Macbook's T2 Claims Another Victim, Apple Refuses To Honour Warranty

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

In terms of cars, modern cars are quite reliable and unless you get a lemon, generally last well over 10 years if you keep it that long. 

I meant parts wise. For example water pump, in the old days you would buy only a bearing and gaskets. Now you have to buy the whole unit...  And there are many parts like this where you would only need to change the bearings and gaskets but you cant because they use oddball sizes that you cannot get in a store. (And this isnt limited to cars sadly.)  You cant even repair the cylinders because the whole thing is aluminum....

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I meant parts wise. For example water pump, in the old days you would buy only a bearing and gaskets. Now you have to buy the whole unit...  And there are many parts like this where you would only need to change the bearings and gaskets but you cant because they use oddball sizes that you cannot get in a store. (And this isnt limited to cars sadly.)  You cant even repair the cylinders because the whole thing is aluminum....

Sure, but that isn’t what you said. You said making stuff that lasts for a long time (with cars as an example) isn’t profitable. Cars do last for a long time. 

 

And in the case of water pumps, etc, there’s nothing stopping a third party company from making those gaskets - lots of third party companies make the pumps already for many car makes and models. They might be “odd ball” sizes, but the dimensions and specifications are obviously still a known value?

given you can buy the entire part which has those gaskets in them. 

 

If if you find this lacking in the market, try and convince a third party parts manufacturer to start doing this. Or start up a business yourself. 

 

Not saying it’s ideal, but if every company stopped doing it, it’s probably not a sustainable business practice. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

I jest, but if a repair person can not get around the T2 chip, then the Apple machines might be good enough to be "un-hack-able"... just beat the user with a $5 wrench to get their password.

 

 

With that said, this "might" be a good idea for a laptop that is lost, or stolen during travelling. It does not make a lick of sense for a desktop, nor does it make sense for laptops that are essentially just portable desktops in an office.

 

At my office, when I reimage machines, I've been having to turn the TPM and secure-boot on on the machines for the image to succeed. I can turn either off (since the BIOS is not password protected) and defeat the secure boot and the tpm.

 

But rarely is any machine using the TPM.

 

My guess here, is that this is probably going to eventually result in a court action where Apple has to justify what the T2 does, and might be forced to weaken or disable it by default, having the user turn it on as an option. If they turn it on, their data will not be retrievable, and their machine can not be repaired, period (and should not be charged for AppleCare. )If they opt not to turn it on, their machine is covered by AppleCare, and can be repaired, even by a third party.

 

 

It will not be long before all encryption methods we have now can be cracked with quantum computers. It will be interesting to see how new methods will form to get around that element. Millions will be spent on quantum proof encryption, but still the $5 wrench will win.

[79wjd]

42 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

It will not be long before all encryption methods we have now can be cracked with quantum computers. It will be interesting to see how new methods will form to get around that element. Millions will be spent on quantum proof encryption, but still the $5 wrench will win.

Quantum computing has been "just about to make all current encryption worthless" for many years now.

[Guest]

Just now, 79wjd said:

Quantum computing has been "just about to make all current encryption wortess" for many years now.

It is however getting very close. A lot of challenges have been overcome in the last year. By the end of 2019 we will see a massive acceleration in power. By 2023 Gartner predict 20% of organisations will be budgeting for quantum projects. It got off to a slow start but everything is gathering momentum.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, but that isn’t what you said. You said making stuff that lasts for a long time (with cars as an example) isn’t profitable. Cars do last for a long time. 

 

Only if you spend a small fortune on parts... (not to mention the outrageous prices of service centers[in most cases you dont have an option because independent repair shops dont have access to the software].)

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Only if you spend a small fortune on parts... (not to mention the outrageous prices of service centers[in most cases you dont have an option because independent repair shops dont have access to the software].)

Most people are spending a small fortune on parts regardless, and that's because most people aren't mechanics and can't (or don't have the time or inclination) to service the car themselves, outside of maybe changing a flat tire in an emergency.

 

Also, I can 100% get my car (2014 model, but newer models are also serviceable) serviced at any number of independent or non-dealer service centres. Sure if you have some exotic car, or one imported that isn't normally sold in the country you live in, you might have difficulty finding someone to service it, but the vast majority of "regular" commuter cars will have little problem finding a service centre that can handle them - at least in any city of noteworthy size.

[iamdarkyoshi]

6 hours ago, tridy said:

 

And obviously T2 chip is not a backdoor, right? Like if Apple gets their hands on one and need to see inside, they would not be "able to bypass" T2? In the same way Microsoft has everything encrypted on your account and only you can see your 48 digits key.

 

Unless YOU are the one who is controlling the security/encryption, there is always a possibility there is a "backdoor".

 

You can even decrypt a Bitlocked drive from another OS:

https://www.m3datarecovery.com/bitlocker-drive-data-recovery/access-bitlocker-encrypted-drive-on-another-computer.html

 

The encryption mechanism should always be open sourced and available for everyone to use and analyze. This is your password that makes it secure. This is like not releasing the schematics of the motherboards so no one could repair them.

 

We have strong enough machines that can do encryption on the software level. There is even no need to encrypt the whole drive. Like someone would benefit from seeing the OS system files that are the same on every machine?

 

 

Nobody really knows for sure if T2 has a backdoor. Apple could very well have a piece of software that generates a decryption key based on the machine's serial, kinda like bitlocker. After all, they made the computer, so they know how T2 works internally and how the key is created

 

But since apple likes to keep all that stuff secret, who knows?

 

It feels a lot like "faith based security" to me.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Phill104 said:

It will not be long before all encryption methods we have now can be cracked with quantum computers. It will be interesting to see how new methods will form to get around that element. Millions will be spent on quantum proof encryption, but still the $5 wrench will win.

 

3 hours ago, 79wjd said:

Quantum computing has been "just about to make all current encryption worthless" for many years now.

People who say that quantum computers will break all encryption doesn't quite know what they are talking about, which is understandable since most people can't wrap their heads around regular encryption. Throw quantum physics into the mix and you got a really complicated mess. 

 

Quantum computers are only good at very specific things. Factorization is one of them.

 

Since RSA, the most commonly used asymmetrical encryption algorithm, relies on having two large prime numbers, and keeping them secret, it is especially susceptible to attacks from quantum computers. If you intercept a bunch of RSA traffic you can easily brute force the private keys with a quantum computer and Shoe's algorithm. 

The algorithm for breaking symmetrical encryption with a quantum computer is Grover's algorithm. It's significantly faster than traditional computers, but in theory and practice it will only make a 256 bit key as strong as a 128 bit key on a traditional super computer. We just need to double the key size and we are as protected as we are today. 

 

However, encryption like AES does not rely on factorization. In fact, we have several encryption algorithms that rely on math that quantum computers aren't good at. I already mentioned AES (which is what Apple uses for drive encryption) and most symmetrical encryption will be fine with a doubling of key length. 

As for asymmetrical encryption, we will have to move to a different approach such as hash-based encryption (examples of quantum proof hash based encryption would be Lamport, or Merkle signature schemes). Other solutions would be Classic McEliece or BIKE. Neither of which relies on math easily solved by quatum computers. 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

People who say that quantum computers will break all encryption doesn't quite know what they are talking about, which is understandable since most people can't wrap their heads around regular encryption. Throw quantum physics into the mix and you got a really complicated mess. 

 

Quantum computers are only good at very specific things. Factorization is one of them.

 

Since RSA, the most commonly used asymmetrical encryption algorithm, relies on having two large prime numbers, and keeping them secret, it is especially susceptible to attacks from quantum computers. If you intercept a bunch of RSA traffic you can easily brute force the private keys with a quantum computer and Shoe's algorithm. 

The algorithm for breaking symmetrical encryption with a quantum computer is Grover's algorithm. It's significantly faster than traditional computers, but in theory and practice it will only make a 256 bit key as strong as a 128 bit key on a traditional super computer. We just need to double the key size and we are as protected as we are today. 

 

However, encryption like AES does not rely on factorization. In fact, we have several encryption algorithms that rely on math that quantum computers aren't good at. I already mentioned AES (which is what Apple uses for drive encryption) and most symmetrical encryption will be fine with a doubling of key length. 

As for asymmetrical encryption, we will have to move to a different approach such as hash-based encryption (examples of quantum proof hash based encryption would be Lamport, or Merkle signature schemes). Other solutions would be Classic McEliece or BIKE. Neither of which relies on math easily solved by quatum computers. 

That's an interesting point - most people have no idea how quantum computers work in any capacity - which is evident when you see people saying how quantum computers will do insert thing that's totally unrelated to quantum computing so much faster than computers of today.

 

They basically just see quantum computing as regular computing but faster, which can be the case, but as you say, only in very specific circumstances.

[Flying Sausages]

F on that victim. 

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's an interesting point - most people have no idea how quantum computers work in any capacity - which is evident when you see people saying how quantum computers will do insert thing that's totally unrelated to quantum computing so much faster than computers of today.

 

They basically just see quantum computing as regular computing but faster, which can be the case, but as you say, only in very specific circumstances.

I agree that many think quantum will do everything, it certainly has problems, uses, needs, wants, things it is good at, things not so good. It has these all at the same time, which is enough to hurt anyone's brain. Certainly reading all 28 pages of Peter W Shors' Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorisation and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer will cure insomnia for most, but the basis is sound. The BBC did a superb documentary on it a while back but it is not currently available on iPlayer.

[tridy]

3 hours ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

Nobody really knows for sure if T2 has a backdoor. Apple could very well have a piece of software that generates a decryption key based on the machine's serial, kinda like bitlocker. After all, they made the computer, so they know how T2 works internally and how the key is created

 

But since apple likes to keep all that stuff secret, who knows?

NSА knows ;).

I do not need to know who knows. I want to control it myself.

3 hours ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

It feels a lot like "faith based security" to me.

Unlike BitLocker, for example, you cannot opt-out of T2. There is no choice.

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

serviced at any number of independent or non-dealer service centres

Here we dont have that luxury, only the manufacturers service center's can get their hands on the software and credentials needed to repair a car. Hell you cant even change the battery at home because the car wont start.... And these official service centers charge a silly amount per hour. Top it off with the expensive parts, plus the fact that engineers dont give a crap about ease of repair when they making the plans for a new car.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Here we dont have that luxury, only the manufacturers service center's can get their hands on the software and credentials needed to repair a car. Hell you cant even change the battery at home because the car wont start....

Most modern cars have a specific process you need to follow after you pop a new battery in (it's because otherwise you trigger the anti-theft system) - generally these instructions are available online.

 

Your country should consider legislation to ensure the rights of third party mechanics, if that's a concern over there.

 

It's 100% not an issue in North America (outside of say, Tesla). I can get basically any car serviced anywhere I want, with dozens (sometimes hundreds) of independent choices in any major city.

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Most modern cars have a specific process you need to follow after you pop a new battery in

Well as far as im seeing it they move towards the model i know. You most buy the battery from the official service center because only those have codes that can be entered into the component protection.... OFC only they can do this because no-one else has access to their proprietary software. Basically the same goes for everything that has electronics in it.

 

/EDIT

And if they see that anything else was plugged in besides their stuff then they refuse to do any work on it.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well as far as im seeing it they move towards the model i know. You most buy the battery from the official service center because only those have codes that can be entered into the component protection.... OFC only they can do this because no-one else has access to their proprietary software. Basically the same goes for everything that has electronics in it.

 

/EDIT

And if they see that anything else was plugged in besides their stuff then they refuse to do any work on it.

In Canada, I can go to a place like Canadian Tire or Walmart and buy a car battery off the shelf for basically any car, and have them install it for me. (Canadian Tire is kind of like a hybrid between Walmart and Home Depot, with a focus more towards the Home Depot/Hardware Store than the general department store of Walmart).

 

Don't know what to tell you about your country. That's odd, and that sucks for you. That's not the trend here, and I can't see that changing without massive backlash against the car manufacturers.

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Don't know what to tell you about your country. That's odd, and that sucks for you. That's not the trend here, and I can't see that changing without massive backlash against the car manufacturers.

Its not just my country. Granted so far this is more common in case of expensive brands. And the bottom end usually lags behind. Best example is john deere for this particular problem.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jagdtigger

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its not just my country. Granted so far this is more common in case of expensive brands. And the bottom end usually lags behind. Best example is john deere for this particular problem.

John Deere doesn't make cars, they make farm equipment (granted, they are "vehicles", but we were talking about passenger cars, so by using John Deere as an example, you're moving the goal post).

 

If you're buying an exotic car like a brand new Ferrari or a Bugatti - sure, you likely aren't going to find many independent dealers with the necessary diagnostic tools. But even high end cars like BMW and Mercedes and Audi, you can find independent specialists - well, here you can.

 

Outside of that, High end luxury cars aren't the most common cars anyway. Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chevy, etc - these are the common cars people typically own. You can get any of these cars (even brand new ones) serviced just about anywhere in Canada.

 

Though you'll likely want to find a mechanic who knows what he's doing, but that's not the same thing, exactly.

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Audi

Good luck with that inside the EU...  I brought up john deere just because they are doing what big names also do(like audi and bmw). Want to install a new part as an independent repair shop? Well good luck with that.... (I actually have experience with this. Its a pretty deep rabbit hole.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jagdtigger

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Good luck with that inside the EU...  I brought up john deere just because they are doing what big names also do(like audi and bmw). Want to install a new part as an independent repair shop? Well good luck with that.... (I actually have experience with this. Its a pretty deep rabbit hole.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your country (and possibly your region) sucks for allowing that. That's not a problem where I live (Well, the JD thing was an issue - there was a settlement, which kind of allowed the farmers to repair their own equipment, but there were also restrictions in place).

 

I can buy most cars, and find an independent mechanic or business that will service them. All the big chains (Canadian Tire, Walmart, Meineke, AAMCO, Midas, Muffler Man, Mr Lube, Mr Transmission, Speedy Auto Service - the list goes on) have access to all the latest diagnostic tools and software, service manuals, parts, etc. They can all also perform officially authorized warranty service on most makes and models.

[jagdtigger]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

sucks for allowing that

Well yeah, this is one of the reasons why i only own motorbikes that have carburetors and minimal electronics(basically none of them has lambda sensor and catalyzer and any BS stuff). Hell i even have my first "motorbike", its most high tech electronic part is the thyristor in the ignition system....

http://jawamoped.hu/regi/babettahonlap/b210kapcs1.pdf

[TechyBen]

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

John Deere doesn't make cars, they make farm equipment (granted, they are "vehicles", but we were talking about passenger cars, so by using John Deere as an example, you're moving the goal post).

 

If you're buying an exotic car like a brand new Ferrari or a Bugatti - sure, you likely aren't going to find many independent dealers with the necessary diagnostic tools. But even high end cars like BMW and Mercedes and Audi, you can find independent specialists - well, here you can.

 

Outside of that, High end luxury cars aren't the most common cars anyway. Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chevy, etc - these are the common cars people typically own. You can get any of these cars (even brand new ones) serviced just about anywhere in Canada.

 

Though you'll likely want to find a mechanic who knows what he's doing, but that's not the same thing, exactly.

A guy wants to rebuild a Bugatti sea water damage (write off) wreck. He has not mentioned any problem with rebuilding it, other than the problems of rebuilding it. AFAIK Bugatti is not stopping him from being able to do so, even if they won't support the venture (though pay them, and they would repair it, at great cost  ).

 

I think Ferrari does "ban" people from their cars though. They send cease and desist letters if they think it put their brand in bad light/to defend the trademark. I guess you get taken of the purchase lists as well (turns out it's invitation only to buy supercars!).

 

 https://www.hotcars.com/celebs-who-got-banned-by-ferrari-vip-owners-no-one-knows-about/

 

But again, that does not prevent repairs.

 

Oh, though the diagnostics computers. Yeah... those seem to be getting draconic.

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Oh, though the diagnostics computers. Yeah... those seem to be getting draconic.

Not just those, the onboard electronics too... But its still better than apple's t2 chip. Depending on what failed the car wont just brick itself.

[TechyBen]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Not just those, the onboard electronics too... But its still better than apple's t2 chip. Depending on what failed the car wont just brick itself.

Yeah. Giving no support is different from sabotaging repairs and access. Telsa for example have every reason to lock down their car more so than the T2 Chip and Apple... yet they do not.