Comment by vlovich123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vlovich123 | Hacker News Reader

> After a scanner swap your device is still perfectly capable of verifying that you are in fact the owner and unlocking via the back-up methods, so once that back-up code has been entered why not allow access to the necessary software to pair the scanner to the device and restore function?

Because I can install modified hardware that performs more complicated attacks like sending the PIN for your phone or your iTunes password over the network? And since it’s a hardware modification, it’s persistent forever and nearly impossible to find. Malicious hardware is not part of the threat model that phone manufacturers design around and it’s cheaper/simpler to pair components to fight against that attack vector than to come up with protection mechanisms (eg restrict the memory that the component has access to and various Hw measures to make sure you can’t fuck around in the analog domain - it’s really really complex to get right and a flaw means your entire run is vulnerable until you fix it if you even can without doing major redesign work).

Seems far fetched that someone would go so far to attack you. What sort of enemies you have?

What i'm saying is that most of us are willing to give up a bit of security for repairability and saving the planet. Phones and laptops are expensive products in terms of resources used to create them. We're definitely not paying the full price for them. Imagine how much would it cost to extract every microgram of precious resources and capture all pollution and co2 emitted in the supply and distribution chain. Instead we're lining the pockets of megacorps that use every trick to enrich themselves while slowly destroying the environment, the same corps that gives access to your data to the government if need be. I'd say the chance of a sophisticated hardware hacker implanting a rogue chip in your phone is somewhat smaller than the chance of your phone's screen or battery dying in the next year.

> What sort of enemies you have?

The sort of enemies Apple designs for are the highest-level ones one can think of. They often kind of walk the walk with things like lockdown mode. I respect and like that.

... however the compromises they make in the name of security are often weirdly broad, UX-degrading and suspiciously align very well with their business interests.

None of this applies to the battery, yet this is exactly where Apple is using it ... Also, the connection with the display is ridiculous. The complexity that custom hardware would need to have to attack using the display is almost absurd.

I mean your argument is not wrong, it just doesn't really apply to parts pairing. Clearly, this means it isn't Apple's only concern to secure devices.

Did they make a new update? When I switched batteries last year the only thing that was restricted was fast charging and that's more of a way to keep you safe when usi g cheap cells...

Read the article: They authenticate specific battery serial numbers, rather than type or producer. That means they authenticate if a given battery is the specific battery inserted at the apple factory. This, of course, also authenticates the type and producer, so they could allow fast charging on replacement batteries, yet they choose not to allow any replacement at all, not even with batteries from a discarded equivalent equipment.

Again, if the intent is to protect against defective batteries this seems a very strange way to go about it. This specifically disallows replacement parts. Any replacement parts, no matter where they come from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com