Many Mac OS Users Not Getting Security Updates 380
AmiMoJo writes "According to security company Sophos, around 55% of home users and 18% of enterprise users have updated to Mavericks, the latest version of Mac OS (10.9). Unfortunately Apple appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions. Indeed, they list Mavericks itself as a security update. This means that the majority of users are no longer getting critical security patches. Sophos recommends taking similar precautions to those recommended for people who cannot upgrade from Windows XP."
Does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you know, the switch ads told me Macs don't get viruses or other bad stuff
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, it's not like Macs suffer the same design and interface problems that made Windows 8 or Unity. Apple designed their system right the fiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
*head falls to the side, images from the latest WWDC can be seen flickering on eyeballs*
...rrrrrrrrst ugh are you STILL using Mavericks? Pssh, please. Snow Cheetah has been announced for a whole 7.33921 seconds already. Get with the times! Apple fixed all the obvious system design problems Mavericks has, making perfection even more perfecter!
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple fanboys and Apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Android fanboys and android haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Microsoft fanboys and microsoft haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Vi fanboys and vi haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Emacs fanboys and Emacs haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Bitcoin fanboys and bitcoin haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
True scotmen fanboys and true scotmen haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Who's left ? :)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
False scotsmen?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't false scotsmen the worse true scotsmen haters ?
Or are they just a bunch of true scotsmen fanboys haters and true scotsmen haters fanboys ? In which case, they're also in the same group as true scotsmen fanboys fanboys and true scotsmen haters haters, and I say: Ban them too !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was the Amiga a PC? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside the ranking of Jobs' achievements, convincing the world of the non-PCness of Macs pales in comparison to Gates' achievement: Convincing the world that all PCs run Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
"Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots."
You mean like the nuke apologists and environmentalists, vi vs emacs, apple vs pc, MS vs linux, etc, etc, etc. This board would be out of business without the 'biased' especially with Dice running the show. We all know this is true and we all willingly visit this board, so who are the real idiots again?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Security updates aren't just for viruses.
That being said, I use a mac and I cannot upgrade to 10.9 because my machine isn't supported. It still does everything I need it to do, it's not slow. I don't think Apple doesn't support it because the hardware IS too old (Intel processor and all), I just think it's because Apple THINKS the hardware is too old. I can tell you that this is the last mac I buy. I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system. It may not run it fast, but generally it will run it.
Linux only from now on.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Father Steve only extends his divine blessings to those with the faith to maintain the latest holy hardware. Obviously, you have lost your faith and become a Windows or Linux heretic. Expect no welcome in the Great Apple Store when the end comes!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, Saint Steve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This!
The "free OS upgrades" are such a freaking lie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem I "had" with Mac was, if I wanted to update some programs... sorry. OS is too old. Update the OS and another prog says.... sorry, OS is too new.
And I look over at the win8 machine that can still run dos based progs 20- 25 years old and say... why?
DOS compatability in Win8 (Score:2)
I'm running Doom in Win8, does that count?
Compatibility mode in Win8.1 goes as far back as Win95. It's not guaranteed but I've got 15-year old Windows programs written under NT4 to work under Win8.1.
Re: (Score:2)
Running on Windows 95 does not make it a DOS program. And you evidently must have a 32-bit version of 8 as 64 won't run 16 anymore, I hear.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually MS do decide sometimes - or at least they release required specs and checking tools (upgrade adviser) and sometimes your machine cannot be upgraded.
One of my PCs is about to go there - on XP and insufficient spec to upgrade to win7. But then, the machine is 12+ years old, and although it still does everything it did when it was bought, and just as well as it did then, my phone probably has more memory and more CPU power.
The big thing that MS does do well is provide EOL dates well ahead of time for
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Driver support is not Micosoft's fault. That's the Vendors. And need we talk about the fact that up until recently, you could only install (basically) Apple sanctioned expansion cards in their machines? Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. Some hardware had driver issues, but that's all on the vendors
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's so hard to get useful software for *nix systems.
Re:FPS Russia (Score:4, Informative)
So pay a premium for the hardware then spend loads more getting a non-OEM install of windows and potentially a license for your VM solution.
Yes, because getting an OEM versions of Windows for the PC I built myself is rather easy and cheap. Also the cost of Windows is $0 for all OEM systems right? I didn't pay anything for it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
What useful software are you missing?
The Mac has plenty of productivity software. If you want to write a report, code, surf the web, or whatever, you'll have no problems.
It does lack some special case software. That's slowly changing, but I can imagine that if you need to run an electron software designed for Windows XP you're SOL.
But such cases are few and far between. And if you really really wanted, you could purchase Parallels and run the windows software anyways.
Of course, maybe your favorite ____ i
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
What useful software are you missing?
Don't feed the trolls, you'll only encourage them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the problem I find with the *nix market though (and I was a unix sys admin for several years with a Mac as my primary desktop): there is something that will work. It might be crap, it might just be a text file with no formatting it gets you 80% of the way there. It is the last 20% that keeps me using Windows (and now I'm a server side dev using MS tech): not every Windows app is great but there are 10X more of them so you can find one closer to doing exactly what you want and designed in the way tha
Re: (Score:2)
Reality check.
What is more important nowadays; Unix compliance or Linux compliance?
X11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a subset API, but apparently it was still too difficult to maintain for Microsoft. It has been removed from Windows since Windows 8.1 and deprecated since 8.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
OS X is UNIX 03 certified [opengroup.org] by The Open Group and carries the UNIX brand.
Re: (Score:3)
However, Posix Compliant IS Posix.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The website you list is actually quite funny because it seems to reveal Apple hardware is quite well priced.
In the mac mini, for instance, to save money he leaves out wifi, and uses an i3 instead of an i5.
And OK maybe you won't use wifi. But you will need a keyboard and mouse and he leaves those out of the price as well.
Or, when the 21.5" imac is listed as being very over priced he lists "Any 21.5 monitor (1920x1080)"
IAAP (I am a Photographer) and I can tell you that the Apple screens in the iMacs are very
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
What kind of a place would slashdot be if people only opened their mouths when they knew what they were talking about?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
An unbelievably quiet place.
It's bad for all OS's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's bad for all OS's (Score:4, Insightful)
...Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.
In general, changing the OS breaks some stuff that used to work. It's always best to wait until the people willing to be drive the software first have found workarounds to the problems.
Or you can call support, which will tell you "Oh, that doesn't work with the new operating system."
Re:It's bad for all OS's (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. We have a microscope that's hooked up to a G4 powermac running 10.2. The company that made the camera doesn't exist anymore, and the most recent software available for it is for XP. The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.
But those type of situations are fine; you've got a dedicated device doing a dedicated thing. Usually in those situations having a full OS is over kill and the system should have been built with an embedded OS in the first place. The type of scenarios which are worrying are ones where the computers are peoples internet personal files machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's bad for all OS's (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice to know he's not the only one in this type of situation. Software people need to realize that constantly updating is sometimes not an option, and for certain applications (like dedicated hardware drivers) you need to treat the software like an embedded system and make it as robust as you can out the box. Software may be obsolete in 3 years, but hardware can frequently last for 25+ years. (It prints onto roll film that's about 28 inches wide for printing posters, so please don't say just buy a new printer from Staples. Replacements are currently about $2500+ for inkjet, $10k+ for laser.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?
Stuxnet (Score:2)
If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?
Tell that to the Iranians who got their centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet. Network isolation is not necessarily enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure the university this guy is talking about is working to build its own nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.
How old are your Macs if they have parallel ports? Since the original iMac (in 1997!), it's been Firewire, USB and now Thunderbolt. And before then I thought they used serial or ADB. Or are you just trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
Just no (Score:5, Informative)
Far be it for me to say that a security company was using dodgy numbers to hype its product, but their MacOS adoption numbers are soley from Sophos-for-MacOS users, which I'd have to imagine is a really spectacularly unrepresentative sample. And their assertions that Mavericks was the only way to get security updates for MacOS going forwards seems to be contradicted by the fact that the previous version of MacOS was security patched when Mavericks was launched.
Re:Just no (Score:4, Informative)
If you check the linked page you can see that since Mavericks was released, listed as a security update, all other OS level updates and many of the app updates have required it. They claim not to support older versions.
Re: (Score:2)
A big part of the reason they can even get away with that claim is because Apple doesn't publish a proper software lifecycle policy. For all I do like about Apple, that's the one big thing I feel they do wrong. Mac OS X and iOS badly need a documented support policy so that it's clear how
Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS (Score:2)
Throwing a wrench in all of this of course is Apple's decision to stop charging for new Mac OSes as of Mavericks. Since it's free, is it a new OS or is it just another patch for Mountain Lion?
If the system requirements have increased, it is a new operating system because it is likely to require hardware replacement.
To use Microsoft as an example here, they treat Windows 8.1 as a service pack for Windows 8
The system requirements of Windows 8.1 are identical to those of Windows 8, and they don't even differ noticeably from those of Windows Vista.
Updates vs Upgrades (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are adopting the model of "the OS Upgrade IS a security update", then throw it in their normal update mechanism rather than having people seek it out.
Since they didn't, they must realize that there is a chance that their Upgrade could break things for people, so let them upgrade in their own time, and as such should back port the occasional update to the computers that they sold 3 months or so ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't all OSX updates come through the App Store now? Where they then show you a half-screen banner prompting you to download 10.9 if it's compatible?
Re: Updates vs Upgrades (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It is unfortunate that Apple didn't think that one through a little further. If they are adopting the model of "the OS Upgrade IS a security update", then throw it in their normal update mechanism rather than having people seek it out. Since they didn't, [. . .]
It is unfortunate that you didn't think your post through a little further.
I'm running Mac OS 10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) on two machines, and I am notified once every few days by the "App Store" application (which is the update mechanism for OS X starting with Mac OS 10.7 Lion) that Mavericks is ready to install.*
In other words, Mavericks *is* included as part of Apple's "normal update mechanism" and "normal people" do not have to seek it out; Mavericks seeks out them.
*I've not upgraded these two machines becau
Yes, they are. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, they are. (Score:5, Informative)
Their support for that assertion is a link to one of their own articles:
1) From three months ago
2) Before 10.9 launched
3) Right after a major OSX 10.8 software update had been released
4) Which has had its thesis contradicted by the series of subsequent updates you list
I don't think Sophos are in the "critical thinking" business.
Re:Yes, they are. (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the list from Apple's own web site, linked to in the summary:
19 Dec 2013 Motion 5.1 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
16 Dec 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9.1
16 Dec 2013 Safari 6.1.1 and Safari 7.0.1 (OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.5, OS X Mavericks v10.9)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.7 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.5.4 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Server 3.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Keynote 6.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9 (Mac OS X v10.6.8 and later)
(Windows and iOS updates omitted)
So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps. Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes, they are. (Score:5, Insightful)
So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten? Microsoft still supports XP Does Apple still support OS X 10.1? They were released at the same time in 2001. I think nothing illustrates the difference between the companies than that fact. Apple obsoletes their users by force while Microsoft bends over backwards to maintain not only support but backward compatability.
Re:Yes, they are. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but there's been only 2 releases of windows since then, while there have been 7 releases of OS X.
The iteration cycle of OS X is faster. If you don't like it, then nobody forces you to buy it, stay with windows.
Also, a new version of OS X is something like 20 or 30 bucks, while a new version of windows is ten times that amount. There's little excuse to still be running OS X 10.1
Re:Yes, they are. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true. And there are benefits and drawbacks to doing so.
For Microsoft, it means that their customers rarely get left behind, and that they rarely will upgrade to discover that their favorite seldom-used feature has been phased out. On the flipside, it means that Microsoft's designs are saddled by needing to accommodate loads of legacy features, which leads to bloated designs with inconsistencies like mixed metaphors and cluttered UIs.
The exact opposite is true with Apple. They're unafraid to leave behind customers who don't keep up, and they're unafraid to cut out features that they can't or don't want to fit into the latest version of their software. But it also means that they are able to polish the latest iThing to its utmost, providing a tight user experience that isn't held back by needing to fit in legacy features.
Pick the one that appeals to you, or choose Linux, but don't fault Microsoft for not being Apple, or Apple for not being Microsoft. The two companies are cut from entirely different cloth, and it's for everyone's benefit that that's the case, since otherwise computing might be quite a bit more boring.
Mac OS vs Windows XP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...and still, Microsoft is evil and Apple is cool...
Re: (Score:3)
There's no evidence that Apple has stopped providing security updates for older versions of OS X.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even less similar than that, since Apple hasn't actually discontinued security updates. So it's bullshit all the way down.
I'm amused how many people actually believed this article, though. Sometimes I wonder why the quality of journalism is so low, but then I realize that the journalists are giving us exactly what we want. Sigh.
Mavericks really isn't a new OS (Score:2)
Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.
Calling Mavericks a "new OS" is really something of a stretch. It is at best a modest revision of the previous version. When Apple does something as dramatic as the difference between XP and Vista or Windows 7 and Windows 8, then maybe it might be realistic to call it a new OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you consider "new". If your criteria is that crucial things must break in between versions requiring new drivers, then it is not new like XP -> Vista. For the most part, the last several OS versions have more work done at the core level rather than a lot of new UI.
Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS (Score:4, Informative)
I think the main difference is that Apple does things in small steps rather than large steps so transitions are easier. For example between OS X Cheetah (10.1) and Leopard (10.5) there was so much change that many programs that worked in Cheetah may not work in Leopard but each versions was only a small change from the previous. MS did the same thing in the same time from XP -> Vista but the changes were so abrupt that it broke so many things. Leopard brought in the new Intel CPUs. Snow Leopard contained a great deal of changes to the core systems including the transition to 64-bit. The pattern from Apple has been major architectural changes then refinements for a few versions then major architectural change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
No evidence to support it (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the Apple update release page there hasn't been a Security Update since Mavericks was released so there is no evidence to support the assertion from Sophos.
The last Security Update from Apple was 2013-004 and included updates for Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Until Apple releases a security update that *only* targets Mavericks this is just Sophos FUD.
Well no wonder! (Score:2, Informative)
Mac OS was deprecated 12 years ago when OS X stepped in.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My MBP is just about to turn six (and it's had almost as many batteries, but that's a different story). Mavericks breathes new life in to it because of memory compression. The 6GB RAM I've got in it just ain't enough anymore, but it doesn't hit the swap file as much as it did before.
Re: (Score:3)
Arbitrary hardware limitations (Score:3)
I have an old, first-gen Mac Pro, which I use as a regular desktop. I tend to spend the bulk of my time in Windows, but I use OS X on occasion.
For whatever reason, the firmware on it is for 32-bit systems, something Mountain Lion and now Mavericks does not support. I'm still running Lion because I don't care about their new features and don't want to risk breaking something trying to hack it into working. Getting 64-bit Windows onto the machine was difficult enough.
So yeah, for me at least, it's because Apple doesn't want to give me security updates, not because I don't want to download them.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is of course that you should buy new hardware.
This isn't that remarkable for Apple (Score:3)
For quite some time now, it's been Apple's policy to support the current OS release as well as the previous OS release. That means that since the release of Mavericks, they would be supporting Mavericks (current release) and Mountain Lion (previous release). But, this is also the first generation that the new OS 1) supports every machine that the previous release supported 2) is offered for completely free. So, practically speaking, there's very little reason to not just force all Mountain Lion users to upgrade to Mavericks to have support. However, I don't see any evidence on their page that they are even instating this policy? If they did, though, it would be very aggressive, but not really unremarkable for Apple.
Citation needed (Score:3)
Unfortunately Apple appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions.
A statement that is cast into severe doubt by the continuing appearance of security updates for older versions, like Safari 6.1.1 on December 16th, Apple Remote Desktop 3.5.4 on 22 October and the lack of any claim that Apple has stopped releasing security updates in the article they link to to support their claim that Apple has stopped releasing security updates. It does talk about some of the security updates in 10.9 - a couple of which are covered by those Safari and Remote Desktop updates. As for the rest, TFA doesn't take the trouble to actually establish whether they are fixes c.f. 10.8 or fixes for issues in the 10.9 beta that was widely released to developers - so neither will I.
Now, is Apple maybe prioritising which security fixes it backports to 10.8 or earlier, and only bothering with the "OMG remote pwnage imminent" ones? Maybe. I will try and contain my fear.
Not sure they are reading the KBase Correctly (Score:3)
So I'm not sure how they are reading this that Apple isn't releasing updates.
Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
When iOS 4 came out, you switched to Android because you wanted more software updates? Summer 2010, at the height of the Android software update panic, when Motorola had to be pressured to even update the Droid to 2.2, and most phones were lucky to see an update outside of the first six months?
Then when you couldn't get a new version of MacOS for a five-year-old laptop, rather than just install Windows 7 on it, you bought a whole new computer?
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Re: (Score:2)
I needed to buy a laptop with a German keyboard since I now work in Germany and need practice with the new layout (it's more than just Z & Y reversed if you code for a living). Switching to Windows 7 is what I did with that laptop but that's not what the article is about. It's about updating OS X, not Windows, who's trolling now?
By the time I realized iOS 4 had borked my phone, CyanogenMod was an option for Android.
It's not about more "Software Updates", it's about adequate security for devices I use fo
Re: (Score:2)
Just get one of those plastic keyboard covers and remap the key layout!
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than just that, a lot of the keys are a different shape too. I still get lots of #'s when going for enter even after 9 months here. Gotta train new muscle memory. Fortunately, learning the QWERTZ layout hasn't degraded my ability to type on a QWERTY keyboard in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only for a very limited definition of run. I had dropped calls increase to about 1 in 5 and the software made the phone run sluggish. It cannot be upgraded beyond that and upgrading to that point is a mistake if you actually like to use your phone.
You are all calling me a troll, but I don't like being extorted into hardware upgrades due to lack of continued support for older hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The second gen Macbook Pro is supported with Mavericks. In fact, the only Macbook Pros not supported seem to be the original 32 bit only ones.
Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I replaced it with a Samsung Galaxy S which is now running CyanogenMod, no regrets here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When was the last time iOS 4 recieved a security update? Additionally, if you actually had an iPhone 3G you would know that upgrading to iOS 4 basically rendered it useless even though it was technically possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My late 2006 2nd generation intel Macbook Pro cannot be upgraded to Mavericks. I'm not making this up just to spite the Apple fanboys, I got an error message when I was attempting the upgrade. That's hardly leaping to conclusions..
And the iPhone 3G hardly runs iOS 4, since it causes the phone which worked fine before the update to drop 1 in 5 calls. And it certainly cannot be upgraded beyond that point meaning it does not receive anymore security updates.
In short, I would have to be a fool to continue using
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing 20+ year old hardware not being able to run the latest software, to 2 year old hardware not being able to run the latest software and I'm the idiot? I was late to buy the iPhone 3G, does that mean it's okay for Apple to stop providing updates less than 18 months later??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.
Re: (Score:2)