6 ms·

Doesn't seem to completely line up that they're rushing out iOS updates (ie for phones, etc) for something they're saying they've only confirmed on Intel cpus.

Doesn't seem to completely line up that they're rushing out iOS updates (ie for phones, etc) for something they're saying they've only confirmed on Intel cpus. Unless they're assuming it's exploitable on Apple Silicon as well, or are being extra careful just in case.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
There must be millions of Intel Macs still around. Why wouldn’t they update it?
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  The parent comment said that Apple is rushing iOS updates. iOS is the operating system for iPhones which use Apple Silicon rather than Intel processors.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  Well for starters, they stopped providing any updates for many perfectly functional Intel Macs years ago for no other reason than planned obsolescence. A side effect of the "they make both the hardware and software that's why it's better" paradigm. Things like OpenCore Legacy Patcher prove it's possible; they just don't want to. I don't think anyone feels entitled to new features in perpetuity. Security updates only would be fine thank you. Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms. A cushy job and you keep the customers happy. Ironically the best way to stay safe on these computers is to install Windows or Linux.
  - StressedDev 2y ago
    Software needs longer support life cycles in general. I find it frustrating that organizations do not support operating systems, hardware, and applications for at least 10 years. Note Apple is one of the better organizations on this. Consumer router companies are notorious for shipping unpatched software. Here is what I would like to see: 1. All hardware and software should come with a highly visible end of support date. 2. All hardware and software should notify people when it is no longer receiving security patches. It should also explain to users why running unpatched software or hardware is dangerous.
    - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
      To my knowledge Apple has never published EOL or support dates in the future. Someone correct me if something has changed in the last few years.
      - wtallis 2y ago
        https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 outlines "vintage" and "obsolete" status for hardware products, with a few exceptions. I'm not aware of a similarly straightforward criteria or comprehensive list for software support periods.
        wannacboatmovie 2y ago
        The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date. My expectation is a table of OS versions and EOL dates published in advance. Like nearly every other responsible OS vendor in existence. Apple continuing to get a pass on this in 2024 is abhorrent.
        wtallis 2y ago
        > The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date. If you read some of the text above the product list, you'll see that Apple does publish guidelines about when products can be expected to be added to the list: > Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago. > Products are considered obsolete when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 7 years ago. Monster-branded Beats products are considered obsolete regardless of when they were purchased. > Apple discontinues all hardware service for obsolete products, and service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. Mac laptops may be eligible for an extended battery-only repair period for up to 10 years from when the product was last distributed for sale, subject to parts availability. So as you can see, it's not arbitrary or unpredictable when a product is going to show up on the vintage product list. The only unpredictable or obscure part of this process is finding out how long an outdated product was still being sold after its successor launched.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Sequoia is supported on most Intel Macs going back to 2018. And it's far more than just a "couple of developers" to support older operating systems.
    - chris_wot 2y ago
      Not on Macbook Airs that are only 3-5 years old though. We have a number that we plan on replacing after EOY, but we are still using for now. Can't get Sequoia.
      - password4321 2y ago
        Not really suitable for a corporate environment but in case you weren't aware: https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher macOS Big Sur and newer on machines as old as 2007 macOS Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura, Sonoma and Sequoia
        chris_wot 2y ago
        Nice. Yeah, never going to fly here :( pity
      - phony-account 2y ago
        > Macbook Airs that are only 3-5 years old MacBook Airs from 2020 support Sequoia - so just the very upper limit of your range is relevant.
        wannacboatmovie 2y ago
        Absolutely not. Apple was still selling non-Retina Intel MacBook Airs until 2019. Those are now completely unsupported with no security updates having topped out at Monterrey. 5 years of updates on a new laptop is borderline criminal.
      - chris_wot 2y ago
        I see the Mac fanboys aren't happy with my factual statement. I love Macs (won't use anything else) but I also live in reality.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot ? If the new MacOS does not run on older HW and they don't release patches (no development team) it is a win-win situation: user must buy a new Mac and no money is wasted supporting old HW.
oddevan 2y ago
> Unless they're... being extra careful just in case. That's where my money is.
- ajross 2y ago
  Or they just don't know. Full analysis of an exploit usually takes days to weeks. It's possible it's only exploitable on x86, but equally possible that only the x86 version of the payload was discovered in the wild.
  - 486sx33 2y ago
    Rosetta2 runs an x86 exploit? Doesn’t explain iOS but still sounds interesting!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  Why? Putting a lot of stock in Apple's various protections?
tedunangst 2y ago
It's not unheard of for exploits to target two or more bugs.
bigiain 2y ago
> Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited on Intel-based Mac systems. Is kinda weasel-wordy, if you read it with sufficient cynicism. Its doesn't rule out them also being aware of reports (or actual instances) of it being exploited on iOS or Apple silicon Macs. It _might_ actually mean "Apple could not deny in a lawsuit that it's been sent a report of this being exploited on Intel Macs."
- duxup 2y ago
  Or they’re just not able to confirm it everywhere but feel the code change is necessary regardless? I’ve certainly addressed a potential issue with code that I thought might have occurred even when I couldn’t confirm it with 100% certainty. A detailed analysis / testing and confirmation that provides certainty may take longer than addressing code.
- brookst 2y ago
  If you read it with enough cynicism, it doesn’t rule out Apple having actual knowledge that it was exploited to steal every last bit of information from every Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV, and Apple II ever produced.
- kafrofrite 2y ago
  Most probably what Apple means is that since their codebase is shared, the vulnerability exists across devices. This does not mean that the vulnerability is actively exploited in iOS nor that it will not be actively exploited as part of some other campaign.
saagarjha 2y ago
This just means the bug is in WebKit and they shipped the fix to every platform.
initplus 2y ago
Will be an underlying safety issue in some system library, but they have only seen "in the wild" exploits targeting Intel. "Defence in depth" - better to push the bugfix to all than to scrutinize ARM security features to understand if an exploit is possible there as well.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Sometimes problems manifest differently on different architectures. It's one of the advantages of building for more than just one: it shakes out bugs. Doesn't mean you don't fix the root issue in all builds. Apple for the most part has one codebase that they build for their different architectures. They've been doing this since the NeXT days when they supported Motorola, Intel, Sparc, and maybe a couple of other architectures.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago

There must be millions of Intel Macs still around. Why wouldn’t they update it?

shepherdjerred 2y ago
The parent comment said that Apple is rushing iOS updates. iOS is the operating system for iPhones which use Apple Silicon rather than Intel processors.
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
Well for starters, they stopped providing any updates for many perfectly functional Intel Macs years ago for no other reason than planned obsolescence. A side effect of the "they make both the hardware and software that's why it's better" paradigm. Things like OpenCore Legacy Patcher prove it's possible; they just don't want to. I don't think anyone feels entitled to new features in perpetuity. Security updates only would be fine thank you. Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms. A cushy job and you keep the customers happy. Ironically the best way to stay safe on these computers is to install Windows or Linux.
- StressedDev 2y ago
  Software needs longer support life cycles in general. I find it frustrating that organizations do not support operating systems, hardware, and applications for at least 10 years. Note Apple is one of the better organizations on this. Consumer router companies are notorious for shipping unpatched software. Here is what I would like to see: 1. All hardware and software should come with a highly visible end of support date. 2. All hardware and software should notify people when it is no longer receiving security patches. It should also explain to users why running unpatched software or hardware is dangerous.
  - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
    To my knowledge Apple has never published EOL or support dates in the future. Someone correct me if something has changed in the last few years.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772 outlines "vintage" and "obsolete" status for hardware products, with a few exceptions. I'm not aware of a similarly straightforward criteria or comprehensive list for software support periods.
      - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
        The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date. My expectation is a table of OS versions and EOL dates published in advance. Like nearly every other responsible OS vendor in existence. Apple continuing to get a pass on this in 2024 is abhorrent.
        wtallis 2y ago
        > The issue with passing off a list of vintage products as some kind of past tense support schedule is by definition products become vintage when they are added to the list at some arbitrary date. If you read some of the text above the product list, you'll see that Apple does publish guidelines about when products can be expected to be added to the list: > Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago. > Products are considered obsolete when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 7 years ago. Monster-branded Beats products are considered obsolete regardless of when they were purchased. > Apple discontinues all hardware service for obsolete products, and service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. Mac laptops may be eligible for an extended battery-only repair period for up to 10 years from when the product was last distributed for sale, subject to parts availability. So as you can see, it's not arbitrary or unpredictable when a product is going to show up on the vintage product list. The only unpredictable or obscure part of this process is finding out how long an outdated product was still being sold after its successor launched.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Sequoia is supported on most Intel Macs going back to 2018. And it's far more than just a "couple of developers" to support older operating systems.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    Not on Macbook Airs that are only 3-5 years old though. We have a number that we plan on replacing after EOY, but we are still using for now. Can't get Sequoia.
    - password4321 2y ago
      Not really suitable for a corporate environment but in case you weren't aware: https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher macOS Big Sur and newer on machines as old as 2007 macOS Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura, Sonoma and Sequoia
      - chris_wot 2y ago
        Nice. Yeah, never going to fly here :( pity
    - phony-account 2y ago
      > Macbook Airs that are only 3-5 years old MacBook Airs from 2020 support Sequoia - so just the very upper limit of your range is relevant.
      - wannacboatmovie 2y ago
        Absolutely not. Apple was still selling non-Retina Intel MacBook Airs until 2019. Those are now completely unsupported with no security updates having topped out at Monterrey. 5 years of updates on a new laptop is borderline criminal.
    - chris_wot 2y ago
      I see the Mac fanboys aren't happy with my factual statement. I love Macs (won't use anything else) but I also live in reality.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Don't tell me the richest company in the world can't pay for a couple of developers who just want to rest and vest to take care of and test the legacy platforms. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot ? If the new MacOS does not run on older HW and they don't release patches (no development team) it is a win-win situation: user must buy a new Mac and no money is wasted supporting old HW.

oddevan 2y ago

> Unless they're... being extra careful just in case. That's where my money is.

ajross 2y ago
Or they just don't know. Full analysis of an exploit usually takes days to weeks. It's possible it's only exploitable on x86, but equally possible that only the x86 version of the payload was discovered in the wild.
- 486sx33 2y ago
  Rosetta2 runs an x86 exploit? Doesn’t explain iOS but still sounds interesting!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ruthmarx 2y ago
Why? Putting a lot of stock in Apple's various protections?

tedunangst 2y ago

It's not unheard of for exploits to target two or more bugs.

bigiain 2y ago

> Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited on Intel-based Mac systems. Is kinda weasel-wordy, if you read it with sufficient cynicism. Its doesn't rule out them also being aware of reports (or actual instances) of it being exploited on iOS or Apple silicon Macs. It _might_ actually mean "Apple could not deny in a lawsuit that it's been sent a report of this being exploited on Intel Macs."

duxup 2y ago
Or they’re just not able to confirm it everywhere but feel the code change is necessary regardless? I’ve certainly addressed a potential issue with code that I thought might have occurred even when I couldn’t confirm it with 100% certainty. A detailed analysis / testing and confirmation that provides certainty may take longer than addressing code.
brookst 2y ago
If you read it with enough cynicism, it doesn’t rule out Apple having actual knowledge that it was exploited to steal every last bit of information from every Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV, and Apple II ever produced.
kafrofrite 2y ago
Most probably what Apple means is that since their codebase is shared, the vulnerability exists across devices. This does not mean that the vulnerability is actively exploited in iOS nor that it will not be actively exploited as part of some other campaign.

saagarjha 2y ago

This just means the bug is in WebKit and they shipped the fix to every platform.

initplus 2y ago

Will be an underlying safety issue in some system library, but they have only seen "in the wild" exploits targeting Intel. "Defence in depth" - better to push the bugfix to all than to scrutinize ARM security features to understand if an exploit is possible there as well.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Sometimes problems manifest differently on different architectures. It's one of the advantages of building for more than just one: it shakes out bugs. Doesn't mean you don't fix the root issue in all builds. Apple for the most part has one codebase that they build for their different architectures. They've been doing this since the NeXT days when they supported Motorola, Intel, Sparc, and maybe a couple of other architectures.