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."
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.
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.
Yes, they are. (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.
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:Mac OS vs Windows XP (Score:2, Informative)
...and still, Microsoft is evil and Apple is cool...
Well no wonder! (Score:2, Informative)
Mac OS was deprecated 12 years ago when OS X stepped in.
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: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: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:Mac OS vs Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (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.
Was the Amiga a PC? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.