Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs

[MH01]

That's what I worried about when I saw this post. As I said earlier, while a lot of people were pissed that they closed a security hole, I was concerned that that the hole was open. Why don't they verify the chain of trust immediately after any repair? Hopefully, they've addressed this before it's been exploited.


Yep. Although I would place hardware hacks and software hacks in different categories.

There is zero proof a security hole existed or was closed. 3rd party Touch ID do not work once replaced.

No where does apple state a security flaw exists, what they are saying is that hypothetically one could ..... Cause replacing a part you are one step closer.

I'd love someone to explain how they believe a 3rd party touch Id, which failes the hardware check so the process stops there, though let's use a hypothetical and somehow it's able to pass data, how do people believe the encryption is going to be hacked? And a handshake established , with an okay token.

If you can hack that, you can bypass the pin lock on a phone no problems. Heck, you have created a piece of hardware that will hack into nearly anything .

 

[BaldiMac]

In the case of Apple Pay - they are pretty inter-dependent though...

Absolutely, but one requires physical access to the phone. Neither are good.

 

[samcraig]

There is zero proof a security hole existed or was closed. 3rd party Touch ID do not work once replaced.

No where does apple state a security flaw exists, what they are saying is that hypothetically one could ..... Cause replacing a part you are one step closer.

I'd love someone to explain how they believe a 3rd party touch Id, which failes the hardware check so the process stops there, though let's use a hypothetical and somehow it's able to pass data, how do people believe the encryption is going to be hacked? And a handshake established , with an okay token.

If you can hack that, you can bypass the pin lock on a phone no problems. Heck, you have created a piece of hardware that will hack into nearly anything .

If there's no security flaw or risk - then why brick the phone?

 

[BaldiMac]

They aren't supporting third party parts. How are you even getting to that?! Just saying "Hey if you use a non-Apple part if anything goes wrong it's not our fault guys" to which most people go "Fair enough".

That's literally the extent of the issue here.

Literally.

Yep. Not sure what your disagreeing with. Part is installed without pairing. Phone doesn't work. No obligation for Apple to create a workaround.

I am not convinced a lack of secure pairing opens up the iPhone to hacking; Apple can simply disable the functionality of touchID if the secure pairing cannot be verified; There is no reason to "brick" the rest of phone.

Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean Apple is lying.

As for motivation, part of Apple's business model is to force you to take your iPhone to the Apple store for repair; and when you get there, convince you to replace your phone rather than perform minor repairs (e.g. cracked glass, unbend a bent frame, replace $5 parts, etc...). If they can overcome the legal challenges, they will have essentially made an iPhone with defective/bad home button unrepairable to the average consumer (and their advertising should reflect such so consumers can make an informed buying decision).

Hey. Look. You just made something up without any evidence.

There is zero proof a security hole existed or was closed. 3rd party Touch ID do not work once replaced.

Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean Apple is lying.

No where does apple state a security flaw exists, what they are saying is that hypothetically one could ..... Cause replacing a part you are one step closer.

Yes, they do. It's in the OP.

 

[997440]

I know several coders at several major companies. I'm sure a team was tasked with creating the security around the secure enclave and they just went with the easiest route, not even thinking about all the possible scenarios. Now Apple has to recover from that.

I think you're right about "not even thinking about all the possible scenarios. Now Apple has to recover from that.".

The documentation indicates that a passcode is the primary security mechanism and it states that it can always be used (makes sense from a reliability standpoint); Touch ID is secondary. On Pg. 7, Heading = Touch ID :

....Touch ID and passcodes
To use Touch ID, users must set up their device so that a passcode is required to unlock it. When Touch ID scans and recognizes an enrolled fingerprint, the device unlocks without asking for the device passcode. The passcode can always be used instead of Touch ID, and it’s still required under the following ....

Since the locking of the devices came about in iOS 9, I'm wondering (idle, know-nothing speculation) if this iOS 9 security coding has been misapplied. Same document, on Pg 8, Heading = Other uses for Touch ID :

....With iOS 9, developers can require that Touch ID API operations don’t fall back to an application password or the device passcode. Along with the ability to retrieve a representation of the state of enrolled fingers, this allows Touch ID to be used as a second factor in security sensitive apps....

Regardless, IMO, this is a black mark for Apple. Rendering a user's phone and potentially their data useless, without prior, clear warning at the point of sale, if this is indeed expected behavior caused by lack of pairing, is irresponsible. Companies who accumulate errors of the sort Apple has are not doomed but the canary's song gets harder to hear each day. Immediate, then systemic, recovery is in order.

 

[spazzcat]

Yup, all those "cool" apps in the App Store you can never buy with TouchID.
Yup.

I think $.99 apps is a little different then having access to every single CC I have stored on my phone...

 

[BaldiMac]

Regardless, IMO, this is a black mark for Apple. Rendering a user's phone and potentially their data useless, without prior, clear warning at the point of sale, if this is indeed expected behavior caused by lack of pairing, is irresponsible. Companies who accumulate errors of the sort Apple has are not doomed but the canary's song gets harder to hear each day. Immediate, then systemic, recovery is in order.

Since when does a company need to notify users at the point of sale that improper third-party repairs can cause their product to stop working? Where do people come up with these things?

 

[H2SO4]

Since when does a company need to notify users that improper third-party repairs can cause their product to stop working at the point of sale? Where do people come up with these things?

Same place Apple get the idea that they can destroy user data on a whim.

 

[BaldiMac]

Same place Apple get the idea that they can destroy user data on a whim.

Ha! Good one. It's all big bad Apple's fault that a repair was done incorrectly by someone else. They should be forced to make your phone work anyway. And, dammit, if you want to cut the battery wire, the phone sure as hell better not lose power!

.
.
.

Oh. Then there's the facts that it wasn't done on a whim and it doesn't destroy user data. But other than that...

 

[kdarling]

But I wonder if it could store the first fingerprint sensing (i.e. yours right after you get your repaired phone back), and then always sending that first one to the secure enclave instead of the actual fingerprint used after that first one, basically rendering TouchID useless.

Sure, but don't you think the owner would notice sooner or later?

More importantly, what would be the point of putting in a hacked sensor? People who repair phones already ask for your passcode, so they don't need that if they wanted to run out the back to make purchases while you wait. Or look at your awful naked selfies.

So the only reason to do this, would be if the theoretical evil phone fixer plans to later sneak into your house or office and steal your phone, in the hope that he can make a few big purchases before you notice your phone is gone. Seriously? The police would notice a pattern after just a few instances of his customers being robbed this way. And you wouldn't be liable anyway.

Not to mention, where did the evil phone fixer get this custom sensor anyway? There's far more likely (and cheaper and more useful) scenarios involving one of the OS software security holes that Apple patches every release. Or using fake fingerprints taken from a stolen print. Or sending someone to shoulder surf the user entering a passcode.

In short, unless there's a secret manufacturing group distributing millions of hacked replacement sensors so they flood the fixit market, the likelihood of this happening to anyone sure seems far less than many other scenarios that no one seems to worry about.

 

[H2SO4]

Ha! Good one. It's all big bad Apple's fault that a repair was done incorrectly by someone else. They should be forced to make your phone work anyway. And, dammit, if you want to cut the battery wire, the phone sure as hell better not lose power!

.
.
.

Oh. Then there's the facts that it wasn't done on a whim and it doesn't destroy user data. But other than that...

Post 821. Was that a whim?

 

[sracer]

Here's the typical cycle for problems reported on Apple products:

1. A few members post reports of the problem, report it to Apple
2. No response from Apple
3. Increased number of people report the issue
4. No response from Apple
5. Apple apologists dismiss the reports as very rare, the result of trolling, or exaggeration by drama queens
6. Even more reports of the problem
7. No response from Apple
8. News of the problem hits blogs
9. Apple apologists dismiss the blogs as simply engaging in clickbait
10. No response from Apple
11. Those affected by the issue threaten a class-action lawsuit
12. Apple apologists decry the "sue happy" nature of American consumers
13. Apple acknowledges the legitimacy of the problem
14. Apple apologists are silent
15. Apple release an update to correct the problem

Looks like we're between steps #11 and #12.

 

[samcraig]

Sure, but don't you think the owner would notice sooner or later?

More importantly, what would be the point of putting in a hacked sensor? People who repair phones already ask for your passcode, so they don't need that if they wanted to run out the back to make purchases while you wait.

So the only reason to do this, would be if the theoretical evil phone fixer plans to later sneak into your house or office and steal your phone, so he can make a few purchases before you notice your phone is gone. Seriously? The police would notice a pattern after just a few instances of his customers being robbed this way.

Not to mention, where did the evil phone fixer get this custom sensor anyway? There's far more likely (and cheaper and more useful) scenarios involving one of the OS software security holes that Apple patches every release. Or using fake fingerprints taken from a stolen print. Or sending someone to shoulder surf the user entering a passcode.

In short, unless there's a group distributing millions of such replacement sensors so they flood the fixit market, the likelihood of this happening sure seems far less than many other scenarios that no one seems to worry about.

It's likely cheaper to just break in to someone's house (if you're not even a repair person) and either place the person's finger on the phone while they're sleeping - or cut it off and take it with them

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure, but don't you think the owner would notice sooner or later?

More importantly, what would be the point of putting in a hacked sensor? People who repair phones already ask for your passcode, so they don't need that if they wanted to run out the back to make purchases while you wait.

So the only reason to do this, would be if the theoretical evil phone fixer plans to later sneak into your house or office and steal your phone, so he can make a few purchases before you notice your phone is gone. Seriously? The police would notice a pattern after just a few instances of his customers being robbed this way.

Not to mention, where did the evil phone fixer get this custom sensor anyway? There's far more likely (and cheaper and more useful) scenarios involving one of the OS software security holes that Apple patches every release. Or using fake fingerprints taken from a stolen print.

In short, the likelihood of this happening is far less than many other scenarios that no one seems to worry about.

I'm telling ya, half of this thread needs a tin foil factory to wrap the posts in

You personally can't think of an exploit, so it's not worth closing? I disagree.
[doublepost=1455118680][/doublepost]

Here's the typical cycle for problems reported on Apple products:

1. A few members post reports of the problem, report it to Apple
2. No response from Apple
3. Increased number of people report the issue
4. No response from Apple
5. Apple apologists dismiss the reports as very rare, the result of trolling, or exaggeration by drama queens
6. Even more reports of the problem
7. No response from Apple
8. News of the problem hits blogs
9. Apple apologists dismiss the blogs as simply engaging in clickbait
10. No response from Apple
11. Those affected by the issue threaten a class-action lawsuit
12. Apple apologists decry the "sue happy" nature of American consumers
13. Apple acknowledges the legitimacy of the problem
14. Apple apologists are silent
15. Apple release an update to correct the problem

Looks like we're between steps #11 and #12.

How many people have had this issue? Hundreds? Thousands? More? It sounds much more nefarious when you speak in vagaries.

 

[igorsky]

Read again and very slowly:
"It" (the fingerprint sensor and the attached circuitry) does not contain ANY data. at all.

I'm saying this very slowly:
"It" (the fingerprint sensor and the attached circuitry) is part of the secure enclave that grants access to your phone and ALL of it's data. Why leave it open to risk? Personally I would never, ever allow a third party to access such a key component to save a couple of bucks.

Quasi-intellectual sarcasm doesn't add anything to your argument.

 

[BaldiMac]

Post 821. Was that a whim?

Sorry, I didn't realize that we'd moved to a different topic.

 

[dk001]

They did. It's in the OP.
"Without this unique pairing, a malicious touch ID sensor could be substituted, thereby gaining access to the secure enclave."
.

It's a headline with no substantive detail, even high level detail on how this could occur. If you are going to put forth the headline at least include a basic article on the topic.
Looking at it from a headline perspective, Apple has bigger issues with their "security" if this is a real issue.
Aside from the "security" aspect, bricking a device for this?
[doublepost=1455119306][/doublepost]

It's the people doing the repair that should have warned them, not Apple; this thing has been known since IOS 8.3.
But, since they're likely not authorized they have an incentive to not say they can't really repair this part or they would lose the sale. I find the complete leap of logic, blaming Apple, just incredible.

I'm not sure why you think Apple should warn them; it's not Apple who is replacing the part and Apple would only do the verification when it's doing the OS is doing the "bricking"; when it is to late.

Warn? This "error" and actual cause is not documented anywhere I have found in any public accessible document.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's a headline with no substantive detail, even high level detail on how this could occur. If you are going to put forth the headline at least include a basic article on the topic.
Looking at it from a headline perspective, Apple has bigger issues with their "security" if this is a real issue.

It's not a headline. It's a quote from Apple with high level detail on how this would occur. Exactly what you are asking for.

 

[dk001]

Give it up, they don't want to understand.
Maybe we should brick Macs when used with 3rd party keyboards, they could contain a keylogger.
And that's actually 10000% more realistic...

This post of yours is the most relevant yet. Nicely done.

 

[C DM]

It's a headline with no substantive detail, even high level detail on how this could occur. If you are going to put forth the headline at least include a basic article on the topic.
Looking at it from a headline perspective, Apple has bigger issues with their "security" if this is a real issue.
Aside from the "security" aspect, bricking a device for this?
[doublepost=1455119306][/doublepost]

Warn? This "error" and actual cause is not documented anywhere I have found in any public accessible document.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628

 

[dk001]

It's not a headline. It's a quote from Apple with high level detail on how this would occur. Exactly what you are asking for.

Then you and I are looking at different articles.

 

[St.John Smith]

The scenario is irrelevant as there is no proof it's possible.

A Touch ID is a dumb scanner , that is all it is. All it does is scan you finger, that fingerprint is then converted into a mathematical formula, encrypted, and carried over a hardware channel to a secure enclave on the Apple A7 chipset. If the fingerprint is recognized, a "yes" token is released. If it's not, a "no" token is released.

If Apple releases evidence a 3rd party scanner is cable of magically passing incorrect data to the A7 chip and getting a yes token .... Forget the touchid all together, some genius had found a way to circumnavigate encryption

As soon as you replace your touchid, it does not work , it is not even able to send the data to the A7, as there is a hardware mismatch, let along somehow magically sending incorrect data and getting a yes token.

People have already decided that this is happening......

FYI, it's easier for hackers to get all your data from cloud services, Facebook, your computer etc etc, this scenario is actually the least realistic.

Hardware security is not limited to preventing the known possible. As you stated, when you get in between the touch ID and the A7 the system breaks, by design. That is the whole issue here. If it didn't break there would be no "error 53". Though my example was fairly hyperbolic the concept holds true. If you are able to capture the "yes" token touch ID generates and copy it (along with the , you can then trick the secure enclave into unlocking itself.

BTW- you described the touch ID as a dumb scanner in the same sentence where you mention that it captures and then ENCRYPTS and transmits your fingerprint data to the A7. In reality the touch ID system is actually the gatekeeper of a secure key that is generated every time you restart your phone or 48 hours passes. That happens at touch ID, not in the A7. Touch ID is a two way connection, with the secure enclave and touch ID passing information in both directions.

http://gizmodo.com/apple-finally-explains-touch-id-security-in-detail-1532298901[/QUOTE]

 

[C DM]

Here's the typical cycle for problems reported on Apple products:

1. A few members post reports of the problem, report it to Apple
2. No response from Apple
3. Increased number of people report the issue
4. No response from Apple
5. Apple apologists dismiss the reports as very rare, the result of trolling, or exaggeration by drama queens
6. Even more reports of the problem
7. No response from Apple
8. News of the problem hits blogs
9. Apple apologists dismiss the blogs as simply engaging in clickbait
10. No response from Apple
11. Those affected by the issue threaten a class-action lawsuit
12. Apple apologists decry the "sue happy" nature of American consumers
13. Apple acknowledges the legitimacy of the problem
14. Apple apologists are silent
15. Apple release an update to correct the problem

Looks like we're between steps #11 and #12.

So Apple haters/whiners should be used to contrast Apple apologists there, right?

 

[dk001]

With a year old car there is a lot of money at stake. That said, I should be able to use Bosch brake pads/alternator etc. etc. without invalidating the warranty. These parts have already undergone type approval.

As an aside. It seem the Aussies think Tim is a drongo too;
http://www.crn.com.au/News/414907,accc-to-pursue-apple-on-deliberately-bricked-iphones.aspx

I suspect we will be seeing a lot more of these from affected countries.
Thanks for the link.

 

[997440]

Since when does a company need to notify users at the point of sale that improper third-party repairs can cause their product to stop working? Where do people come up with these things?

I came up with it through reading Apple's Whitepaper. The fingerprint reader data is kept independently in the secure enclave. The primary security mechanism, the passcode, should still work as stated. If it can't under certain circumstances (even because of a self or third-party repair) that should be stated instead. Rendering a device and data useless for N amount of time is too large a cost to not be explicitly forewarned. As I said before, IMO.

You've represented your opinion well multiple times in this thread. I agree to disagree with you.