Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


7 posts

Wannabe Geek


Topic # 114940 8-Mar-2013 01:00
Send private message

I'm hoping someone can help me here... I have an S3, purchased from Warehouse Stationery on 2 degrees  when they first came out. The February 2013 update pushed from the Samsung push service killed it, and now Samsung are declining warranty stating:
DEFECT : error message when booting the phone Firmware update failed, phone wit
REPAIR : SW tampered, warranty declined. quote to replace MAIN PBA

Now I'm not technical at all when it comes to Android, but the most custom thing I (or anyone else, other than a Samsung technician?) have ever done to 'tamper' my phone is to replace the 2 degrees sim with a Telecom sim when I purchased it, and install apps from the Play store, neither of which would strike me as warranty-voiding events; so either someone at Samsung is lying to me or something strange is happening here. I assume what they're trying to tell me it that I've rooted my phone, which really irks me as I haven't seen any need to, wouldn't know how to, haven't had anyone offering to, and wouldn't dare to  as I knew it would void the warranty (and I'm pretty sure you can't root a phone subconsciously). So here's the stats, and hopefully someone can make sense of it all:

The Screenshot that Samsung sent back to me as as evidence had the following:
ODIN MODE
PRODUCT NAME: GT-I9300
CUSTOM BINARY DOWNLOAD: Yes (1 counts)
CURRENT BINARY: Custom
SYSTEM STATUS: Official

Does this mean that they are trying to say that I've rooted my phone?

The sequence of events that led to the phone's demise is as follows: 


  1. This Phone was purchased originally from Warehouse Stationary in July 2012.The OS at that stage was Ice cream Sandwich. It came with a 2 degrees sim. I replaced this with my telecom sim.
  2. The closest I’ve come to customisation since then is installing software off the Play store. None of these has ever said anything about requiring a root.

  3. At sometime late in 2012, the Samsung push service pushed out an update advice that I accepted (even though the push service doesn’t tell you before accepting just what the update is). It turned out to be the update to Jelly Bean, which all worked fine  and has continued to work fine for months.
  4. Sometime early in the week 9 Feb to 17 Feb, the Samsung push service notified me of another update that it wanted to install (again, some info on the screen as to what the update is would be nice). Since I was on holiday that week and not on WiFi, I chose the “Postpone” option.
  5. Later that week, while still on holiday, I got the reminder. The Postpone option wasn’t available the second time, so I clicked the Cancel option (I can’t remember if the word was “cancel”, ‘decline” or whatever, but you get the drift).
  6. I arrived back home and decided that now I could get that upgrade since I was back on my home WiFi. So I went from the home screen to Settings > About Device > Software Update > Update, from which it gave me the options to Cancel, Wifi settings, or OK.  But then I realised I was out of time and needed to get in to the office, so I clicked “Cancel” (since I was about to drive away from my home WiFi.
  7. I did not look at my phone again until I returned to the office. When I pulled out the phone, I was sitting on a message, I can’t remember the wording, but something about security encryption code failed to update or something like that. So, I powered my phone off, hoping just a power off and on again would make things all happy again. This was not to be. I can’t quite remember whether it successfully powered off at that point or whether I had to remove the battery.
  8. From that point on, every time I powered it on, it would just get as far as the Samsung GT-I9300 splash screen and hang there.
  9. Now I gave it to our network engineers, who attempted to do an emergency firmware restore using Samsung Kies. The “downloading” progress bar moved to 100%, but then the installing progress bar remained at 0%. They attempted this several times with the same result.
  10. It was at this point that the phone was brought into the Warehouse Stationery store for warranty.
What I've read since Samsung's response indicates two major issues with the S3, one being SDS, and the other being the root exploit flaw  found here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=35469999
This doesn't look to me like a case of SDS because the product name still shows.
Is it possible that this security flaw may have been exploited on my phone by a download from the App store? Does such an exploit have a signature which would be in keeping with the ODIN MODE above?

What I'm confused mostly about is, if my phone had been rooted, how would I have still being receiving updates from the Samsung Push Service? I thought you didn't receive updates from the Push service on rooted phones? I note that the root security flaw "Obtains root without ODIN flashing" (I had a friend check this before I took it into the store and it wasn't flashing, but that meant nothing to me at the time), and that Samsung's screenshot still says "SYSTEM STATUS: Official". Does this mean that this security flaw could have customised my phone such that the Samsung Push Service didn't know it was customised, and therefore pushed out the update, which failed because of same customisation? Or is there another explanation for all of this? Either way, I'm feeling fairly shafted by Samsung right now, and my complaint to their Customer Care (sic) centre is going nowhere fast. Any help appreciated!



View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 776590 8-Mar-2013 06:16
4 people support this post
Send private message

What you are describing is the sudden death, it does show it as been a custom binary as this is the point at which the official update has failed.

Send it back, tell them to do a bit of reasearch on this and it will confirm this is a genuine sudden death failure.


2484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 535
Inactive user


  Reply # 776599 8-Mar-2013 06:59
Send private message

This is really disgusting from Samsung, there is a known issue and they still refuse to honour the warranty until someone pushes them. How many phones have they wormed their way out of replacing because the user didn't know any better?

Makes me glad I own an Iphone as with the phones I have had to return to Apple for work the replacement has been recieved in less than a week and never have they indicated there would be a problem!


2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 776603 8-Mar-2013 07:28
Send private message

I agree with Greg as that is what SDS does, your point of "if my phone had been rooted, how would I have still being receiving updates from the Samsung Push Service?" is totally relevant and you should go back to Samsung as they haven't a leg to stand on. Maybe easier to go straight to small claims.




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 776605 8-Mar-2013 07:32
Send private message

dickytim: This is really disgusting from Samsung, there is a known issue and they still refuse to honour the warranty until someone pushes them. How many phones have they wormed their way out of replacing because the user didn't know any better?

Makes me glad I own an Iphone as with the phones I have had to return to Apple for work the replacement has been recieved in less than a week and never have they indicated there would be a problem!



very helpful to know Apple have a good replacement policy I'm sure the Op is feeling much better knowing that. Innocent




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




26953 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6400

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 776609 8-Mar-2013 07:48
Send private message

Who did the service? I doubt it would have been Samsung, it would have been their agent (pretty sure Fonefix are doing Samsung).

Go back to Warehouse Stationary and refuse to leave until they contact Samsung (not just the service centre) on your behalf.






7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 776657 8-Mar-2013 09:22
Send private message

sbiddle: Who did the service? I doubt it would have been Samsung, it would have been their agent (pretty sure Fonefix are doing Samsung).


The Quote came from SSCNZ Limited www.sscnz.co.nz

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 161


  Reply # 776686 8-Mar-2013 09:58
Send private message

ebeany:
sbiddle: Who did the service? I doubt it would have been Samsung, it would have been their agent (pretty sure Fonefix are doing Samsung).


The Quote came from SSCNZ Limited www.sscnz.co.nz


When I returned my S3 to The Warehouse Stationery it came back with a Service Request form that said it was fixed by SSCNZ in Albany.  While they didn't come straight out and say it was SDS, they still fixed it without any problems, so I think SSCNZ are aware of SDS and know what it looks like.

14114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2529

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 776705 8-Mar-2013 10:39
Send private message

How old is it?




AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer


4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 470

Trusted

  Reply # 776726 8-Mar-2013 10:50
Send private message

SDS has two different manifestations.

I had "full" SDS - the phone is a total brick and cannot boot to any mode. If they could get into Download mode on yours to take that screenshot then you have suffered "half" SDS, which is known to report your phone as modified regardless of the state it was in prior to SDS (so if you have a completely stock S3, as you had, it will say that your phone is modified).

For "full" SDS they are fixing/replacing without question, because there is no way for them to know if the phone was modified as it will not boot to anything at all. "Half" SDS such as what you've suffered is a real difficulty for users, since they will decline warranty on the basis of modified software.




Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org




7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 776745 8-Mar-2013 11:15
Send private message

timmmay: How old is it?


Pre-ordered on 30 May 2012, arrived mid June 2012.

14114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2529

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 776747 8-Mar-2013 11:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

It's within one year. Take it back to warehouse stationary, ask nicely for a refund or replacement, if they say no go straight to small claims court and file a claim.




AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer


14292 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1849


  Reply # 776784 8-Mar-2013 11:52
Send private message

If it is SDS it shouldn't matter how old the phone is as it is a well known defect with this phone. It sounds like they may be trying it on as they should know all about the SDS problem. I personally think Samsung should issue a recall on the batches that have a problem. The phone will be within the warranty period anyway as it had been out for less than a year. If that had happened to me, and you have given them the opportunity to repair I would ask for a refund. They have from what you have said, accused you of tampering,which I wouldn't be happy about.

481 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101


  Reply # 776786 8-Mar-2013 11:54
Send private message

timmmay: It's within one year. Take it back to warehouse stationary, ask nicely for a refund or replacement, if they say no go straight to small claims court and file a claim.


I would say this is going a bit far. Take it back to Warehosue Stationery with all your facts and I'm sure they will get it sorted for you with the repair agent. If that fails then you can try a more heavy handed approach.

14114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2529

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 776796 8-Mar-2013 12:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

throbb:
timmmay: It's within one year. Take it back to warehouse stationary, ask nicely for a refund or replacement, if they say no go straight to small claims court and file a claim.


I would say this is going a bit far. Take it back to Warehosue Stationery with all your facts and I'm sure they will get it sorted for you with the repair agent. If that fails then you can try a more heavy handed approach.


That's what I said. Ask nicely once, then go to disputes. There's no point messing around if they don't offer to fix or replace it.




AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer


14292 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1849


  Reply # 776818 8-Mar-2013 12:30
Send private message

throbb:
timmmay: It's within one year. Take it back to warehouse stationary, ask nicely for a refund or replacement, if they say no go straight to small claims court and file a claim.


I would say this is going a bit far. Take it back to Warehosue Stationery with all your facts and I'm sure they will get it sorted for you with the repair agent. If that fails then you can try a more heavy handed approach.


What do you mean by facts? Do you mean documentation about the SDS problem from websites, which isn't authoritive proof of the problem, as that would need to come from the manufacturer . Should they have to do that because it is already a known problem if that is the reason for this problem. Many people who own these phones wouldn't have any idea what the SDS problem is, and any repair agent should now be aware of the problem.
But I guess the repair agent could be correct? But there was another thread from someone with the identical problem and a similar reason for declining warranty repair from the agent and I would have expected by now that the problem would be well known in that industry.
My point is that a consumer shouldn't have to dispute a repair agent when the agent has accused them of tampering. If should have been a simple and quick fix process when the SDS is quite a well known defect. Maybe they need to get it fixed by Samsung directly instead of going through an agent.

 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.