4 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the guy, but I still don't really see this as a big deal. There's not a ton of space in a modern smartphone, so it seems entirely plausible t

I'm sympathetic to the guy, but I still don't really see this as a big deal. There's not a ton of space in a modern smartphone, so it seems entirely plausible that some legitimate design change or manufacturing difficulty caused the signed components to get moved to the screen. (He says it's not purely a new limitation, which would be more questionable - the cable which was previously cryptographically paired now is not.)

KingMachiavelli 5y ago
Maybe but why can't the end user simply be tasked with accepting the new screen signature? That's how GPG, Secure boot, etc. all work. You just have a persistent list of trusted signatures.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Because not allowing customers the opportunity for competence or independence increases the amount of money Apple can extract. The walls in the garden only ever get higher.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Because now you can defeat the security on a stolen phone by replacing the screen and clicking "yes".
  - alpaca128 5y ago
    Every biometric system on phones also forces the user to set a password/pin as fallback. So no, you cannot just gain entry into a stolen phone like that. Any phone that lets you just circumvent security by removing a part wasn't secure in the first place.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Majority of users are not in the position to understand what a signature is and whether they should accept it or not. So everyone will just click "Approve" in order to get their phone back. In which case what is the point of even having trusted signatures at all ?
  - malka 5y ago
    "We detect that your phone screen has just been changed. Is this expected ?" with a "yes", "no" buttons for answers. Pretty sure this is understandable.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      So what happens if you click “no”?
      - uuidgen 5y ago
        "It is possible someone tampered with your phone to gain unauthorized entry","Please contact apple-authorized support".
    - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
      How do you deal with a rouge parts supplier, phone store, phone store employee, etc?
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        I know this joke! Stop telling them embarrassing stories? I’m sure you meant rogue though. Yes, in theory it might be a problem. In practice any supply chain that resulted in a significant issue like this would be easily prosecuted so let wetware systems handle the things they’re better suited to.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    If your role is to protect data you could always require an OS reinstall before the new part becomes functional, removing any incentive from replacing parts to gain access to a user's existing data. But the entire assumption that parts are restricted for security reasons is flawed. "Security" is done in the main SoC, the peripherals such as Face ID/Touch ID sensors should just be dumb input devices providing the face/fingerprint data to the SoC which authenticates them. There is absolutely no reason why those should be part of the chain of trust.
eric__cartman 5y ago
If Apple had the user's best interests in mind they could implement a system where if the device detects any component has been tampered with, the user will be alerted during the first boot up and it will require the user to manually activate the new touch id sensor. That way if you get that message without knowledge of your display being replaced you could be wary of someone trying to break into your phone without sacrificing repairability.
- Closi 5y ago
  Funnily enough if your front camera stops working your whole phone stops working with the current setup. I went to an iPhone repair shop because my phone was boot-cycling and the repair guy basically said “yep, that’s a faulty front facing camera, stops it booting”. Then he unplugged it and the phone was able to turn on. At this stage he could even plug the camera back in and it worked… so I’m assuming it was actually an issue with the faceID signing process at boot that bricked my iPhone. The repair guy said it was really common. He could replace everything except Face ID on the device which was a big shame as it killed the resale value (he could replace the earpiece/camera module with one that didn’t have faceID which is presumably to avoid issues with signing).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Seems like a tiny chip that delayed power (or held the camera’s RESET line high) for a few seconds after boot would solve this. Maybe someone will make a flex cable that has it all integrated.
    - Closi 5y ago
      Sorry, I mean it all worked except for FaceID which remained non-working. So the phone boot cycles if the cable is in, but if you take it out and then insert it back during boot the front camera and front speaker work but not FaceID.

KingMachiavelli 5y ago

Maybe but why can't the end user simply be tasked with accepting the new screen signature? That's how GPG, Secure boot, etc. all work. You just have a persistent list of trusted signatures.

robbedpeter 5y ago
Because not allowing customers the opportunity for competence or independence increases the amount of money Apple can extract. The walls in the garden only ever get higher.
user-the-name 5y ago
Because now you can defeat the security on a stolen phone by replacing the screen and clicking "yes".
- alpaca128 5y ago
  Every biometric system on phones also forces the user to set a password/pin as fallback. So no, you cannot just gain entry into a stolen phone like that. Any phone that lets you just circumvent security by removing a part wasn't secure in the first place.
threeseed 5y ago
Majority of users are not in the position to understand what a signature is and whether they should accept it or not. So everyone will just click "Approve" in order to get their phone back. In which case what is the point of even having trusted signatures at all ?
- malka 5y ago
  "We detect that your phone screen has just been changed. Is this expected ?" with a "yes", "no" buttons for answers. Pretty sure this is understandable.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    So what happens if you click “no”?
    - uuidgen 5y ago
      "It is possible someone tampered with your phone to gain unauthorized entry","Please contact apple-authorized support".
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    How do you deal with a rouge parts supplier, phone store, phone store employee, etc?
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      I know this joke! Stop telling them embarrassing stories? I’m sure you meant rogue though. Yes, in theory it might be a problem. In practice any supply chain that resulted in a significant issue like this would be easily prosecuted so let wetware systems handle the things they’re better suited to.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  If your role is to protect data you could always require an OS reinstall before the new part becomes functional, removing any incentive from replacing parts to gain access to a user's existing data. But the entire assumption that parts are restricted for security reasons is flawed. "Security" is done in the main SoC, the peripherals such as Face ID/Touch ID sensors should just be dumb input devices providing the face/fingerprint data to the SoC which authenticates them. There is absolutely no reason why those should be part of the chain of trust.

eric__cartman 5y ago

If Apple had the user's best interests in mind they could implement a system where if the device detects any component has been tampered with, the user will be alerted during the first boot up and it will require the user to manually activate the new touch id sensor. That way if you get that message without knowledge of your display being replaced you could be wary of someone trying to break into your phone without sacrificing repairability.

Closi 5y ago
Funnily enough if your front camera stops working your whole phone stops working with the current setup. I went to an iPhone repair shop because my phone was boot-cycling and the repair guy basically said “yep, that’s a faulty front facing camera, stops it booting”. Then he unplugged it and the phone was able to turn on. At this stage he could even plug the camera back in and it worked… so I’m assuming it was actually an issue with the faceID signing process at boot that bricked my iPhone. The repair guy said it was really common. He could replace everything except Face ID on the device which was a big shame as it killed the resale value (he could replace the earpiece/camera module with one that didn’t have faceID which is presumably to avoid issues with signing).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Seems like a tiny chip that delayed power (or held the camera’s RESET line high) for a few seconds after boot would solve this. Maybe someone will make a flex cable that has it all integrated.
  - Closi 5y ago
    Sorry, I mean it all worked except for FaceID which remained non-working. So the phone boot cycles if the cable is in, but if you take it out and then insert it back during boot the front camera and front speaker work but not FaceID.