5 ms·

I'm having a very hard time following your logic: Apple charges lots of money on commodity parts because they don't want users getting, as you say, "f'ed over"

I'm having a very hard time following your logic: Apple charges lots of money on commodity parts because they don't want users getting, as you say, "f'ed over" There is a healthy after market ecosystem primarily because apple charges so much. Not the other way around. Furthermore, in the video on the ifixit site, the blogger replaced the battery with a genuine secondhand apple battery and it would not recognize it. This is predatory behaviour from Apple on its consumers.

privateSFacct 7y ago
I think we are seeing the predatory behavior of scammers here. For example, you are claiming that just attaching a chip from an old apple battery to a new one should read as genuine in the phone. That is a total scam. The detection feature is tied to a chip, not to the cell chemistry itself. If chips from old iphone batteries are all it takes to show a scam battery is genuine, given the high volume of old batteries, EVERY scam battery would show as genuine. This is a workaround already used and well known in other situations. To avoid this workaround you need to tie a specific chip in, not just any apple chip in. Seriously - how do YOU propose apple alert the user to a bogus third party battery.
- gsich 7y ago
  Show a warning, click ignore and be happy. Display battery information regardless.
  - 14 7y ago
    This. I bought a second hand phone off some guy who does phone repairs in my area. Didn't realize the fingerprint reader did not work until a few days later as I had never owned a phone that new that had one and did not know it was supposed to work. When I looked on the internet it seemed that the reason was the home button was swapped out but without taking the chip that ties it to the phone with it from the old button. Asked the seller and he admitted that the home button was swapped, poorly at that. I still can not use the home button to unlock even though the phone is not stolen and I own it. So I personally am not a big fan of apple locking parts down. I personally had an iphone 4s up until half a year ago. I still have it I just happened to get an iphone 6. But my iphone 4s I have put at least 4 screens on it, a new battery, a new set of speakers and a power button. I laugh at the amount of work I have done on it. It is my Theseus iPhone :)
    - rgovostes 7y ago
      To phrase this another way: a third party made some modification to the biometrics sensor that is used to control access to your private data, including all of your device’s encryption keys, stored passwords, and payment information. The phone detected this tampering and disabled the compromised component. And you are disappointed that the part has been “locked down”.
      - 14 7y ago
        That is not how I would rephrase it. And that is simply not true what you claim. Simply replacing the fingerprint scanner does not allow any access. The moment the phone is off the phone will require a password entered manually. Unless you suggest an actor can replace a home button all while not powering down the phone and I suppose that is possible but that to me would seem state level actor and they probably have other ways. So no there doesn’t seem to be a threat to my data if the fingerprint sensor is replaced. It would still require my password upon restart and if I failed to provide it at that point then sure good move Apple. The fact is they know they can force people like me, or people who’s home button is actually broken into their store if they want that magic button. Don’t kid yourself that they are doing this in the name of my security. But thank you for actually commenting I wish more people here on HN would justify their down votes with some conversation on the subjects. Edit: I realize that perhaps someone could swap the button without my knowledge and upon me restarting it I would enter my password and the phone is compromised. But in all honesty who falls under that threat model? Apple simply could notify you of the change and allow you to accept the risk. That’s all it would take.
        rgovostes 7y ago
        One possible attack would be to replace the sensor with one that records the fingerprint the next time you authenticate. And then in the future it could “replay” the fingerprint image to the SEP (secure coprocessor). If it were really Apple’s intention to prevent you from servicing your device, would they only disable the Touch ID sensor? Why wouldn’t they make the whole device inoperable, rather than make you suffer a minor inconvenience by having to use a passcode? The less exciting answer is that the sensor was designed to certain security parameters and modifying it invalidates those. Yes, the threat model includes nation-state actors. Disabling the sensor preserves system security; designing for a potentially adversarial sensor is difficult and increases risk.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

privateSFacct 7y ago

I think we are seeing the predatory behavior of scammers here. For example, you are claiming that just attaching a chip from an old apple battery to a new one should read as genuine in the phone. That is a total scam. The detection feature is tied to a chip, not to the cell chemistry itself. If chips from old iphone batteries are all it takes to show a scam battery is genuine, given the high volume of old batteries, EVERY scam battery would show as genuine. This is a workaround already used and well known in other situations. To avoid this workaround you need to tie a specific chip in, not just any apple chip in. Seriously - how do YOU propose apple alert the user to a bogus third party battery.

gsich 7y ago
Show a warning, click ignore and be happy. Display battery information regardless.
- 14 7y ago
  This. I bought a second hand phone off some guy who does phone repairs in my area. Didn't realize the fingerprint reader did not work until a few days later as I had never owned a phone that new that had one and did not know it was supposed to work. When I looked on the internet it seemed that the reason was the home button was swapped out but without taking the chip that ties it to the phone with it from the old button. Asked the seller and he admitted that the home button was swapped, poorly at that. I still can not use the home button to unlock even though the phone is not stolen and I own it. So I personally am not a big fan of apple locking parts down. I personally had an iphone 4s up until half a year ago. I still have it I just happened to get an iphone 6. But my iphone 4s I have put at least 4 screens on it, a new battery, a new set of speakers and a power button. I laugh at the amount of work I have done on it. It is my Theseus iPhone :)
  - rgovostes 7y ago
    To phrase this another way: a third party made some modification to the biometrics sensor that is used to control access to your private data, including all of your device’s encryption keys, stored passwords, and payment information. The phone detected this tampering and disabled the compromised component. And you are disappointed that the part has been “locked down”.
    - 14 7y ago
      That is not how I would rephrase it. And that is simply not true what you claim. Simply replacing the fingerprint scanner does not allow any access. The moment the phone is off the phone will require a password entered manually. Unless you suggest an actor can replace a home button all while not powering down the phone and I suppose that is possible but that to me would seem state level actor and they probably have other ways. So no there doesn’t seem to be a threat to my data if the fingerprint sensor is replaced. It would still require my password upon restart and if I failed to provide it at that point then sure good move Apple. The fact is they know they can force people like me, or people who’s home button is actually broken into their store if they want that magic button. Don’t kid yourself that they are doing this in the name of my security. But thank you for actually commenting I wish more people here on HN would justify their down votes with some conversation on the subjects. Edit: I realize that perhaps someone could swap the button without my knowledge and upon me restarting it I would enter my password and the phone is compromised. But in all honesty who falls under that threat model? Apple simply could notify you of the change and allow you to accept the risk. That’s all it would take.
      - rgovostes 7y ago
        One possible attack would be to replace the sensor with one that records the fingerprint the next time you authenticate. And then in the future it could “replay” the fingerprint image to the SEP (secure coprocessor). If it were really Apple’s intention to prevent you from servicing your device, would they only disable the Touch ID sensor? Why wouldn’t they make the whole device inoperable, rather than make you suffer a minor inconvenience by having to use a passcode? The less exciting answer is that the sensor was designed to certain security parameters and modifying it invalidates those. Yes, the threat model includes nation-state actors. Disabling the sensor preserves system security; designing for a potentially adversarial sensor is difficult and increases risk.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]