Top
Best
New

Posted by validatori 1/25/2026

Oneplus phone update introduces hardware anti-rollback(consumerrights.wiki)
465 points | 278 commentspage 3
Aissen 1/26/2026|
This does not surprise me from the company that accidentally deleted the widevine L1 certificate on my phone (that never had any third party OS) during an update and could not restore it, nor would it replace the motherboard (for which it claimed it was the only possible fix).
MarkusWandel 1/25/2026||
That's insane. If the CPU has enough fuses (which according to the wiki it does) why the h*ck can't they just make it impossible to reflash the >= minimum previously installed version of the OS after preventing the downgrade? Why the hard brick?
jnwatson 1/26/2026||
So much ignorance in this thread. There's nothing new here. All manufacturers worth their salt have this feature.

This is ultimately about making the device resistant to downgrade attacks. This is what discourages thieves from stealing your phone.

concinds 1/26/2026||
I've been dismayed by how fast the "we should own our hardware" crowd has so quickly radicalized into "all security features are evil", and "no security features should exist for anyone".

Not just "there should be some phone brands that cater to me", but "all phone brands, including the most mainstream, should cater to me, because everyone on earth cares more about 'owning their hardware' than evil maid attack prevention, Cellebrite government surveillance, theft deterrence, accessing their family photos if they forget their password, revocable code-signing with malware checks so they don't get RATs spying on their webcam, etc, and if they don't care about 'owning their hardware' more than that, they are wrong".

It is objectively extremist and fanatical.

ShroudedNight 1/26/2026|||
"No security features should exist for anyone" is itself fanatically hyperbolic narrative. The primary reason this event has elicited such a reaction is because OnePlus has historically been perceived as one of the brands specifically catering to people that wanted ultimate sovereignty over their devices.

As time goes on, the options available for those that require such sovereignty seem to be thinning to such an extent that [at least absent significant disposable wealth] the remaining options will appear to necessitate adopting lifestyle changes comparable to high-cost religious practices and social withdrawal, and likely without the legal protections afforded those protected classes. Given the "big tech's" general hostility to user agency and contempt for values that don't consent to being subservient to its influence peddling, intense emotional reaction to loss of already diminished traditional allies seem like something that would reasonably viewed compassionately, rather than with hostility.

bri3d 1/26/2026||||
I’ve posted about this on HN before; I think that there’s a dangerous second-order enshittification going on where people are so jaded by a few bad corporate actions that they believe that everyone is out to get them and hardware is evil. The most disappointing thing to me is that this has led to a complete demolition of curiosity; rather than learning that OTP is an ancient and essential concept in hardware, the brain-enshittification has led to “I see hardware anti-*, I click It’s Evil” with absolutely no thought or research applied.
userbinator 1/26/2026|||
Given how the opposition has radicalized into "you should own nothing and be happy", it's not surprising.

None of the situations you mentioned are realistic or even worth thinking about for the vast majority of the population. They're just an excuse to put even more control into the manufacturer's hands.

foxes 1/26/2026|||
How is graphene considered the most secure phone os but you can still flash on new firmware?

I don't care if they can downgrade the device, just that I boot into a secure verified environment, and my data is protected.

I also think thieves will just grab your phone regardless, they can still sell the phone for parts, or just sell it anyway as a scam etc.

jnwatson 1/26/2026||
The attack is simple: the attacker downgrades the phone to a version of firmware that has a vulnerability. The attacker then uses the vulnerability to get at your data. Your data is PIN-protected? The attacker uses the vulnerability to disable the PIN lockout and tries all of them.

There's over a 10x difference in fence price between a locked and unlocked phone. That's a significant incentive/deterrent.

foxes 1/26/2026||
Don't pixels have a security chip that is supposed to make that infeasible?

It has some increasing timer for auth, and if you try and factory reset it - it destroys all the data?

As I said its less important that the thief can boot a new os, the security of my data is more important. How is that compromised?

It feels like a thief is just going to opportunistically grab a phone from you rather than analyse what device it is.

pengaru 1/25/2026||
Glad I didn't give these people any of my hard earned dollars.
plutokras 1/25/2026||
Nintendo has been doing this for ages.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30773214

IshKebab 1/25/2026||
Why? What advantage do they get from this? I'm assuming it's not a good one but I'm struggling to see what it is at all.
jeroenhd 1/25/2026||
They patched a low-level vulnerability in their boot process. Their phones' debug features would allow attackers to load an old, unpatched version of their (signed) software and exploit it if they didn't do some kind of downgrade prevention.

Using eFuses is a popular way of implementing downgrade prevention, but also for permanently disabling debug flags/interfaces in production hardware.

Some vendors (AMD) also use eFuses to permanently bond a CPU to a specific motherboard (think EPYC chips for certain enterprise vendors).

hexagonwin 1/25/2026||
They can kill custom roms and force the latest vendor firmware. If they push a shitty update that slows down the phone or something, users have no choice other than buying a new device.
bcraven 1/25/2026||
The article suggests custom roms can just be updated to be 'newer' than this.

At the moment they're 'older' and would class as a rollback, which this fuse prevents.

InsomniacL 1/25/2026||
Does intentionally physically damaging a device fall foul of any laws that a software restriction otherwise wouldn't?
charcircuit 1/25/2026||
This is industry standard. Flashing old updates that are insecure to bypass security is a legitimate attack vector that needs to be defended against. Ideally it would still be possible up recover from such a scenario by flashing the latest update.
digiown 1/26/2026||
Standard?? The standard is for the upgrade to be refused or not boot until you flash a newer one, not to brick the phone permanently. It's not an "ideally" thing for the manufacturer to not intentionally brick your device you bought and paid for.
charcircuit 1/26/2026|||
>and you may damage your device permanently

https://service.oneplus.com/us/search/search-detail?id=op588

They make it clear that this feature is unsupported and it's possible to mess things up. The reason why it's an ideal and not an expectation is that flashing alternate operating systems is done at one's own risk and is unsupported. They have already told the users that they bear no responsibility for what may go wrong if they flash the wrong thing on that device. Flashing incompatible operating systems to the device requires people to be careful and proper care to ensure compatibility before going through with flashing was not done.

orbital-decay 1/26/2026||
What's being attacked in this particular case?
charcircuit 1/26/2026||
The phone. It's the same attacks that secure boot tries to protect against. The issue is that these old, vulnerable versions have a valid signature allowing them to be installed.
bflesch 1/25/2026||
How likely is it that such software-activated fuse-based kill switches are built into iPhones? Any insights?
mort96 1/25/2026||
So this article isn't about a kill switch, just blocking downgrades and custom ROMs.

But to answer your question: we know iPhones have a foolproof kill switch, it's a feature. Just mark your device as lost in Find My and it'll be locked until someone can provide your login details. Assuming it requires logging in to your Apple account (which it does, AFAIK; I don't think logging in to a local account is enough), this is the same as a remote kill switch; Apple could simply make a device enter this locked-down state and then tweak their server systems to deny logins.

jacquesm 1/25/2026|||
I'd say for commercial hardware it is a near certainty even if you won't ever know until it is much too late.

Realize that many of these manufacturers sell their hardware in and employ companies in highly policed societies. Just the fact that they are allowed to continue to operate implies that they are playing ball and may well have to perform a couple of favors. And that's assuming they are fully aware of what they are shipping, which may not be always the case.

I don't think it is a bad model at all to consider any cell phone to be compromised in multiple ways even though you don't have hard proof.

izacus 1/25/2026|||
Apple has been doing that since forever and will remotely kill switch devices so they need to be destroyed instead of reused: https://fighttorepair.substack.com/p/activation-locks-send-w...

Millions of fully working apple devices are destroyed because of that even - Apple won't unlock them even with proof of ownership.

Muromec 1/25/2026|||
It's there on all phones since forever lol. Apple can ship an update that adds "update without asking for confirmation" tomorrow and then ship another one that shows nothing but a middle finger on boot and you would not be able to do anything, including downgrading back.
Retr0id 1/25/2026|||
The M-series CPUs found in iPads (which cannot boot custom payloads) are the same as the M-series CPUs found in Macbooks (which can boot custom payloads) - just with different fuses pre-burnt during manufacturing.

Pre-prod (etc.) devices will also have different fuses burnt.

hexagonwin 1/25/2026|||
iPhones already cannot be downgraded, they can only install OS versions signed by apple during the install time. (search SHSH blobs) They also can't run unsigned IPA files (apps). Not sure if they have a physical fuse, but it's not much different.
hoistbypetard 1/25/2026||
The significant difference is that if it were placed into DFU mode and connected to an appropriate device that had access to appropriately signed things, it could be "unbricked" without replacing the mainboard.
hexagonwin 1/25/2026||
true, but I believe these bricked oneplus devices can also be revived from 9008 (EDL) if they can find the qualcomm firehorse loader file.
QuiEgo 1/26/2026||
100%, if you steal a phone from the Apple store they just remote brick it.
QuiEgo 1/26/2026||
Example: https://www.techspot.com/news/108318-stolen-iphones-disabled...
More comments...