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.
Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"then said authorized stores were NOT DOING THE REPAIRS CORRECTLY OR WITH AUTHORIZED PARTS..."
Don't know how things are in the EU, but a manufacturer in the US cannot withhold OEM parts from 3rd party shops if those parts are the only way to repair the phone.
Don't know how things are in the EU, but a manufacturer in the US cannot withhold OEM parts from 3rd party shops if those parts are the only way to repair the phone.
By skimming thins thread I'm actually more surprised at how many people believe that they will void their vehicle warranty if they don't go to the dealership for repairs/service lol
This was made public knowledge by people realizing their phones no longer worked and that the thing they had in common were third party repairs. Apple can't stop the hackers. This sin't even slowing them down. What this has done is screwed over folks who thought they were getting their devices repaired, now they have a bricked device that Apple will likely even refuse to touch due to it having been worked on somewhere else.
There are measures you can go through for security. These are not them. And I'll remind you that some are receiving a similar error just for a screen replacement. vut if we are stuck on touch ID security, how hard would it be to pop that error up and wanr the user an unauthoirzied touch ID sensor has been installed and therefore that feature can not continue to be used? We can all turn touch ID off. I am sure that people who had their buttons replaced that are seeing this message would much rather have the OS disable the sensor than their entire darn phone!
That was my point. Apple is doing this WRONG. Especially if they say it's done for security.
[doublepost=1454974568][/doublepost]
I read that too, but my guess is that the people that are replacing the screen might also be disturbing, or removing the Touch ID cable, hence the Error 53. I'm just guessing here though...
It's been discussed at another website (http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...suit-over-iphones-touch-id-connected-error-53) that the law firm is referencing this forum thread. The law firm on it's facebook page talks about this thread.
I could be wrong, but my thought isn't so much that a malicious Touch ID sensor would allow access to the phone, but that a device emulating a Touch ID could get information from the phone. So disabling the Touch ID and still allowing for passcode, might still allow the secure enclave to be accessed from the fake Touch ID sensor. Again, I could be wrong, but I'm thinking thats what Apple is more worried about.
I apologise for my last post....bit tired and tetchy....shall we start again?
No more analogy posts I promise!
Reminds me of the (probably misquoting here) quote. "They who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Apple would love nothing more than to be the only entitiy that services their hardware 100% of the time. That's not to say that's the driving force behind this, but it is certainly a convenience.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." There's a reason why Apple is sitting on a giant pile of cash. This thread makes it self-evident.
This is a terrible analogy. No other words need to be spoken, as I'm sure others have responded to this nonsense already.
I am not sure we have any reason to think this. Disabling touch ID completely deactivates the home button as serving as anything other than a tactile button. If it does not, that's completely on Apple and the better way to fix this is to make the button function as such. Touch ID inactive? Cool. That button is now like a button from the original iPhone all the way through iPhone 5.
Sorry, I didn't realize that you had not been following this topic in other threads, where I (and later, others) pointed out the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.... an important law which apparently many (probably mostly young) people in the US are totally unaware of.
In short, a manufacturer of a consumer item cannot require that you only use their products or service centers. This law was passed in the 1970s because of the abuse by companies claiming that third party add-ons (even say, an aftermarket radio in a car) voided the automobile warranty. Along with computer companies claiming you had to buy only their memory or hard drives.
It's also sometimes called the "Lemon Law", because it forces the manufacturer to provide a replacement item or a refund if they cannot repair the product.
No, of course not. However Ford cannot void the warranty for the whole car because of it, UNLESS they can prove it damaged something you want repaired under warranty.
If that was the purpose, it failed miserably by only checking during the latest 9.x OS update.
You assume that this warning would go to the user, and not to some hacker/thief trying to break into your device using a new method of tricky modified replacement parts. Why would you want to give this thief a second chance to try and steal your financial data?
That is the way I read it too....if the TouchID is compromised then the check should show it up as such and disable it so in effect that whole security enclave becomes inactive
This should be checked as soon as the phone boots up again so it is implemented straight away - assuming there is a big security issue
If there are TouchID buttons out there that can buy-pass the validation etc and so be active then that may be an issue but I am not sure how feasible this is (credibly) and how would the information from the button/security get back to a hacker?
Well, the point of initiating a lawsuit is to force answers and take the guesswork out of things (and of course be compensated for damages). That may read as snarky, but it's really not meant to. I'd like to hear answers beyond Apple's typical PR responses.
To be honest, I would have liked to and expected to hear about this before Apple decided to quietly push an update that bricks such devices. At this point in time I am more displeased at how Apple went about this than what is happening. I am still crossing my fingers this is some giant error, but we will have to see. Apple's move here, really.
I don't own ANY Apple products, nor use any, I just laugh at these "lawsuits" from greedy, "entitled" people WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND TECHNOLOGY.The natives are getting restless.
I dont envy Apple on this, either.
However, it seems that there are multiple situations that can cause "Error 53", and those situations may change from release to release as Apple finds and closes security holes. If you are on iOS 9.2 and your phone has damage or unauthorized repairs that will trigger an "Error 53" in iOS 9.3, then your phone doesn't have the software to detect the error yet. The code to initiate an update to a new version doesn't have the ability to do the test.
Now that Apple is aware of this problem, they might be able to rewrite a portion of their update code so that it downloads a utility that checks for security issues without bricking your phone, then gives you a message telling you that your phone cannot be updated, and that if you continue to use your phone as it, you will have to agree to not hold Apple responsible for any theft or loss of your personal data.
Once you know your phone is compromised, it's up to you to decide whether to take it to Apple and see if they can fix the issue that is causing your phone to be a security risk. Depending on what caused the damage to the phone, it may be covered under your warranty or under AppleCare.
Does the bank confiscate the funds or only deactivate the card? If customer goes to the bank lobby does customer have access to his funds? Does bank say "too bad but you can bring us new money and open a new account"
Interesting, and scary. If true, then I still feel that Apple is doing it wrong because as soon as the Touch ID is compromised, in any way, it should be disabled by the OS.
Likely Apple added that in the recent software update after become aware of a security vulnerability.
It sounds like you believe all possible security vulnerabilities at the present and going out into the future are known or knowable at product launch, and there will be no need for future updates.
You might want to think about that...
Even in the case of an unauthorised store repair, it is more the case of a mechanic using a paper clip to solve your transmission troubles. It is not the best solution but it works without you needing to spend money to replace the entire transmission. A barber analogy is a bit much
A better way to handle the security of the secure enclave would have been to simply disable touch id and require your iCloud password on reboot when the device detects that it has been modified with non-genuine parts. Perhaps a message that says touchID is disabled and by logging in with your iCloud credentials, you acknowledge that all apps you had secured with touchID are now not secure. The onus is now on the user to go to each app and replace the touchID security with a more traditional pin based security.
IMHO, Apple should not have taken the decision of disabling my device on my behalf because it has no right to. It did not pay a grand for the device, I did.
I'm talkin' bout the Man in the Middle, OH YEA!
I'm asking him to change my print. MY PRINT!
No error 53 could have been any clearer.
If you want to make your phone a better phone, take a trip to store and get it changed.
You gotta take the time, to do it right or else you'll lose your phoooohooonee for life.
The Man in the Middle