djsherly

cali said:

I've seriously thought about this. Apple is the highest tax payer in the U.S. 

ericthehalfbee said:

Now what are the haters going to complain about? Apple makes a software update available for an EXTREMELY small number of users and also offers reimbursement for those few who paid for a replacement.

I'm having a hard time trying to guess how those losers/haters are going to spin this as a negative, but I'm sure somebody will think of something.

liquidmark said:

It's a security feature to stop iOS device thieves from simply changing the Touch ID button and gaining access to all your stuff with any thumbprint somehow.

ericthehalfbee said:

tenly said:

I lied.  I will continue to reply - only to make sure that people aren't left with your misguided and incorrect information.

Again - you are trying to confuse the issue and the conversation by making some weak vehicular analogy.  I'm not going to dispute anything you said about BMW or how their system works - but I will point out that it's a silly comparison to make.  The system you are describing is designed to prevent theft.  The iPhone security system we are discussing is designed to protect your data.  That's a huge difference - and at least now I know why you're thoughts are so far from accurate - you're speaking about what you know - which is vehicle theft protection.  Your mistake is in assuming that the security required to protect data is (or should be) similar.  It's not - and you clearly have no experience or knowledge about those types of systems!

If you want to pull out credentials, sure - let's play!  I have a Masters in Computer Science and have worked as a consultant in the IT industry for more than 20 years including 6 years of architecting, engineering and implementing secure systems.  Sorry, I've never worked on automotive security systems.

So - rather than comparing cars to smartphones, why don't you look at the exact items in question and then point out to all of us exactly where and how the phone with the uninitialized Touch ID sensor is more vulnerable to unauthorized data access or unauthorized use than the system which has Touch ID disabled via the settings app.  And remember, we want to compare Apples to Apples here - so for the devices we're going to compare - the ONLY difference between the 2 devices should be that one has all of the original parts and the other has an aftermarket Touch ID sensor that is not able to communicate with the secure enclave.

My assertion is that if Apple (iOS) detects that the Touch ID sensor cannot communicate with the secure enclave, the "Use Touch ID" setting should be turned off and grayed out - and the phone should operate as if it had never been activated in the first place.

Your claim is that by doing so, some portion of the users data would potentially be exposed and the only "secure" thing to do is to temporarily brick the phone - yet you offer no explanation as to how this could possibly happen.

By now, I'm sure you can see where you went wrong.  Whether you misunderstood the proposed alternative to bricking, whether you honestly believed that "securing a vehicle from theft" and "securing access to private data on a computing device" were the same thing and should be treated the same way - or whether you are just an Apple apologist and blindly defend Apple and assume that if they do something a particular way, it's the best way (or the only way)...

Anyhow - no matter why you initially disputed the assertion, I'm certain that you now see that you were wrong.  I'm also equally certain that you'll never admit it.  You've slung too many names and insults to back down and apologize at this point.  I'm quite sure that you will go to your grave still claiming to be right - even if Apple releases an update that makes the system work EXACTLY as I've described - which I see as a *very* likely possibility...!

Playing the "argument from authority" card are we? Funny that someone with a masters in comp sci is unable to explain how security in iOS works and uses vague terms while expecting us to just believe what you say. I'm still WAITING for any technical explanation from you why Apple should go ahead and allow the iPhone to work when a critical security component has been compromised. Why are you afraid to do so? Why do you continue to speak in vague terms? Go on, explain it to me like I also have my Masters (instead of assuming I'm nothing more than a Best Buy alarm installer). Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I can understand all the big words you decide to use. 

My BMW analogy is correct. Why? Because when BMW detects tampering with a hardware component in the vehicle they operate under the assumption the vehicle is either stolen, or that someone is trying to "assemble" a working vehicle using parts from several stolen or suspect vehicles.

While this occasionally causes problems for customers (if a related module malfunctions the car still "bricks" and requires a visit to the dealer), the benefits for the majority of users outweigh the inconvenience for a few.

Apple is doing the exact same thing here. A key component in the security of the iPhone has been tampered with and Apple is playing it safe by assuming it's an attempt at gaining access to a customers device.

Read it for your self.

https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

It's really straightforward. How protection is achieved through passcode and Touch ID are slightly different but "The passcode can always be used instead of Touch ID" (those are Apple's words, not mine) to unlock the device.

Touch ID is subordinate to Passcode - the documentation makes this very clear. It should be easy enough to simply disable it if there's a problem. No security is compromised.

So quit the conjecture and read the words that apple wrote in their own security guide. They should be able to separate out this functionality and they must be able to as they are still selling devices which do not contain a touch id component.

.

cnocbui said:

sog35 said:

So he got a crack on his Watch by watching TV? 

No, the crack was probably initiated in the factory and was initially hard to see.  It could have grown just through finger pressure.