

And if you have to know why people come up with theories like that - either Apple didn't think what happens to users who already had this hardware replaced or they thought about that. Maybe those who accuse them of malice simply overestimated their competence - after all, they make big claims about high quality, attention to detail and whatnot.

Not to mention that the first part of this comment makes sense and probably expresses well how people feel about this screwup.

brk• 10 years ago

This whole fiasco makes me wonder if the link between the TouchID sensor and the rest of the phone is so fragile and easily spoofed that they are concerned a fraudulent sensor could be trusted implicitly by the phone, and therefore used to inject malicious data ("here, I am sending you [USERS] thumbprint").

tsmarsh• 10 years ago

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...

KhalilK2• 10 years ago

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.

tedmiston2• 10 years ago

I wonder if it's really bricked -- could a downgrade to the previous OS version help? (Admittedly, it's not that straightforward for normal consumers.)

david_mitchell2• 10 years ago

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.

everyone• 10 years ago

Yeah, Apple are evil geniuses. They are prodigies at making money and expanding their business, at the expense of their users. It also seems like a majority of people on this site have some kind of Stockholm syndrome with regard to Apple. I guess making people reliant and locked in to their system is part of their genius. Of course people in that situation will find ingenious logical contortions to go through to justify their continued faith.

Also, mass downvoting of this comment in 3. 2. 1 ...

matthewmacleod3• 10 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or announce that you expect to get downvoted.

You will, of course, be down voted – because of your childish insistence that anybody who thinks differently from you is suffering from some kind of illness.

stinos• 10 years ago

upset or surprised

suprised maybe not so much, but it seems pretty obvious one would get upset if his/hers go-to device is suddenly rendered practically useless?

david_mitchell2• 10 years ago

I accept your correction. In fact, now I think about it, essentially 0% of apple customers would likely be aware of this possibility at the time they make their purchase. I should have considered that most consumers won't follow stories like this as closely as the tech crowd.

I do stand by my assertion that it is legitimate for apple to behave in this way though. They get to present their business as they choose to just like any other company and the customer get to choose whether to accept their terms. Personally I don't but, empirically, most other people seem to.

I would however support requirements (as legislation) that consumers should be made aware of such practices at the point of purchase such that they can factor it into their buying decision.

skc• 10 years ago

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?

watmough• 10 years ago

This, or simply allow it to be completely reset a la Android or Chrome.

kevincox• 10 years ago

Or just after you enter your PIN (which can override the fingerprint reader anyways) notify you that the sensor has been replaced and reset it.

interdrift• 10 years ago

That's how desperate Apple is.

kleiba• 10 years ago

Could someone explain what is the legal basis for this?

chris_wot• 10 years ago

I'm fairly certain that's illegal in Australia. It's called third line forcing.

Looks like Apple is, yet again, going to be investigated by the ACCC.

bbarn• 10 years ago

Isn't this piece core to the virtual wallet/payment tech installed on the phone? Should apple's engineers have to put in friendly error messages if you exchange components in what's supposed to be a closed system?

hirephone• 10 years ago

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.

marincounty• 10 years ago

People buy a high-end watch, like a Rolex. They can repair it if they have then knowledge. The problem is Rolex, and 99 percent of watch manufactures won't sell your, or your Watch Repair person the parts.

You need to send the watch to the factory for service, at factory prices.

So, when you buy a Rolex, your are actually leasing it? You don't truely own it, if you can't get the parts to fix it?

It's just another way to make money.

I didn't think Apple would irritate their customers at this particular point in time?

And yes, I too believe, "This is just the beginning."

tshtf2• 10 years ago

Actually a majority of the watches, besides Rolex, in the <$5000 range use standard unmodified Swiss ETA movements, which can be repaired by any competent watchmaker. Very few watches in this price range use in-house movements.

7952• 10 years ago

I think IPhone owners intend their device to last longer than the typical Android. Making it harder to repair could undermine that. Apple need to make users believe that an IPhone is not just a disposable thing that lasts for 1 year in order to justify the high price.

mgkimsal2• 10 years ago

Broken 5s screen - took it to a local repair shop in town. He indicated that they just replace the whole screen unit - takes about 8-10 minutes. He shared some numbers too.

The conversation was from last... sep I think, and he was referring to a change a few months back. They had been able to buy the whole screen units for around $25-$30/piece, and his shop (owned a few) bought a lot of them - always kept a lot in stock. Earlier in 2015, he said, Apple started putting the screws on their parts suppliers, requiring them to destroy any overages or extras that didn't pass QA. This overage supply was where he and others would get their replacement parts.

He said that almost overnight, the prices on those screens went to $40 or more. They had a several month supply, but were already having to replenish at the higher price point.

So... Apple knowing about "third party repair" stuff, isn't all that new, but they seem to be taking more steps to actively prevent competition here. :/

re: "renting" - they'll probably still sell them, but all but force an icloud-style service for storage (probably still be selling 16g models when they provide 16mp cameras, and use up 6g for the OS). That or perhaps they'll just buy a carrier and you can be paying them $100/month for voice/data service directly, on top of $700 for a device.

PSeitz• 10 years ago

This is just to protect customers. </irony>

an_d_rew• 10 years ago

You 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 Apple has erred on the side of obsessive security!

jrochkind1• 10 years ago

Apparently, YOU don't have the right to repair your own iPhone then, only an official Apple repair centre does. You mean: You have the right to pay an official Apple repair center, and nobody else, to repair your iPhone.

mgkimsal2• 10 years ago

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.

The BBC article talks about someone who was in Macedonia. Apple doesn't have repair centres there. What they did - try to repair their device in a non-Apple-served country - was about all they could reasonably do.

As Apple wants more of our life to be phone-oriented (payment details, wallet, physical data, etc) expecting 100% of people to be within X minutes of official repair centers 100% of the time is not workable, nor reasonable.

I get it - the home button is secure and might have been compromised. This was just horrible design - they failed to account for a failure mode, and default to a brick instead.

A warning bar or message on boot indicating "the touch id may have been compromised - all touch id features are disabled - please contact Apple" - while annoying - would have been reasonable.

robgibbons• 10 years ago

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.

pjc502• 10 years ago

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.

SixSigma2• 10 years ago

has much of the user's life stored on it

Stores life in fragile device

Fragile device breaks

Dies

pjc502• 10 years ago

You may not like it, but this is how non-techy users use computers and phones.

DanBC• 10 years ago

Apple have been accused of copper-bottoming the rules when relatives want to get access to a dead person's phone.

Apple only really need a death certificate and certificates of probate; but Apple insist on different court orders.

So I'm not sure if SOGA etc will affect Apple here.

TazeTSchnitzel2• 10 years ago

Apple have been accused of copper-bottoming the rules when relatives want to get access to a dead person's phone.
Apple only really need a death certificate and certificates of probate; but Apple insist on different court orders.

Huh? Why should next of kin automatically be entitled to all someone's personal information?

DominikR3• 10 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand this is done to protect the customers from tampered with Touch ID sensors.

It may be overly paranoid but I can at least understand the motivation behind this. Changing the display also involves disconnecting the Touch ID sensor so technically a malicious person might have done something that exposes the user of the device in some way.

Statement from an Apple spokeswoman:

“We protect fingerprint data using a secure enclave, which is uniquely paired to the touch ID sensor. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the pairing is re-validated. This check ensures the device and the iOS features related to touch ID remain secure. Without this unique pairing, a malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave. When iOS detects that the pairing fails, touch ID, including Apple Pay, is disabled so the device remains secure.”

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-iph...

izacus2• 10 years ago

Yes, but instead of disabling authentication with the non-authenticated TouchID sensor it bricks the phone.

Klathmon• 10 years ago

... until the old sensor is replaced.

Which is a good thing.

This is like complaining that forgetting your encryption password "bricks" your hard drive.

Yeah, apple deserves some flack for not making this known to 3rd party repair shops, but it's not a problem itself.

chippy• 10 years ago

"the device remains secure."

A non functioning bricked device is more secure than a functioning device. Yes.

Yetanfou2• 10 years ago

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 cash flow from the repair businesses into Apple's coffers.

DominikR3• 10 years ago

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 resources for repairing every device in a timely manner and with acceptable costs.

It's easy to say that they'll just earn more from repairs and sell more devices, but customer satisfaction is also important and I believe Apple takes issues that essentially brick devices very seriously.

It is also well known that they take privacy very seriously (although implementations might not be perfect), so I am inclined to believe that in this case privacy concerns have won against customer satisfaction concerns.

Edit: Apple Pay is also a _very_ important product for Apple, I imagine they simply cannot afford any issues that might make this seem unsafe to customers.

randomname2• 10 years ago

Alternative: Apple stops NSA, China, crooks meddling with TouchID during repair.

https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/695709113964195840

grubles• 10 years ago

Alternative alternative: Apple wants you to pay Apple a premium to repair your device.

letitleak• 10 years ago

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...

mootothemax• 10 years ago

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.

ohthehugemanate• 10 years ago

It doesn't have to be either or. Apple could provide a better fail over behavior for the home key, including a way for a consumer to validate the changed hardware.

For instance: "IOS has detected a change in your Secure Home Key. Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure!" add a 1-800 number and some security questions. Or automate it by requiring a login to your Apple account, email validation, and email notification of the change.

Bottom line, when one authentication method fails, you need a fail over to something more difficult.

unfamiliar• 10 years ago

Please contact apple secure support to confirm that your device is still secure

There's no way the customer or Apple can do that with third party hardware installed. The only solution I can see is to disable all of the features relying on Touch ID.

natch4• 10 years ago

The bad guy can then walk the user through that security verification process, and the user is screwed. Think it through.

tajen2• 10 years ago

They could invent another architecture which doesn't tie a mechanically failible element with an identity system.

germanier6• 10 years ago

Then the user would still need to input their passcode after the button was replaced before anything could be stolen.

jellicle• 10 years ago

That works, if and only if you already know the user's pin to unlock the phone.

This attack you suppose Apple is defending against is not possible.

The only attack Apple is really defending against is the attack of non-Apple phone repair companies.

consto• 10 years ago

So stupid, it's like they are asking for a class action lawsuit

progrocks9• 10 years ago

This type of move can't work now, because Apple is losing its mojo in a very fast pace.

laverick• 10 years ago

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.

tdkl3• 10 years ago

I got a second-hand 5S last year with faulty Touch ID, the seller admitted that it didn't work and didn't even notice because he never used it (at the time also many Touch IDs stopped working after iOS 8 updates). I got a lower price and a friend took it to Apple Store in Germany (had couple months warranty left), where they tried to change the display first, then swapped it for a new unit without issues.

awqrre• 10 years ago

One more proof that you don't own your device?

dade_• 10 years ago

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.

Fr0styMatt88• 10 years ago

I guess "iPhone 'disabled' if Apple detects key security component replaced with unauthorized version" wouldn't get as many clicks.

systemz• 10 years ago

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.

hackaflocka• 10 years ago

Could be intentional.

ywecur• 10 years ago

The wonder of closed source

aurizon• 10 years ago

Lawsuit time, which Apple will lose

MCRed2• 10 years ago

There 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 Slashdot a decade before Hacker news the results for bill gates would have been the opposite of what you see here.

Effectively, Bill Gates' millions in spending to improve his PR have changed people's perceptions (they will argue that its because he's such a generous benefactor, because that's politically correct, alas, they won't look too close at the activities of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation lest they notice he isn't.)

Google Good, Apple Bad, Leftism Good, Socialism Good, Basic Income! Global Warming is FACT, and anything you post that goes against this narrative risks getting you slow banned or hellbanned.

Hell, I was once banned from here for relating how I met Grace Hopper as a kid (in a comment on an article about Grace Hopper.)

I have no clue why that was hell ban worthy, after all she was the original "GRrrl in tech!!11!"

Welcome to hacker news where there are no hackers.

WhyDoiPostHere2• 10 years ago

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.

MCRed2• 10 years ago

I wish I knew, I would go there too.

l33tbro• 10 years ago

The culture changed.

Tech now mostly attracts (post)collegiate millennials chasing the startup wave (don't blame them, it's where there's chance of an actual job). You only have to look at the dwindling state of open-source right now to see proof of this. Add to that the post-Snowden cynicism that killed off what was left of cyber-utopianism and the free web, and it's that pretty clear that the hackers of yore grew up and weren't replaced by the next generation.

walterstucco2• 10 years ago

they just left. arguing with kids is boring

dang4• 10 years ago

Hell, I was once banned from here for relating how I met Grace Hopper as a kid (in a comment on an article about Grace Hopper.)

I don't believe anyone was ever banned from HN for that. How about let's see a link?

There's a cottage industry of HN users who go on about why they were banned ("because I supported Bradley Manning!" "because of my unpopular opinions!"). Pay attention and you'll notice that these complaints are always linkless. They never supply links to their allegedly innocent and suppressed contributions. Why not? Because then people could see what they really did do, and make up their own minds.

We make mistakes, and we're happy to correct them. But no way do we ban people for "relating how I met Grace Hopper as a kid".

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11048013 and marked it off-topic.

Dolores12• 10 years ago

So basically you do not own your hardware.

imeron• 10 years ago

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?

derwiki• 10 years ago

This would be a great theft deterrent, if you could remotely brick your iPhone.

paulasmuth• 10 years ago

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?

95014_refugee• 10 years ago

Third-party repair shops have never been able to correctly replace the TouchID sensor.

tdkl3• 10 years ago

You can get the button exchanged, but since each one is coupled with the secure enclave co-processor, touch ID doesn't work anymore. But home button still works, so does the phone encryption, you just can't identify yourself with the fingerprint anymore. If you go and try to add a fingerprint, it behaves like you have a muddy finger and can't scan it. But this ain't an issue since encryption is done by a PIN code first, then fingerprints are used as a more convenient way to unlock.

Frankly the device bricking is BS, since the encryption PIN code is still there and unknown to a possible attacker. You just can't use the victims fingerprints to unlock it anymore, or attach a hacked fingerprint reader, because it still won't be able to access the secure enclave to open and get the PIN code.

jeffmould• 10 years ago

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...

ascagnel_• 10 years ago

Later updates from Apple have said that they'll replace the touch sensor and other hardware if necessary.

I'm curious; although auto makers can't decline warranty coverage, does an "authorized maintenance" shop change the dynamics?

soneil2• 10 years ago

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.

lisper2• 10 years ago

The problem here is not so much that the devices are being bricked as the fact that it's coming as a nasty surprise. People needed to be warned about this, and the warning needed to happen before they bought the phone.

arihant2• 10 years ago

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.

Dylan168072• 10 years ago

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.

arihant2• 10 years ago

Out of three things -- thin phone, hardware level security, and cheapness of repairs -- you get to pick two.

FWIW, I've lost 2 chromebooks to TPM failure in 18 months.

ericabiz2• 10 years ago

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.

lisper2• 10 years ago

Now might be a good time to make a donation to the EFF.

https://www.eff.org/issues/right-to-repair

quackerhacker• 10 years ago

I haven't experience any error 53 codes on the devices I've repaired, but if this is true... Wow! That's really shady of Apple. I'm starting to get the feeling that the moves they're making (like charging for Apple radio [not Apple music], and now disabling phones with unauthorized repairs) is their response to their recent report of declining iPhone sales. Disappointing if this is true that these changes are at the expense of their end users and fans (and I am a fan).

userbinator• 10 years ago

This seems like a deliberate move by Apple, since they could've put the secure component ("TPM") on the mainboard, where it won't be as easily damaged, instead of the fingerprint reader. It's like an organism whose brain is in one of its appendages instead of its head...

Either way, if the skills of the Chinese (and other far-East) reverse-engineers continue to be what they are, I think workarounds will be found soon enough - from what I've seen, the repair people in particular are very resourceful and clever, and come up with "tricks" to fix things that the original manufacturer never even thought about. It's their core business; you can bet they'll spend a ton of effort on figuring out how. Apple's proprietary cable authentication chips have been cloned. The infamous Thinkpad BIOS password has been circumvented. Replacements for ink cartridge authentication chips (seriously) have appeared. There is always a crack.

I continue to find it amazing how effective the "security" excuse is; it seems you can get the majority to give up anything if you can turn it into some sort of argument about how it'll make things safer. Who doesn't want to feel safe, even if it ultimately results in society where every little thing you do is controlled by some huge bureaucracy? The old quote on security vs. freedom is so relevant today, but related to what I think will happen, here's a variant on that theme: "I wish for the insecurity that gives us freedom."

singham• 10 years ago

More reasons for not to be in Apple ecosystem.

once-in-a-while• 10 years ago

Don't use smart phones. Just don't. It works for me.

KiDD2• 10 years ago

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

natch4• 10 years ago

What really surprised me, and what most people don't seem to know, is that repairs at an Apple store are way cheaper than third party repairs.

natch4• 10 years ago

Why the downvotes?

I got a Macbook Pro repaired recently and the Genius guy took me aside and said I got a great deal because they have a per-model, per-service visit price cap on replacement parts charges for repairs. Meaning that in one visit, you can get your Macbook repaired and replace the screen, the motherboard, the hard drive, the power board, the battery, the keyboard, pretty much the whole thing, and the price (for parts) is capped at around $280 for my particular model. The labor price is not capped but they are good at what they do, so the labor is super fast and ends up being cheap.

I had a similar experience with an iPhone repair, where my camera had dust in it. Apparently the best way to do this is a back cover replacement, and the back cover comes with the camera built in. I was pretty scared until I heard the price, which was I think at the time $30, way less than third party vendors charge for this.

Again the downvotes, for providing useful information, are really baffling here.

stefek99• 10 years ago

Has anyone read full Terms and Conditions?

I think most of the people clicked / tapped / pressed "AGREE".

So here you go.

dghughes• 10 years ago

The iPhone6 and F-35 share the same problem trying to detect approved or faulty parts. Funny.

mattkrea• 10 years ago

I'll take it as a positive that there is a good chance if someone tampered with my device my information is still secure.

sneakycr0w2• 10 years ago

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.

tristanj3• 10 years ago

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 be used to unlock the phone and make purchases through Apple Pay without the owner's permission. To prevent this, Apple uses a validation system whenever the Touch ID sensor is repaired. When iPhone is serviced by an authorised Apple service provider or Apple retail store for changes that affect the touch ID sensor, the validation paring is updated. Third-party repairs to the sensor will not update the pairing, and will fail validation when using Touch ID. This validation error is shown to users as the mysterious "Error 53".

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.

jdhawk• 10 years ago

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?

fixermark• 10 years ago

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

tristanj3• 10 years ago

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/

jsz02• 10 years ago

I don't think that would solve the underlying problem of the TouchID sensor being compromised. The device would potentially be venerable to software based attacks that re-anbled the compromised TouchID sensor.

kccqzy2• 10 years ago

We don't know the technical details behind. For all it's worth, the button might be like one of those thunderbolt ports that has direct memory access and can alter the firmware during a software upgrade.

germanier6• 10 years ago

What you didn't mention is that this verification only happens on a software upgrade. In the meantime either one of these two things could happen (I don't know which): 1. The sensor could do all the malicious things you mention 2. The sensor is blocked from accessing the security enclave.

The former doesn't seem like a secure solution that one should be really glad of. The latter would also be possible after a software upgrade so there is no need to disable the device completely. In short, they didn't choose a good solution.

Simply disabling a phone at some point well after a repair is just bad.

Edit: The parent post was edited a bit, so my point is now mostly covered. I still don't see a security-related reason to disable the complete device on a software upgrade. Maybe it could enable an attacker to modify the OS somehow in the process. However, I don't agree that this issue is "overblown". This presents a real problem for users that now have an unusable phone. It's important to note that Apple doesn't offer repairs everywhere in the world so many users now can't repair their phone at all.

tristanj3• 10 years ago

My mistake, added that part into the parent post. The coverage of this story is all over the place and it's hard to keep track.

You are right though, allowing users to update/restore but disabling the sensor is a better solution. I'm not too sure why Apple chose this route. They haven't commented on the technical reasons behind it so it's hard to say for sure.

qb4511• 10 years ago

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.

No, the CPU reads encrypted data from the sensor and sends them to the SE for decryption and analysis. See the PDF linked here by somebody. What a malicious sensor could do is store user's fingerprint for retrieval by unauthorized parties.

If the validation fails, the device will function mostly fine, although with Touch ID disabled.

On iOS 8. Once the device is updated to v9, it turns into brick. Quoting from OP:

"They repaired the screen and home button, and it worked perfectly." He says he thought no more about it, until he was sent the standard notification by Apple inviting him to install the latest software. He accepted the upgrade, but within seconds the phone was displaying “error 53” and was, in effect, dead. When Olmos (...) took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.

If a customer encounters Error 53, we encourage them to contact Apple Support.

This may be a media-friendly euphemism for "it's dead", unless this London staff was clueless.

CamperBob29• 10 years ago

What a malicious sensor could do is store user's fingerprint for retrieval by unauthorized parties.

Of course, taking advantage of the exploit in question requires the phone to be stolen by an extremely sophisticated (if not state-level) bad guy, altered by installation of a malicious sensor that has never been documented to exist in the wild, then recovered by the owner, and then stolen again at a later date. All to acquire personal biometric data that could just as easily be obtained with a piece of Scotch tape.

A simple application of Occam's Razor suggests that Error 53 isn't a "security feature" at all, it's just Apple being a rent-seeking asshole.

yyin• 10 years ago

What if the "owner" of the device, i.e. the person who paid her hard-earned wages to "own" it, is not interested in using the "TouchID" feature?

Is there an untapped niche for a similarly-sized single board computer (not several computers, baseband processor, SIM card that runs code, etc. jammed into a hermetically sealed casing that is worthy of being in the Museum for Modern Art) that just does simple simpler, "boring", useless things like send and receive packets, read, write and store files, etc.

A pocket-sized computer that a user can not just rent but _pwn_, that does not make gratuitous network connections to some "mothership" and allow for easy monitoring and remote control by a third party, and that does not brick itself if it's casing is opened. A computer that can be, to the fullest extent possible via open source software, controlled entirely by the user.

Who knows maybe a person could turn such a small computer into "a device for sending and receiving text, images, sound and video over a network, such as the internet."

Nah, there would be no use for such a thing. Only a device _that can handle payments_ is worth using to send and receive text, images, audio and video.

What is the point of a device used to communicate, e.g., a "phone", if it cannot also be used to spend money?

threeseed2• 10 years ago

A pocket-sized computer that a user can not just rent but _pwn_

Then don't buy an iPhone. Simple. You and the other dozen people on the planet will surely be missed.

The rest of us absolutely want Apple to be as aggressive about security/privacy as they possibly can be. Especially with even moderate countries e.g. UK, Australia being equally aggressive about invading privacy.

tdkl3• 10 years ago

A malicious sensor could, hypothetically, steal fingerprints from an iPhone user unknowingly. This could be used to unlock the phone and make purchases through Apple Pay without the owner's permission.

Why in the hell would anyone bother with this, if it's trivial to get persons fingerprints and reproduce them to unlock the device ? [1] Even if you lack the touch ID, the device is still encrypted by the PIN and is functioning (and is secure) normally without it.

Either it's really over-engineered or is what it is - scare tactic to bring people to Apple repair centers.

I wish they'd use rather this media attention to inform the public that fingerprint authentication isn't there for security, but conveniency first. Apple Pay would function just fine without it. But would it have it's appeal of easy payment ? Probably not.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4ZLGsw1zo

shripadk2• 10 years ago

I think it is definitely over-engineered. If it is a scare tactic to bring people to Apple repair centers why isn't this happening with other Apple products?

interpol_p8• 10 years ago

I'm not sure it was over-engineered. Recall when Touch ID was introduced there was huge media backlash: Apple is stealing our fingerprints, how do we know there isn't an NSA backdoor to the fingerprint storage, and so on.

The Secure Enclave system was set up exactly to counter those concerns.

Interestingly, when other phone vendors later implemented fingerprint unlocking there was far less outrage. Even when the fingerprint images themselves were found as unencrypted raster images on device storage.

downer64• 10 years ago

Don't worry. If there's any bullshit in the article, I'm sure Apple will help us discern which parts are true and which parts are false, the expensive way. Every time.

mediocrejoker• 10 years ago

Is enclave a standard security term? Does apple publish technical details on what sort of security the touch id uses?

KiDD2• 10 years ago

https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

sneakycr0w2• 10 years ago

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.

dang4• 10 years ago

Url changed from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35502030, which points to this.

skywhopper• 10 years ago

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.

stesch• 10 years ago

Wow, Apple hate like on /r/technology.

aftbit• 10 years ago

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.

yason• 10 years ago

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.

enlightenedfool• 10 years ago

yet another thing that anti-iphone people rile and iphone users don't care. The bricked owners will buy the next gen iphone and won't repeat the mistake of third party repair. what's the fuss about? yawn...

iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs

Related Stories