If the rumors are true and Apple will eventually integrate TouchID with the touchscreen what you say is exactly what would be happening.
I can understand disabling TouchID but making the phone unusable was the wrong approach to deal with the matter.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Error 53' iPhone 6 Bricking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the rumors are true and Apple will eventually integrate TouchID with the touchscreen what you say is exactly what would be happening.
I can understand disabling TouchID but making the phone unusable was the wrong approach to deal with the matter.
True: people hardly know and care about security.
True: Apple publicly advocates a security responsibility for its buyers.
False: technical implementation by Apple is dubious. A true measure would perform the "integrity check" upon each power-on (and not after an SW update).
Linking the bricking to an iOS update fuels conspiracy theories. Btw, those theories can very well be true too.
I have read the document.
Just how does replacing the home button/biometric sesor-array, that you refer to as "screwing with the Touch ID" compromise the entire Phone's security?
Right because the EU isn't going around suing companies left and right for every minor infraction so they can get a little shakedown money. Please. Don't be so sanctimonious. If the U.S. is ruled by lawyers certainly the E.U. is ruled by bureaucrats which in my mind is absolutely no better a situation.
You mean besides being the component you use to enter your password?
So what happens in 3-5 years time when 'authorized components' are no longer made? What are you gonna do when your device has a malfunction?
You fanboys need to think long and hard over what you are arguing in favor here. Stop arguing in favor of just because it's Apple. You are arguing away your rights.
No more concerning than a situation, say, where the CPU fails whilst out of warranty.
One more warning about the touchID.
In many countries people can be forced by law to give their fingerprint. You can not be forced to give your pin.
Choose wisely how you want to unlock your phone.
In many countries people can be forced by law to give their fingerprint. You can not be forced to give your pin.
Choose wisely how you want to unlock your phone.
if i want to replace my brakes on my car or change out a part. I can go to a dealership and buy genuine parts. Apple doesn't offer parts to consumers. they have a repair monopoly on their devices. I Think there should be laws that state that companies have to provide parts so people can fix their devices out of warranty. I also think it should be against the law to glue devices shut so people cant repair them with ease. Apple could have easily put some tiny screw on the back of the iMac or used magnets like before. instead they used glue.
My take on this is rather simple. Apple does have the right to protect the integrity of their own devices. This goes without saying. That said, if Apple chooses to completely disable a device due to non-OEM parts the following must be in effect…
1) Authorised Apple Service Centres for iOS devices must meet a certain saturation in all regions your devices are sold. If I can't get a repair effected in a timely fashion because I have to send it away this type of response to a 3rd party part is unacceptable as a return time can result in weeks. I for one have nowhere I can take my iOS device… I must send it away. With a 3rd party repairer I can typically arrange a time for my repair (when I get to the front of the queue so to speak) and I can have a coffee while wait for them to do it.
2) Apple must guarantee a decent minimum time for them to be able to make an iOS device classed as "vintage". The moment a product goes into "vintage" status Apple will not fix it. Apple are doing this to products sooner and sooner it seems.
3) Something that people seem to have forgotten… Apple, you sold me this product. You didn't borrow it, rent it or otherwise. SOLD! It's no long yours to have your say over.
4) If security is in fact an issue, with Touch ID for instance, it's not like it's difficult to just disable Touch ID at which point it'll work like a standard home button. Why brick the whole device?!
5) Allow the restoring of a device to the same, non-current, OS that is currently on it. This is the step that's seemingly causing "Error 53". Why I should be forced into any iOS version beats me. This is a whole other angst I have with Apple.
While I get both sides of the argument, bricking devices is not the answer. Disabling functionality, simply being reasonable, is better route for all.
1) Authorised Apple Service Centres for iOS devices must meet a certain saturation in all regions your devices are sold. If I can't get a repair effected in a timely fashion because I have to send it away this type of response to a 3rd party part is unacceptable as a return time can result in weeks. I for one have nowhere I can take my iOS device… I must send it away. With a 3rd party repairer I can typically arrange a time for my repair (when I get to the front of the queue so to speak) and I can have a coffee while wait for them to do it.
2) Apple must guarantee a decent minimum time for them to be able to make an iOS device classed as "vintage". The moment a product goes into "vintage" status Apple will not fix it. Apple are doing this to products sooner and sooner it seems.
3) Something that people seem to have forgotten… Apple, you sold me this product. You didn't borrow it, rent it or otherwise. SOLD! It's no long yours to have your say over.
4) If security is in fact an issue, with Touch ID for instance, it's not like it's difficult to just disable Touch ID at which point it'll work like a standard home button. Why brick the whole device?!
5) Allow the restoring of a device to the same, non-current, OS that is currently on it. This is the step that's seemingly causing "Error 53". Why I should be forced into any iOS version beats me. This is a whole other angst I have with Apple.
While I get both sides of the argument, bricking devices is not the answer. Disabling functionality, simply being reasonable, is better route for all.
I'm myself owner of a vintage 2009 iMac with a bad screen. While Apple isn't allowed to actively purposefully disable your computer with a software update, the missing firmware on your (not user-serviceable) hard drive can very well cause damage Apple isn't responsible for. Without the firmware the fans might spin at full speed all the time, full-spinning fans might fail and heat might cause dark spots on the screen. Also the whole computer might stop booting, because a new hardware test failed to confirm the right firmware version. Hard drives used to be user-replaceable, but once you put a firmware on them to control fan-speed, they might as well become proprietary and as the 2009 iMac reached vintage status, a defective proprietary part means the dead of the machine.
People need to stop using cars as examples. If you try a knock of key on the first try the car was designed from the beginning to reject it. Not months later after a software update. And on top of that there are ways to buy uncut blanks from eBay and program them yourself if you have a spare. And if you lost all of your keys the car just doesn't sit for the rest if it's life bricked. Any part in a car can be fixed and replaced. Highly encrypted mobile devices cannot.
So stop with the car analogies.
That's a supposition. It's very different between replacing the part and "being at your own risk" vs replacing the part and the computer immediately (100% of the time) being DOA.
I have a 2009 iMac. I know one day it will no longer work. I'm not likely to repair it - it's pretty slow compared to my other machines but it does get the work done. But if I chose to get it repaired, I would expect that if I replace similar parts, that there's a reasonable chance I could squeak out more usage from that machine. I would not expect (nor do I think it's warranted) to replace such a part and be guaranteed my entire computer would be inoperable.
So basically I should not buy a Mac. Thanks!
Bull ****. I don't need Apple to protect me.
PCVA will lose. Error 53 only comes if they repair the device via a 3rd party and the touchID sensor is either not-approved or is not installed correctly AND then install a software update.
It's not covered under warranty because they got a new TouchID sensor installed by a 3rd party.
It's not covered under warranty because they got a new TouchID sensor installed by a 3rd party.
Okay, perhaps English is your second language?
You constantly seem to confuse terms like "MAY cause damage" or "MAY void" to mean "WILL" do so. You also confuse "SHOULD use authorized" with MUST. The first forms are allowable by law. The second demand forms are normally not.
Backwards. The phone was not damaged until it was bricked. But I can see Apple's lawyers arguing your way.
Just to be clear: the sensor doesn't access anything. It's an input device, like a mouse. Your mouse cannot access your hard drive. Nor can the sensor access the secure enclave.
The sensor simply sends fingerprint data over a serial line to the CPU, which then forwards the data to the secure enclave to look at and possibly authenticate against registered prints in its secure storage.
Sensor data -> CPU -> secure enclave -> authentication Y/N flag back to -> CPU
That's all. So no, the sensor cannot attack the rest of the phone directly. The security hole being presented is that if a evil sensor knows your real fingerprint, it can duplicate it at some other time for someone else. Of course, a much cheaper (and easier to do without being detected) fake finger also works, especially if you can follow and target someone.
I wonder if next Apple will brick laptops if you change the stock mouse or keyboard. After all, a malicious third party mouse or keyboard could remember your movements / keystrokes, and thus are also security risks.
One of the possible arguments that Apple lawyers will use. But you know what? Sometimes that which is legal is still the wrong thing to do, both from moral and PR standpoints.
Last edited:
No only that, if they did not do this, the security vulnerability created by this would likely launch another lawsuit.
I can't believe the abundance of the ignorant comments here either. The phone requires that the pin code must be entered at restart or after 48 hours. So, even if you replace the fingerprint sensor with a bogus one that allows an unauthorized fingerprint to work, it still wont allow one to bypass the pin code entry to gain access to the phone. So, your your knowledge is insufficient. Also, bricking = making it unrepairable a phone for security reasons is also illogical. You may temporarily disable it or erase the data for security reasons, but you can not physically destroy the phone. This is not Mission Impossible, come on , where is your common sense?
As you are more knowledgable than I on this - what about this kind of attack.
http://www.komando.com/happening-now/275451/the-unstoppable-usb-virus-released-to-hackers/all
Do you see any way the sensor could be tampered with to inject a virus?
Apple has touted Touch ID as a secure hardware path from the beginning. Here's the explanation straight from Apple:
Touch ID does not store any images of your fingerprint. It stores only a mathematical representation of your fingerprint. It isn't possible for your actual fingerprint image to be reverse-engineered from this mathematical representation. iPhone 5s also includes a new advanced security architecture called the Secure Enclave within the A7 chip, which was developed to protect passcode and fingerprint data. Fingerprint data is encrypted and protected with a key available only to the Secure Enclave. Fingerprint data is used only by the Secure Enclave to verify that your fingerprint matches the enrolled fingerprint data. The Secure Enclave is walled off from the rest of A7 and as well as the rest of iOS. Therefore, your fingerprint data is never accessed by iOS or other apps, never stored on Apple servers, and never backed up to iCloud or anywhere else. Only Touch ID uses it and it can't be used to match against other fingerprint databases.
I appreciate your input on this. I am nowhere near well versed enough to know for certain how these things work, but I found it far fetched when people were trying to convince me that data might be stolen through the "touch ID port". It just didn't seem to make logical sense. Your explanaton is, more or less, how I expected communications to work.