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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samsung nowadays tells you ahead of time how long a phone will get major updates and security updates. I think it's the same with Google Pixel. And they have a list of models and their release schedules:
My qualm with them is though that not all devices are updated at the same time (like iOS/iPadOS/macOS). One phone may get an update the 10th of the month, while another only gets it the 30th. As a result, there is often quite a large window where vulnerabilities are known, but not yet patched (it's even worse with the cheap models that only get quarterly updates).
Yes, I'm fully aware that the support article I linked to is specifically about hardware support—that's why I mentioned that there isn't a similar list for software support.
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.
> 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.
Ok, but this is an Apples vs oranges comparison. (Carlos!)
We are talking about software support here.
The vintage products list is specifically targeting hardware support; e.g. how long Apple will keep spare parts in stock. After a set number of years they purge stock and you are SOL going to Chinese third party vendors and places like iFixit for batteries etc.
Not really; vintage macs turning obsolete are being dropped from the macOS support very reliably. I.e. the 2015 mbp was dropped from 2022 macos release like on the clock.
Agreed. It takes more than a few developers to support older operating systems.
At my old job we supported only two versions of our software product, Tanzu Operations Manager versions 2.10.x and 3.0.y), and we cut new patch releases every few weeks (similar to Apple's cadence). Bumping dependencies was a pain. Well, usually it went fine, but sometimes you'd hit a gnarly incompatibility and you'd either pin a Ruby package to a known version or try to modify the code just enough to make it work without making a major change.
If I had to put a number to it, I'd say it cost us 2 developers to keep our older product line consistently patched, and our product was a modest Ruby app, much less complicated than an entire OS.
You act as if we should be thankful for 6 years of support when the hardware and sane support cycles easily exceed 10 years. And those aren't 6 years of security updates; they are 6 years of forced yearly feature upgrades and breaking things along the way.
What exactly is an old Intel mac and what is a casual work?
For example, I have 2015 macbook pro. The last macos release for it is Monterey. Even brew has problems with that, erroring out when installing packages like libpng and complaining, that I should upgrade xcode cli tools. Which I can't.
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.
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.
“Any time we can get back somebody’s vehicle that’s been stolen, that’s a win for us.”
He added, “We would treat it no differently if it was someone’s F-150 versus a
Lamborghini.”
I don’t think it’s a lie. An F-150 is only 3 times cheaper than a Lambo, and there are thousands more F150s around, they can’t afford to be cavalier about recovering them.
I have worked with some people in the defence industry who got just that from Adobe and a few similar vendors. They had to negotiate with adobe and sign NDAs both ways, and they payed through the nose for it. But you can do it.
"Be defence forces of (checks profile) one-of-the-five nation states" is not a standard of negotiation requirement I deem attainable for just about anyone that isn't one of the five or EU the union.
Fair enough, but how life-crucial can an old copy of Adobe be?... I'm assuming a project like the Voyager mission relies on something a bit more bespoke than a copy of Adobe Creative Whatever. I really hope the defence forces core mission doesn't depend on Adobe Creative Cloud.
I guess the main reason here isn't "keeping an old version", but having a version that doesn't require an internet connection to be activated and doesn't send any data to Adobe.
But having an older version can be useful too because some features from previous releases may be missing in current ones, so that's a way to ensure access to the old files. A couple of years ago all the Pantone colours used in Photoshop just became black after an update because Adobe stopped licensing Pantone stuff.
I think they were meaning more along the lines of behavioral or mental issues, since they mentioned autism. In my schooling I never saw anyone get put down because of physical disorders or differences, but it was much more common for people to get bullied when they were trying to fit into cliques that their background or behavior didn't blend well with. The kind of bullying I witnessed was like a form of signaling telling the bullied that as much as they tried, they wouldn't fit in with an in-group.
> Rather than the traditional response of blame and punishment for the bully
Well, that's bullshit. Often the "traditional response" (at least in my day) was to blame the person being bullied, sometimes along with the bully as well.
Well, maybe a future version of 3D printing. :)
reply