Users Facing 'Error 53' Bricking Message After Third-Party iPhone 6 Home Button Repairs

[Mascots]

My quotes weren't about any of that speculation. I'd be hard pressed to lend any relevant commentary without traipsing down that rabbit hole with the majority you referenced.

I responded directly to this:

If that update is required before the security kicks in, that's not exactly security in the purest sense

Of which you speculate that Apple did choose to ignore unauthorized components until the update.

But I'm not trying to make an argument about semiotics, just that it's better to protect as much as possible when it comes to data and things happening outside of an applications design.

 

[macmikey2]

Why?

If my iPhone is out of warranty, then I should be able to have it repaired by who ever I want.

I can see why it might be a good thing to avoid circumventing the security on stolen phones, but from a user standpoint who wants a repair, apple repairs aren't exactly the cheapest, or in the UK and other countries where apple stores are only in big cities, its a pain in the rear not being able to take it to a local phone shop.

Having it repaired by anyone out of warranty and using non-standard parts is a bad thing. Having it repaired out of warranty should be a choice. It's the parts that are the problem, not the choice.

 

[LovingTeddy]

If it were to be able to access the "secure enclave," then yes. It's like being able to use your car key on another car of the same model.

Communication between the
processor and the Touch ID sensor takes place over a serial peripheral interface
bus. The processor forwards the data to the Secure Enclave but cannot read it. It’s
encrypted and authenticated with a session key that is negotiated using the device’s
shared key that is provisioned for the Touch ID sensor and the Secure Enclave.

This is from Apple's document. TouchID can only forward information to Secure Enclave bit cannot access it. And SE can validate TouchID, so if the authentication failed, then iOS fall back to password.

As other people said, there is no reason for Apple to brick the phone entirely.

 

[AxoNeuron]

Given the lack of evidence, I find it more plausible that Apple choose the route to ensure the most protection across the widest audience that can be affected. In that case, in my opinion of course, it means preventing all access to data in an effort to stutter any data-limiting hacks or bugs possible.

That's fine, but Apple should then go one step further and offer a solution to all of the people who got screwed by this update without any warning in advance. That's the big point I'm making.

Even better, during the update process, if an unauthorized sensor is detected, the user should at least be given the option to cancel the update before it bricks their phone entirely. That was entirely within Apple's technical capabilities.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Having it repaired by anyone out of warranty and using non-standard parts is a bad thing. Having it repaired out of warranty should be a choice. It's the parts that are the problem, not the choice.

I replace parts for my PCs, my cars, my phones with third party component all the time, I don't experience any problem.

 

[cfedu]

This is just one more reason I will most probably not be buying an iPhone again. If you don't like Apple's practice, vote with your wallet.

 

[MRrainer]

It's actually great that iOS even tests for the integrity of the hardware.
If this wouldn't be the case, we'd have youtube flooded with videos of people hacking the fingerprint sensor (and the secure enclave) this way - and the media would be all over it (while pocketing a few kickback dollars from Samsung).

Yes, I can imagine it's a PITA to get an iPhone serviced somewhere in Eastern Europe.
But checking Apple's Website, there's an Authorized Service Provider in Macedonia's capital, Skopje.
It probably charges an arm and a leg for its services - but you get what you paid for.

 

[macmikey2]

I replace parts for my PCs, my cars, my phones with third party component all the time, I don't experience any problem.

I should have quantified that by saying Apple parts... PC parts are like crap, everyone makes them and sells them.

 

[gotluck]

I should have quantified that by saying Apple parts... PC parts are like crap, everyone makes them and sells them.

lol macs use the same parts. macs are pcs with osx. thats why hackintoshes exist

 

[Unami]

it's understandable from a security standpoint, but on the other hand the very same software that detects the error could then just fall back to passcode only, and ignore touch-ID until it gets a new authorized sensor.

what worries me more is apple being able to pair a new touch-ID sensor with the secure enclave. that seems like a possible attack-vector to me. on the other hand, if you're really serious about security (or really paranoid, that depends on the point of view), fingerprint-scanning won't be secure enough anyway.

and, obligatory xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/538/
(which wouldn't even cost 5$ with touchID)

 

[Peepo]

1. There was no such implication regarding security in my quote. I'd be very interested to know how you came to that conclusion based on what you read in my quote. 2. Bolded: I can't address that portion of your comment since it's speculation. Addressing it lends an undeserved credibility to something you just made up. 3. Please re-read my quote. Your response seems to indicate you're responding to something different or didn't understand what you read. 4. That information was right in the article: "He said "it worked perfectly" after the repair shop finished fixing the broken screen and home button, but once he updated to iOS 9 he got an "error 53" message and could no longer access any of his personal content on the iPhone."

My opinion is not based on facts and is pure speculation and my opinion why it may have happened. You have your opinion how you believe the cause of the iphone being locked out it is not security related. I was pointing out a scenario in which it may have been a security update in IOS9 which handles unauthorized devices (like buttons) differently.

I doubt we will ever discover the reason why this happened though.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Article and vid. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec.../apples-new-update-could-brick-your-iphone-6/

 

[ZipZap]

Having it repaired by anyone out of warranty and using non-standard parts is a bad thing. Having it repaired out of warranty should be a choice. It's the parts that are the problem, not the choice.

The decision to use non-apple parts out of warranty is up to the consumer, not Apple. The consumer owns the phone, not apple. Anyone that argues otherwise is just being ridiculous.

There are other approaches that Apple could have taken for security and did not. I hope there is a class action suit to force Apple to unblock the phones, and pay compensation for loss of use.

The Approach Apple has taken is reprehensible.

 

[Capt T]

This is Apple telling us not to venture out of their ecosystem. In this case, if you try it your phone will be bricked. Imagine if you had to use genuine GM parts to repair your car or else your care is bricked. This scares the **** out of me.

Funny as some vehicles will lose certain functionality if you don't use genuine parts...BMW is one...

 

[Mascots]

That's fine, but Apple should then go one step further and offer a solution to all of the pepole who got screwed by this update without any warning in advance.

Now that is definitely something we can agree on! Especially since it could have just been in release notes or something.

Still, from my personal view: you are taking that risk to save the money, just because the negative isn't immediate doesn't mean your risk was any less - my friend had his phone repaired by an unauthorized dealer only to fail later because they jacked up the cables connecting his antennas. While different causes, in both of these cases it is the repairers fault: botched repair and faulty components are both faulty work.

IMO if the risk means that the person who repaired your phone won't stand by their repair, then it isn't worth it. If someone doesn't take that into consideration, it's hardly Apple's fault. Though it is the biggest slap to the face is for your phone to stop working after an update without more than a vague retroactive error - on that I totally agree sucks.

 

[gotluck]

Funny as some vehicles will lose certain functionality if you don't use genuine parts...BMW is one...

which is what apple should arguably do here, make the phone lose touchid functionality

 

[69Mustang]

Please enlighten me. What did I write that wasn't true? I'll admit to being a little sarcastic in tone, but I fail to see where the facts as presented significantly diverge.

Let's sum this up.

1. iPhone user takes phone to shadetree workshop, gets TouchID button replaced with aftermarket parts, voids warranty and current user agreement, and now owns what amounts to an insecure, hacked device. Categorizing the workshop as shadetree "shades" you narrative negatively. The guys repaired phone worked. Hacked device? Again more shading. Afaik nothing nefarious was done. The introduction of the doom and gloom came primarily from comments. Not the actual story. Introduction of the voided warranty and UA throws a red herring into the narrative that, again, wasn't relevant to the story. It's like how a magician uses misdirection to perform a trick.

2. User then connects said hacked, voided hardware to Apple and requests free software upgrade (for improved utility and security updates!), clicks 'I Agree' on user agreement that the hacked, voided hardware (by definition) violates. Did he request a free software upgrade? How exactly do you go about requesting a software upgrade? Continued use of hacked and voided furthers the magician slight of hand.

3. New software detects hacked, voided hardware, and shuts it down. Still ignores the phone was fixed and working properly.

4. User is then upset that Apple did not accommodate the violation of user agreement by writing code that provides a workaround to enable hacked, voided hardware to still function in a security-breached mode. This is the most disingenuous part. The guy was upset his repaired phone was bricked only after an update. Afaik, he didn't make any warranty claims or even mention the warranty. Seems his complaint was about not having any warning that updating the phone would brick it. Why would there be an assumption that a repaired phones that works properly would be bricked by an update?

 

[pat500000]

I think I would be mad if that happened to me. Sure, people on this forum would say, "it's to protect us..." or "security." I'm fine with that; however, if they charge a full price...yeah....sorry apple. I can understand if it's like 100 dollars...but to buy a new phone....nope.

 

[ZipZap]

It's actually great that iOS even tests for the integrity of the hardware.
If this wouldn't be the case, we'd have youtube flooded with videos of people hacking the fingerprint sensor (and the secure enclave) this way - and the media would be all over it (while pocketing a few kickback dollars from Samsung).

Yes, I can imagine it's a PITA to get an iPhone serviced somewhere in Eastern Europe.
But checking Apple's Website, there's an Authorized Service Provider in Macedonia's capital, Skopje.
It probably charges an arm and a leg for its services - but you get what you paid for.

Why does it matter. People could always open the phone and I am sure they could hack in other ways. Purposefully bricking the phone of a legal owner is a BAD choice and not one for Apple to make. Consumers choose.

How is this any different that the 4-digit code. I choose if I want one or not.

AT THE VERY LEAST!!!!

Apple should have made this very clear to consumers from the start so they can make informed decisions, or turn off the sensor.

 

[kodos]

I have been very critical of the post SJ Apple, but in this case, I think it makes total sense why this would occur. Of course, it seems like a very Microsoft style solution (Error 0x83203430 is something I cannot believe that I have to put up with in Windows). But overall, I think Apple's reasoning here is sound.

 

[dnsp]

It would help to make the home button last if it was not made with such a poor mechanical archaic system. It's really prone to be damaged either by tear and wear or by liquids.

 

[firewood]

I replace parts for my PCs, my cars, my phones with third party component all the time, I don't experience any problem.

Lucky you. MacRumors has reported deaths due to using third party iPhone chargers.

 

[ZipZap]

I think I would be mad if that happened to me. Sure, people on this forum would say, "it's to protect us..." or "security." I'm fine with that; however, if they charge a full price...yeah....sorry apple. I can understand if it's like 100 dollars...but to buy a new phone....nope.

I am fine with protections and security. I am not fine with secrets. Tell the consumer that the replacement of the sensor will brick the phone.

 

[Capt T]

Why does it matter. People could always open the phone and I am sure they could hack in other ways. Purposefully bricking the phone of a legal owner is a BAD choice and not one for Apple to make. Consumers choose.

How is this any different that the 4-digit code. I choose if I want one or not.

AT THE VERY LEAST!!!!

Apple should have made this very clear to consumers from the start so they can make informed decisions, or turn off the sensor.

Apple did not brick the phone, the part installed by a non authorized repair shop did. You take a risk when you choose to go that route. And the repair shop should have made it clear. Apple gives you a way to get their products repaired, if you as a consumer choose not to use Apple or an Authorize dealer/repair shop then it is on you, same as any product.

 

[citysnaps]

The decision to use non-apple parts out of warranty is up to the consumer, not Apple. The consumer owns the phone, not apple. Anyone that argues otherwise is just being ridiculous.

There are other approaches that Apple could have taken for security and did not. I hope there is a class action suit to force Apple to unblock the phones, and pay compensation for loss of use.

The Approach Apple has taken is reprehensible.

And with that, it is the consumer who is responsible for the choices they make with the phone that they own, not Apple. The consumer can take their phone to Apple for a responsible repair that's guaranteed to work to advertised specs.

Or they can take it to Fred's Fast Fone Fix, located between the check cashing store and the pawn shop who will use third-party unauthorized parts from who knows where, take their chances, and live with the consequences. Apple has no responsibility at that point.