4 ms·

Apple Only Commits to Patching Latest OS Version

34 points by gslin 4y ago

metadat 4y ago
This also makes me wonder who will be providing software & security updates for the current crop of EVs in 15-20 years time? They are basically 2-ton computers on wheels, capable of inflicting huge damage if / when they are hacked or experience a catastrophic bug. Who will be responsible? I hope no vehicles rely on a valid SSL certificate.
- mariuolo 4y ago
  I believe the answer will have to come from above, i.e. governments. Industry is unable to self-regulate on this.
- dagmx 4y ago
  This is an odd take because EVs are no more computers on wheels than ICE cars. They probably actually have fewer electrical components to drive and monitor. You’re likely conflating that EVs tend to come with the better tech packages but in almost every case where there’s an ICE equivalent you can get the same tech packages in the equivalent car. Now if your point is long term software updates, this has been an issue for many years across many manufacturers. It’s very much like Android vs iOS where many android phones don’t receive updates after a small period due to the low incentive to the manufacturer and the high variance in SKUs . However in vehicles like Volvo, Tesla etc where they’ve kept variance low there’s quite a lot of software updates over time.
  - tomxor 4y ago
    > This is an odd take because EVs are no more computers on wheels than ICE cars. They probably actually have fewer electrical components to drive and monitor. Somewhat true, somewhat untrue. All modern cars have at least some kind of ECU, and have done now for a long time now, with lots of sensors etc for engine management and more - however comparatively these are simple and un-networked devices with a singular purpose - managing the engine and basic electronics (lights, wipers, critical stuff). Some modern luxury cars including ICEs and EVs have gone way beyond this and added "entertainment units" aka distractotrons, and then networked the entire car to this thing (including the ECU) as a central control with remote network access, and millions of lines of code more than the majority of OS and browsers. Perhaps it's because most EVs are luxury cars, but EVs do tend to fall into the latter category of overcomplicated networked monstrosities. Especially tesla, where a software update can brick something as trivial and traditionally dependable and independent as an electric window motor. Simple ECUs should make the need for security patches extremely unlikely simply due to the attack surface. There should be an international automaker law that prohibits them from making a networked, remotely accessible ECU, keep the distractotron as a separate thing so that when it inevitably bricks itself it wont take the actual car with it.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  EV Manufacturers: "Repeat after me - planned obsolescence is a feature."
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    subscriptions hasten the end-of-life equation
dagmx 4y ago
This is a misleading title. The official stance from their document they’re quoting is: - older operating systems receive security patches - not all security fixes (note: not a patch) can apply to older operating systems because some depend on architectural changes. This is the norm. You don’t want major architectural changes being back propagated to older OS versions. That’s a sys admin nightmare where a security update now breaks all your drivers because Apple would have had to port DriverKit backwards and restricted kexts. All these sites are reporting it as some kind of failing but it’s just sensationalism.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Making architectural changes to create a patch implies that they only prefer to work on the latest codebase. What you are describing is a lack of commitment to long-term-support for older OS (in effect, planned obsolescence); so the head line is indeed accurate. Apple providing only partial support for older OSes can be quite meaningless depending on the security hole they decide to not fix "because it is too much work".
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Your comment belies that you have never worked on kernel and system level infrastructure with mass deployment. You can't just patch an old kernel for all security flaws because you may break other things like how third party drivers interact with the kernel. That interaction itself may be the cause of a security flaw (and in fact is, which is why they're moving to user space kernels with DriverKit) How would you posit that you patch an architectural security hole that would break users setups if you were to backport it?
    - webmobdev 4y ago
      You don't backport - you create a separate hacky patch for the older codebase that temporarily fixes the issue. (In fact, that's exactly what everyone does when a serious bug is found in a current version software that they know requires an architectural change for a long term fix). Ensuring compatibility without breaking stuffs (like Windows was once famous for) or long-term support for softwares is not a new concept. What you pointed out in your comments is how Apple prioritises its resource - it's perfectly reasonable to focus only on the latest version of codebase as that is obviously easier, and Apple's business model is built on that. That's the mindset / policy that certainly gives you the luxury to think in terms of changing the architecture to fix a bug the "right" way but at the expense of ignoring older codebases.

34 points by gslin 4y ago

This also makes me wonder who will be providing software & security updates for the current crop of EVs in 15-20 years time? They are basically 2-ton computers on wheels, capable of inflicting huge damage if / when they are hacked or experience a catastrophic bug. Who will be responsible? I hope no vehicles rely on a valid SSL certificate.

mariuolo 4y ago
I believe the answer will have to come from above, i.e. governments. Industry is unable to self-regulate on this.
dagmx 4y ago
This is an odd take because EVs are no more computers on wheels than ICE cars. They probably actually have fewer electrical components to drive and monitor. You’re likely conflating that EVs tend to come with the better tech packages but in almost every case where there’s an ICE equivalent you can get the same tech packages in the equivalent car. Now if your point is long term software updates, this has been an issue for many years across many manufacturers. It’s very much like Android vs iOS where many android phones don’t receive updates after a small period due to the low incentive to the manufacturer and the high variance in SKUs . However in vehicles like Volvo, Tesla etc where they’ve kept variance low there’s quite a lot of software updates over time.
- tomxor 4y ago
  > This is an odd take because EVs are no more computers on wheels than ICE cars. They probably actually have fewer electrical components to drive and monitor. Somewhat true, somewhat untrue. All modern cars have at least some kind of ECU, and have done now for a long time now, with lots of sensors etc for engine management and more - however comparatively these are simple and un-networked devices with a singular purpose - managing the engine and basic electronics (lights, wipers, critical stuff). Some modern luxury cars including ICEs and EVs have gone way beyond this and added "entertainment units" aka distractotrons, and then networked the entire car to this thing (including the ECU) as a central control with remote network access, and millions of lines of code more than the majority of OS and browsers. Perhaps it's because most EVs are luxury cars, but EVs do tend to fall into the latter category of overcomplicated networked monstrosities. Especially tesla, where a software update can brick something as trivial and traditionally dependable and independent as an electric window motor. Simple ECUs should make the need for security patches extremely unlikely simply due to the attack surface. There should be an international automaker law that prohibits them from making a networked, remotely accessible ECU, keep the distractotron as a separate thing so that when it inevitably bricks itself it wont take the actual car with it.
webmobdev 4y ago
EV Manufacturers: "Repeat after me - planned obsolescence is a feature."
- mistrial9 4y ago
  subscriptions hasten the end-of-life equation

dagmx 4y ago

This is a misleading title. The official stance from their document they’re quoting is: - older operating systems receive security patches - not all security fixes (note: not a patch) can apply to older operating systems because some depend on architectural changes. This is the norm. You don’t want major architectural changes being back propagated to older OS versions. That’s a sys admin nightmare where a security update now breaks all your drivers because Apple would have had to port DriverKit backwards and restricted kexts. All these sites are reporting it as some kind of failing but it’s just sensationalism.

webmobdev 4y ago
Making architectural changes to create a patch implies that they only prefer to work on the latest codebase. What you are describing is a lack of commitment to long-term-support for older OS (in effect, planned obsolescence); so the head line is indeed accurate. Apple providing only partial support for older OSes can be quite meaningless depending on the security hole they decide to not fix "because it is too much work".
- dagmx 4y ago
  Your comment belies that you have never worked on kernel and system level infrastructure with mass deployment. You can't just patch an old kernel for all security flaws because you may break other things like how third party drivers interact with the kernel. That interaction itself may be the cause of a security flaw (and in fact is, which is why they're moving to user space kernels with DriverKit) How would you posit that you patch an architectural security hole that would break users setups if you were to backport it?
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    You don't backport - you create a separate hacky patch for the older codebase that temporarily fixes the issue. (In fact, that's exactly what everyone does when a serious bug is found in a current version software that they know requires an architectural change for a long term fix). Ensuring compatibility without breaking stuffs (like Windows was once famous for) or long-term support for softwares is not a new concept. What you pointed out in your comments is how Apple prioritises its resource - it's perfectly reasonable to focus only on the latest version of codebase as that is obviously easier, and Apple's business model is built on that. That's the mindset / policy that certainly gives you the luxury to think in terms of changing the architecture to fix a bug the "right" way but at the expense of ignoring older codebases.