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

[OtherJesus]

Oh my god! It's extraordinary!!!!

I can't replace my Touch ID SECURITY that I enabled as a user at a third party unauthorized repair shop!

I can't believe this!!!!!!
I'm switching android yesterday!!!!11!!1

 

[Black Belt]

So do we know how many people have encountered this?

One hypothetical person

 

[GoodWheaties]

This is such a non-issue. It's clear to me that very few, if any, people in this thread have ever opened an iPhone with TouchID. The only thing that could be replaced other than the actual button sensor is a ribbon cable that goes from top to bottom ( in the 5S it's not needed). If a repair shop breaks that don't EVER use them again!!!! Seriously, if they are that incompetent they should be nowhere near your phone. As far as the sensor, again, they should know that they are linked to a specific processor and will not work otherwise.
People are acting like this will happen to all kinds of people but in reality this should only ever be an issue for one in millions (and mostly likely from nefarious activity). I've only seen one broken TouchID which was a 5S that the screen separated from the back plate (apparently a manufacturing defect) and broke the ribbon cable but in those rare cases, if you want your phone to work properly again you should make sure you find somebody with the proper equipment.

 

[Black Belt]

Honestly this is crazy. SINCE DAY ONE OF THE TOUCH ID IT'S BEEN KNOWN THAT TO ENSURE THE DEVICE REMAINS ENCRYPTED THE SECURE ENCLAVE AND TOUCH ID ARE PAIRED IN THE FACTORY.

This is BY DESIGN, discussed explicitly during the introduction specifically so that someone (authorities) couldn't just slip a modified sensor in to gain access.

The whole point of this was privacy, explicitly stated since day one of Touch ID.

Now does anyone think it's a bit funny that this "story" comes out (years after the introduction of Touch ID) at the exact same time that everyone from the states (california and New York) to the ****ing FBI are trying to ensure that the government has a way to access data as freely as they've been able to in the past?

This whole thing reeks.

You got it brother
[doublepost=1454722738][/doublepost]

Admit it, you just want to assign evil motivations to Apple.

Mac rumors allows 'baiters. When I was a mod for a bigger name, I didn't allow such obviousness.

 

[69Mustang]

Your post # 131

"In my mind, if it's about security, the replacement home button would cease to work immediately. That's security. Requiring an update to trigger the Error-53 really isn't."

If I misunderstood you then I am sorry. But the way you have it worded appears to me that you think this is not the result of a security patch.

Hypothetical here:
What if there was a potential vulnerability in 3rd party touch ID buttons or the interface they connect to that Apple overlooked, and then they silently patched it in IOS 9??? This was the point I was trying to make - that simply changing the button prior to IOS would not have triggered the Error-53 because Apple did not patch it yet until IOS 9. When the user upgraded to IOS 9 (with presumed patch), and the new code in IOS 9 detected invalid hardware, it caused the bricking.

Anyways, I do not wish to argue this any further and again if I misunderstood you then I am sorry.

Dude no need to apologize. I've misinterpreted more comments than I've gotten right.

That quote is about my opinion of what "security" means in a general sense. As in, if E-53 is a security feature and it can be circumvented by simply not updating the phone, it's not really a security feature. E-53 detecting unauthorized hardware and shutting down the phone on power up is more in line with my idea of security. That's not about Apple.

As to your hypothetical. That would require a lot of supposition for me to answer. It's kind of hard to do since we would both be essentially creating evidence to support a theory we made up. Our answers could be a long way away from reality.

 

[MadDane]

I had the screen on my iPhone 6 replaced by Apple under warranty due to the backlight starting to dail. I originally bought the iPhone in the US, and got the screen replaced in Japan. Apparently due to different versions of the same hardware, a screen for the Japanese iPhones (with the Touch ID) does not work with an American iPhone. So despite Apple exchanging the screen for me, I still got the 'Error 53' when restoring in iTunes. Apple knew that before handing it back to me, so I got a full replacement phone a week later (they had to special order it since it was not a Japanese phone).

 

[apolloa]

It's one thing to block touch ID access and it's related systems, it's quite another to totally block a person's device THEY own with NO way to recover the data or even simply change the third party touch ID sensor for a genuine part.

Sure it protects your data and benefits Apple entirely because they force you to buy a new phone AND lose your data if it's not backed up.

Seems a sledgehammer solution to an egg problem making you pay for not using Apple to fix your phone.

 

[NT1440]

It's one thing to block touch ID access and it's related systems, it's quite another to totally block a person's device THEY own with NO way to recover the data or even simply change the third party touch ID sensor for a genuine part.

Sure it protects your data and benefits Apple entirely because they force you to buy a new phone AND lose your data.

This poster doesn't understand full system encryption.....

 

[apolloa]

This poster doesn't understand full system encryption.....

This poster does, perhaps you could explain otherwise?

Actually as you put yourself across as being a genius at this, you can tell me, does Apple place in it's licensing agreement you accept for iOS9 that it has the right to permanently block your device and make it's data totally unrecoverable and their is no way to repair the device if you use third party parts?

 

[LovingTeddy]

Honestly this is crazy. SINCE DAY ONE OF THE TOUCH ID IT'S BEEN KNOWN THAT TO ENSURE THE DEVICE REMAINS ENCRYPTED THE SECURE ENCLAVE AND TOUCH ID ARE PAIRED IN THE FACTORY.

This is BY DESIGN, discussed explicitly during the introduction specifically so that someone (authorities) couldn't just slip a modified sensor in to gain access.

The whole point of this was privacy, explicitly stated since day one of Touch ID.

Now does anyone think it's a bit funny that this "story" comes out (years after the introduction of Touch ID) at the exact same time that everyone from the states (california and New York) to the ****ing FBI are trying to ensure that the government has a way to access data as freely as they've been able to in the past?

This whole thing reeks.

It is clearly not by design... If it is by desgin, it must be the biggest failure of by design.

Tell me why, if it is by design, the phone worked perfectly then bricked by software update? If it is by design, why take several months then brick the phone? Why not immediately?

Let's see, if the design is this: if you enter your password wrong more than ten times, the phone will brick. This is to "protect your privacy". Now if I entered the password wrong ten times, but the phone still functioning, then bricked 9 month later. Can you say it is successful design?

This is not by design...It is Apple's way to grab more money.

 

[usarioclave]

You've just proven my point. You isolate and remedy, not throw out the baby with the bath water. Which is what Apple is doing in this instance, and getting applauded for it by some.

Well, maybe that's what they'll do in a future update. I expect that whomever gave the green light for this had no idea that it would actually get triggered and that fast-fail is the best course of action. I would probably have agreed.

Will Apple ever have the ability to isolate exactly which component is bad/unauthorized? Possibly. But if they use all the various parts of the device as the device encryption seed, then everyone's SOL.

 

[macs4nw]

This is actually a good thing. However, people will still be mad.

Agreed on both counts. For ApplePay to have authoritative clout through unassailable security, the integrity of the handset's components was going to be absolutely essential, and it's certainly reassuring Apple has gone to such seemingly 'extreme' lengths to safeguard the integrity of the secure enclave; they obviously realized for ApplePay to become an absolutely foolproof means of payment, 'extreme' measures would be no 'overkill' luxury, but rather of paramount importance.

Though inconvenient and maddeningly annoying, those affected by "error 53" should keep that in mind. Having to replace possibly corrupt third-party components has got to be better than having one's accounts compromised.

Having said that, Apple should do all it can to ensure their authorized resellers only stock and use genuine replacement parts. After all not everyone is within reasonable distance of a genius bar.

 

[NT1440]

This poster does, perhaps you could explain otherwise?

What system would you put in place, how in the world would a security solution that only blocks touchID access but still grants access to to the phone? What sense does that make? Apple designed the OS and touch ID to require the PIN at startup (to decrypt the device) and then touchID as a shortcut afterwards.

What system are you suggesting that's a better solution? I really don't get you can make the claim "
#482
It's one thing to block touch ID access and it's related systems, it's quite another to totally block a person's device THEY own with NO way to recover the data"

Are you suggesting they redesign the security paradigm of iOS so that for some reason you can get data off the device but only disable touch ID? What in god's name would the point of this be?

 

[apolloa]

What system would you put in place, how in the world would a security solution that only blocks touchID access but still grants access to to the phone? What sense does that make? Apple designed the OS and touch ID to require the PIN at startup (to decrypt the device) and then touchID as a shortcut afterwards.

What system are you suggesting that's a better solution? I really don't get you can make the claim "
#482
It's one thing to block touch ID access and it's related systems, it's quite another to totally block a person's device THEY own with NO way to recover the data"

Are you suggesting they redesign the security paradigm of iOS so that for some reason you can get data off the device but only disable touch ID? What in god's name would the point of this be?

Well, considering the error code and lock out happens when a third party screen is fitted, I call utter BS on this being ANYTHING to do with security and everything to do with increasing Apples ever bloated bottom line.

And tell me, IS this in the license agreement for iOS9?
Sure you can block device, but they should should not then simply state tough s*** you have now lost all your date and your phone is permanently locked and we will not unlock it so buy a new one!
That is utterly unacceptable. They should have in place a method to reverse the lock.

Not force you to buy a new phone:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...e-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair

They carried on using the phone, but when they tried to install iOS 9 in November “error 53” popped up. “The error hasn’t occurred because I broke my phone (it was working fine for 10 months). I lost all my data because of this error. I don’t want Apple to fix my screen or anything! I just want them to fix the ‘error 53’ so I can use my phone, but they won’t!”

 

[JimmyHook]

This is actually a good security precaution

 

[rdlink]

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.

Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something is either secure, or it's not.

"Buddy, I realize that my drivers license picture doesn't match my face. But it's me. Trust me. You can sell me this beer."

 

[GoodWheaties]

So you saying that if I break into a car and replace the ignition with a one I have, I could just start the car and drive away??

Actually I heard that recent BMWs were being stolen because of something similar to that. They could reprogram something behind the glovebox or something. Kinda crazy

 

[NT1440]

Well, considering the error code and lock out happens when a third party screen is fitted, I call utter BS on this being ANYTHING to do with security and everything to do with increasing Apples ever bloated bottom line.

And tell me, IS this in the license agreement for iOS9?
Sure you can block device, but they should should not then simply state tough s*** you have now lost all your date and your phone is permanently locked and we will not unlock it so buy a new one!
That is utterly unacceptable. They should have in place a method to reverse the lock.

7.4 APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE iOS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN, OR SERVICES PERFORMED OR PROVIDED BY, THE iOS SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE iOS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, THAT ANY SERVICE WILL CONTINUE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, THAT DEFECTS IN THE iOS SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE iOS SOFTWARE WILL BE COMPATIBLE OR WORK WITH ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS OR THIRD PARTY SERVICES. INSTALLATION OF THIS iOS SOFTWARE MAY AFFECT THE AVAILABILITY AND USABILITY OF THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS OR THIRD PARTY SERVICES, AS WELL AS APPLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

From the the hardware warranty:

(f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (g) to an Apple Product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple;

How people can bitch about getting their phone broken by using third party parts....I don't really know what to tell you. A phone is not a car, generic parts should not be trusted.

 

[apolloa]

7.4 APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE iOS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN, OR SERVICES PERFORMED OR PROVIDED BY, THE iOS SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE iOS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, THAT ANY SERVICE WILL CONTINUE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, THAT DEFECTS IN THE iOS SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE iOS SOFTWARE WILL BE COMPATIBLE OR WORK WITH ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS OR THIRD PARTY SERVICES. INSTALLATION OF THIS iOS SOFTWARE MAY AFFECT THE AVAILABILITY AND USABILITY OF THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS OR THIRD PARTY SERVICES, AS WELL AS APPLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

From the the hardware warranty:

(f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (g) to an Apple Product that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple;

How people can bitch about getting their phone broken by using third party parts....I don't really know what to tell you. A phone is not a car, generic parts should not be trusted.

Hmm the first part possible covers them, possibly. It's very loosely worded.

And if Apple are locking out your phone in an irreversible way when just the screen is replaced with a third party part and the touch ID sensor and cable are the original part, it can be seen in the EU as anti-competitive behaviour, because all it is doing is forcing you to go to Apple only repair centres.

 

[iMacC2D]

Removed.

 

[Alain W]

Wrong! Not when it involves the fingerprint scanner and it's attachment to the secure enclave. Without this security, anyone could hack an iPhone by replacing the sensor. Think!

If you really believe a thief is going to:
1 - steal your phone,
2 - replace the home button with his own special button with some kind of trojan piece of unheard-of-software and then,
3- return the phone to you and then somehow get your data later or something...
if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale, real cheap....

Apple will be forced to back down on this one, because it affects consumer rights.

 

[LovingTeddy]

Hmm the first part possible covers them, possibly. It's very loosely worded.

And if Apple are locking out your phone in an irreversible way when just the screen is replaced with a third party part and the touch ID sensor and cable are the original part, it can be seen in the EU as anti-competitive behaviour, because all it is doing is forcing you to go to Apple only repair centres.

You would then need prove Apple intetionally lock customer in their repaire service. Which is very hard to do. All Apple need to do is counter your argument by saying it is to protect user's privacy.

Nope! If a device contains a third party component, Apple service locations have to deny service to that product - even paid out-of-warranty service. The authorised repairer isn't allowed to touch it. The only solution is for the customer to buy a new phone.

Exactly. I had Apple refuse service my Mac Mini because I had Samsung SDD and Kingston 2x4GB RAM... Apple ask me to install original hard drive and RAM..

 

[I7guy]

If Apple intentionally bricks a device that is required to be useful for 911 calls is that OK?

Scenario. User B suffers severe chest pains and shortness of breath immediately after installing iOS update. Error 53 is displayed on the screen when his body is found.

This is good for Apple?

You only quoted part of what I wrote; did you read past the first paragraph?

so let's say user b drops the phone and the screen shatters due to stress of chest pain. Phone is inoperable. I mean we can make up any scenario to fit the point.

 

[gotluck]

This can happen when users simply have a problem with their touchid sensor couldn't it? even with no repair from a third party vendor

Basically if your touchid component breaks you have a bricked phone

When my 3 year old 6s touchid sensor breaks I would probably not care and would want to just use a passcode. Seems like that situation is not possible I would be required to have apple repair it to continue using the device in any way

Pretty lame for a part that is a physical button and has a history of breaking

 

[SusanK]

You only quoted part of what I wrote; did you read past the first paragraph?

so let's say user b drops the phone and the screen shatters due to stress of chest pain. Phone is inoperable. I mean we can make up any scenario to fit the point.

Dropping phone, discharging battery, liquid damage is outside of Apple's control. Intentional bricking with iOS update is not.