4 ms·

I can recommend that iPhone video he links to[1]. It shows the switching of the mainboard between two identical Apple phones and goes through all the somewhat s

I can recommend that iPhone video he links to[1]. It shows the switching of the mainboard between two identical Apple phones and goes through all the somewhat surprising consequences, including them both claiming not to be using genuine Apple hardware anymore. 1. https://youtu.be/8s7NmMl_-yg https://youtu.be/8s7NmMl_-yg

mettamage 5y ago
How is this legal? This should be illegal.
- criddell 5y ago
  It's like that to protect consumers. If you want your phone to have cryptographic integrity, then all the parts have to share keys. Otherwise, if the police wanted to look inside your phone, they could easily bypass all the cryptography with a custom part that either extracts the keys from the other components or disables encryption entirely. It's an unfortunately consequence of a secure device.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Sounds like terrible design if that's necessary. Also absurd that the owner can't re-sign hardware given that they should have a master key.
    - throwaway2048 5y ago
      Its not necessary, its just a smokescreen apple can use to shut out third party repairs.
    - criddell 5y ago
      All designs are trade-offs. The number of people that want to swap a logic board is pretty tiny. It would probably be pretty hard to justify the extra expanse based on customer benefit. Apple seems to know what they are doing considering how happy their customers are.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        > The number of people that want to swap a logic board is pretty tiny. You misunderstand the implications of the video. It means you can't replace most of the parts. Swapping the mainboard is the same thing as swapping all the parts at the same time. What this means is that this phone is not repairable. Everyone wants to be able repair their phones. The design is foolish from a security and ownership standpoint if it iss as you say it is and, yeah, the trade off to that is that you can't repair it, which as the video accuses may be the primary purpose of using the foolish design.
        criddell 5y ago
        > Everyone wants to be able repair their phones. Sure, as long as they don't give up any security, as long as the price doesn't change, as long as the phone doesn't get thicker, etc... > may be the primary purpose of using the foolish design If Apple is so terrible at making phones, I expect their competitors to make them irrelevant any day now.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        That they could be significantly better does not mean that they are terrible. It's not necessary to sacrifice security, as I explained earlier.
        mmu_man 5y ago
        Indeed, this level of security is mostly needed for a very small percent of the user base, those concerned with being spyed upon. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be address, but then repairability concerns many more people directly (and their pocket). There were other ways to achieve the same goal if it was solely for privacy.
        criddell 5y ago
        For the people who need that security, it's often over something that could get them physically harmed or even killed. For example, there are a lot of places where simply being part of a homosexual relationship could mean death if discovered. I don't mind paying a little bit more if it means people living under certain regimes have a better chance at survival.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    > It's an unfortunately consequence of a secure device. No, that's bullshit, and it saddens me that on the day where everyone is finally coming up to learn that not only Google is evil but that even the stuff Google does "in the name of privacy" is still evil, people still give Apple a free pass for the very same shady behavior. I can think of a million ways to make this "cryptographic integrity" that do not have the side effect of making repair impossible. For example, and even the video author mentions it, why not allow "pairing" the motherboard with the new components after a secure wipe of the data? And that's just the first obvious thing. But even if it was completely impossible to do this "cryptographic integrity" without impacting repairability (which it isn't), which of these scenarios do you think worries the average iPhone customer more: an evil-maid replaces the $300 screen on their iPhone with a compromised one in order to get to their passcode; or: Apple trying to charge $800 in order to repair the same $300 screen which their toddler broke ? Let's not give these companies a pass on their obviously anti-competitive behavior just because they claim to do in the name of "privacy" or "security".

mettamage 5y ago

How is this legal? This should be illegal.

criddell 5y ago
It's like that to protect consumers. If you want your phone to have cryptographic integrity, then all the parts have to share keys. Otherwise, if the police wanted to look inside your phone, they could easily bypass all the cryptography with a custom part that either extracts the keys from the other components or disables encryption entirely. It's an unfortunately consequence of a secure device.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Sounds like terrible design if that's necessary. Also absurd that the owner can't re-sign hardware given that they should have a master key.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    Its not necessary, its just a smokescreen apple can use to shut out third party repairs.
  - criddell 5y ago
    All designs are trade-offs. The number of people that want to swap a logic board is pretty tiny. It would probably be pretty hard to justify the extra expanse based on customer benefit. Apple seems to know what they are doing considering how happy their customers are.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      > The number of people that want to swap a logic board is pretty tiny. You misunderstand the implications of the video. It means you can't replace most of the parts. Swapping the mainboard is the same thing as swapping all the parts at the same time. What this means is that this phone is not repairable. Everyone wants to be able repair their phones. The design is foolish from a security and ownership standpoint if it iss as you say it is and, yeah, the trade off to that is that you can't repair it, which as the video accuses may be the primary purpose of using the foolish design.
      - criddell 5y ago
        > Everyone wants to be able repair their phones. Sure, as long as they don't give up any security, as long as the price doesn't change, as long as the phone doesn't get thicker, etc... > may be the primary purpose of using the foolish design If Apple is so terrible at making phones, I expect their competitors to make them irrelevant any day now.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        That they could be significantly better does not mean that they are terrible. It's not necessary to sacrifice security, as I explained earlier.
        mmu_man 5y ago
        Indeed, this level of security is mostly needed for a very small percent of the user base, those concerned with being spyed upon. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be address, but then repairability concerns many more people directly (and their pocket). There were other ways to achieve the same goal if it was solely for privacy.
        criddell 5y ago
        For the people who need that security, it's often over something that could get them physically harmed or even killed. For example, there are a lot of places where simply being part of a homosexual relationship could mean death if discovered. I don't mind paying a little bit more if it means people living under certain regimes have a better chance at survival.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > It's an unfortunately consequence of a secure device. No, that's bullshit, and it saddens me that on the day where everyone is finally coming up to learn that not only Google is evil but that even the stuff Google does "in the name of privacy" is still evil, people still give Apple a free pass for the very same shady behavior. I can think of a million ways to make this "cryptographic integrity" that do not have the side effect of making repair impossible. For example, and even the video author mentions it, why not allow "pairing" the motherboard with the new components after a secure wipe of the data? And that's just the first obvious thing. But even if it was completely impossible to do this "cryptographic integrity" without impacting repairability (which it isn't), which of these scenarios do you think worries the average iPhone customer more: an evil-maid replaces the $300 screen on their iPhone with a compromised one in order to get to their passcode; or: Apple trying to charge $800 in order to repair the same $300 screen which their toddler broke ? Let's not give these companies a pass on their obviously anti-competitive behavior just because they claim to do in the name of "privacy" or "security".