Remember the anti-PC ads?
Interesting that they’re mentioned as only being exploited on Intel. Has anyone seen whether that’s because the attacker only targeted that platform or is it actually stopped by something like pointer protection?
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.
> 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."
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.
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.
This just means the bug is in WebKit and they shipped the fix to every platform.
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.
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.
It's not unheard of for exploits to target two or more bugs.
> Unless they're... being extra careful just in case.
That's where my money is.
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.
Rosetta2 runs an x86 exploit? Doesn’t explain iOS but still sounds interesting!
Why? Putting a lot of stock in Apple's various protections?
There must be millions of Intel Macs still around. Why wouldn’t they update it?
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.
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.
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:
https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb
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).
That list relates strictly to hardware repairs. Vintage macs have often been fully supported software-wise.
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.
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.
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.
my favorite Intel MacBook is from 2015
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 software are you talking about?
Who is forcing you to upgrade?
For that matter, what hardware?
I run an old Intel Mac and it’s perfectly reasonable for casual work. I’m not paying for stuff like Adobe leases though.
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.
> 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.
Not really suitable for a corporate environment but in case you weren't aware:
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
Nice. Yeah, never going to fly here :( pity
It might just be that the only machines they have information about are Intel? It doesn't say how many data points they have, but if it's only a handful then it's not at all surprising.
That’s what I was wondering: if this is like some of those Citizen Lab reports it might simply be that they have a small number of targeted individuals who noticed something and reported it.
I came to ask this very question. Could be an Intel hardware bug, but then we would see an advisory from Intel. So, it must be a different issue. Apple probably did not realize that their advisory implicates Intel components rather than Apple components.
>The vulnerabilities, credited to Google’s TAG (Threat Analysis Group)
Do they find these by monitoring the brokers of zero days or analyzing devices of people who are being targeted?
There's actually a very recent talk about this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zrcemxCg4Y
little of column a, little of column b
they also have insane peering and backbone network infra, run one of the largest cloud providers, host basically everyone's email, documents, and file storage, chat, app store, and have a native browser installed
I'm sure they have many different signals they can look at to see compromised type behavior differing from the profile they have on you
I suspect firebase crashlytics is the source of many
I have a perfectly functional iPad 5 that no longer receives software updates. It'd be cool if Apple would at least give it security updates, or allow alternative browser engines that don't have this vulnerability. If my iPad gets pwned, my day is going to suck.
iPadOS 16 was at least updated 3 months ago (August) so there's a chance you could still get a security update if it's applicable to that version. iPadOS 15 was updated in July.
It's hard to keep selling you new iPads every year if they did that. They might have to replace the dollar bill dispensers with ordinary toilet roll in the Apple washrooms.
(Meta: hard to not notice every comment in this thread critical of sacred cow Apple is being mass downvoted as per usual.)
It's probably because the first bit isn't really true (iPads have a longer supported life than many Android tablets, for example I updated my 2018 iPad Pro with the most recent iPadOS 18.1.1 including this security fix earlier today). And given that the silly joke falls flat.
The iPad 5 in question from the OP supports iPadOS 16 and that last got a security update in August of this year. So if it hasn't got an update today then possibly the vulnerability was only introduced in iOS / iPadOS 17.
I can assure you that the toilet paper is much more comfortable than dollar bills.
Meta meta: comments making vague complaints about other comments being downvoted, typically get downvoted.
Interesting that I had a security update for iOS (18.1.1) and a Safari update for MacOS (still running Sonoma)
that's why you turn on Lockdown Mode or swap to Linux completely :)
I have got to believe that there are some nasty zero days for linux
The advantage of everyone running the same software and hardware platform is that you can concentrate on hardening that one system. The disadvantage is that vulnerability is universal.
The advantage of everyone running a disparate environment of many of different libraries and binaries is that vulnerability is likely unique. The disadvantage is there are many more opportunities for the researcher to find vulnerability in the mess.
Choose your poison, the only secure system is powered down.
Does this affect Firefox/Chrome on macOS?
I'd guess yes, since they're both (due to Apple rules) basically wrappers around webkit and JavaScriptCore. (Modulo the possible hint that this is just an Intel-based Mac systems problem)
> I'd guess yes, since they're both (due to Apple rules) basically wrappers around webkit and JavaScriptCore.
That is not true for macOS which is what GP asked about.
While that is true on iOS, macOS has no such restriction on Firefox or Chrome.
macOS != iOS, Firefox uses Gecko.
turn on lockdown mode or swap to linux entirely.