3 ms·

It would have been trivial for Apple to sign the batteries as genuine instead they tie it to a specific serial number. The level of effort to those two solutio

It would have been trivial for Apple to sign the batteries as genuine instead they tie it to a specific serial number. The level of effort to those two solutions is very similar. The decision of which to do is a business decision.

zepto 5y ago
The signature would just be cloned.
- parineum 5y ago
  Are you familiar with private keys?
  - drdeca 5y ago
    Elaborate. What is preventing copying the same exact message, with the same exact signature? If the message is the same, the signature should still be valid for the message, even if one cannot produce a valid signature for any other message. Is there a reason the same message wouldn’t work?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Yes. Because there is nothing unique about batteries, there is no way to defend against a replay attack in this scenario.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    Are folks here just so anti-apple that they make up these "easy" solutions (which of course are totally bogus)? Please explain how private keys resolve this issue (knowing that scammers will be a) getting access to lots of existing dying batteries and b) may even buy and return new phones to pull out their genuine batteries.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Are folks here just so anti-apple that they make up these "easy" solutions I think it’s the other way around. People in general underestimate how complex technical solutions actually are, and this leads to attributing malice to those who appear to be withholding those simple solutions. In many ways it’s a manifestation of the ‘fundamental attribution error’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error I don’t think this is specific to Apple, it’s just a general cognitive bias.
      - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
        Interesting - this is a pretty well studied issue in printer market - absent the pairing process can often just move hardware attest to a new cartridge.

zepto 5y ago

The signature would just be cloned.

parineum 5y ago
Are you familiar with private keys?
- drdeca 5y ago
  Elaborate. What is preventing copying the same exact message, with the same exact signature? If the message is the same, the signature should still be valid for the message, even if one cannot produce a valid signature for any other message. Is there a reason the same message wouldn’t work?
- zepto 5y ago
  Yes. Because there is nothing unique about batteries, there is no way to defend against a replay attack in this scenario.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Are folks here just so anti-apple that they make up these "easy" solutions (which of course are totally bogus)? Please explain how private keys resolve this issue (knowing that scammers will be a) getting access to lots of existing dying batteries and b) may even buy and return new phones to pull out their genuine batteries.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Are folks here just so anti-apple that they make up these "easy" solutions I think it’s the other way around. People in general underestimate how complex technical solutions actually are, and this leads to attributing malice to those who appear to be withholding those simple solutions. In many ways it’s a manifestation of the ‘fundamental attribution error’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error I don’t think this is specific to Apple, it’s just a general cognitive bias.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      Interesting - this is a pretty well studied issue in printer market - absent the pairing process can often just move hardware attest to a new cartridge.