Many Mac OS Users Not Getting Security Updates

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."

Comments

Does it matter?

[jaymz666]

Since you know, the switch ads told me Macs don't get viruses or other bad stuff

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

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! That's what happens when you design the system right the first time!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[tangelogee]

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:Does it matter?

[TWiTfan]

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:Does it matter?

[Githaron]

Steve Jobs is going to have a second coming?!

Re:Does it matter?

[Alan Shutko]

OS X is UNIX 03 certified by The Open Group and carries the UNIX brand.

Re:Does it matter?

[alexhs]

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?

[jaymz666]

Fine, Saint Steve

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

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 ____ isn't for a mac and you'll need to find an equivalent. And if you're looking to run the best new multiplayer games, you'll be saddened by the lack of selection.

Re:Does it matter?

[garyoa1]

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?

Re:Does it matter?

[NatasRevol]

However, Posix Compliant IS Posix.

Re:Does it matter?

[NatasRevol]

False scotsmen?

Re:Does it matter?

[StrangeBrew]

Steve Jobs greatest achievement was convincing the world that a Mac wasn't a PC.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

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, very high quality. To get a similar screen you'll be shelling out some money.

For most of these models, you're paying more for the Apple brand and look, yes that's true. But in many cases that look is much smaller (compare the size of his custom iMacs -- they're HUGE!) and you get Apple support (can you just walk into an apple store with your hackintosh)?

Of course that's all personal preference, and maybe sexy design isn't worth an extra $100 for you.

Regarding the Mac Pro, that's been in need of a refresh for quite some time. And they're finally out!

It would be interesting to know how much a hackintoshes for those cost :

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

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?

[XxtraLarGe]

What useful software are you missing?

Don't feed the trolls, you'll only encourage them.

Re:Does it matter?

[ILongForDarkness]

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 that you like to work vs just having to drink the koolaid and say that product X which is one of few options on your platform is so cool because it is one of few products on your platform. Wow you really love me enough to make a program for me to use? I must love you too then :)

It is just a market domination thing Windows for PC, and probably iOS or Android for mobile because they are the ones drawing the developers to provide a wide range of options.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

I take it you haven't seen the new Mac Pro, then. Not only can you open it, but the processor is even upgradeable. I know the product manager personally. He's been trying to move mountains in regard to changing that "new way of doing things". He is also the Mac mini product manager, and that is also evolving from the sealed box design from before his watch. Steve's gone, so things are going to change with regard to the "Steve's way or the highway" restrictions of the past product designs. BTW, who's market share grew the most last quarter in PC land? Oh yeah, Apple!

Re:Does it matter?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

What kind of a place would slashdot be if people only opened their mouths when they knew what they were talking about?

An unbelievably quiet place.

Re:Does it matter?

[iksbob]

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:Does it matter?

[ray-auch]

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 the software you have, so you at least know when the software+hardware you've got will stop being supported (if the hardware doesn't die first). http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex

As far as I know, Apple doesn't give out any information like this at all (or at least I can't find it), so you have no idea how long you've got before you have to buy a new shiny...

Re:Does it matter?

[celle]

"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?

It's bad for all OS's

[zerosomething]

I'm woking in a large university where you find a larger percentage of Mac and Linux systems. It's hell keeping all operating systems updated properly. Researchers get grants to do something then spend $2million on the custom systems build on a particular version of an OS. 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.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Geoffrey.landis]

...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

[Hatta]

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:It's bad for all OS's

[TangoMargarine]

If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Solandri]

Hah. My uncle's print shop has a $20,000 laser film printer whose manufacturer folded in the early 1990s. The only drivers that work are for Windows 3.0 and Mac OS 7 (also works on 9, but not 10). So his fancy new graphics design computers send their output to an ancient Power Mac 8100 (with all of 32 MB of RAM) for printing silkscreens. It's so old that last time I visited to fix a problem he was having, the power button snapped off because the plastic had become brittle with age.

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.)

Just no

[Sockatume]

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

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Updates vs Upgrades

[tysonedwards]

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, 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.

Yes, they are.

[tirerim]

I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that Apple has stopped releasing security updates for older systems. The page linked from the summary lists updates for software for OS X 10.7 and up as recently as 16 December, a Java update for versions 10.6 and up on 15 October, and the most recent actual security update, also for versions 10.6 and up, on 12 September. Apple releases security updates when necessary, not every Tuesday like Microsoft. The fact that they've released an OS update, which includes security patches, for the most recent version of the OS without releasing one for older versions most likely means that the vulnerabilities addressed were not present in older versions; this has been the Apple release strategy for at least a decade.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Sockatume]

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.

[Lawrence_Bird]

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.

[AmiMoJo]

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:Yes, they are.

[UnknowingFool]

Um, "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)"? They haven't released a general security update in 4 months." Java for OS X 2013-005 and Java for Mac OS X v10.6 Update 17 Mac OS X v10.6.8, OS X Lion v10.7 or later, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8 or later 15 Oct 2013" Let me start planning for the apocalypse now.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Tom]

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.

[Anubis IV]

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

[DogDude]

That's some real troll-bait comparing Mac OS to Windows XP. There's really little similarity. Microsoft is discontinuing security patches for a 12 year old OS. Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

...and still, Microsoft is evil and Apple is cool...

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[jeremyp]

There's no evidence that Apple has stopped providing security updates for older versions of OS X.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[UnknowingFool]

Apple isn't discontinuing security updates to Mountain Lion. Even in the link provided, Apple updated Safari just last month and updates to versions as old as Snow Leopard in October. Unlike MS, Apple doesn't have a regular patch Tuesday.

No evidence to support it

[MrMickS]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS was deprecated 12 years ago when OS X stepped in.

As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[MikeRT]

I have a 5.5 year old MBP and it runs Mavericks almost perfectly as well as it ran Leopard. The case for not upgrading to Mavericks if you have a x86 Mac that is the age of mine or newer is based almost entirely on being a curmudgeon who doesn't want someone telling him to just move onto the next version. The vast majority of the refuseniks are likely not savvy users objecting to the "iOSification" of MacOS X or something like that, but ordinary idiots who blink at you with a blank expression when you ask what version of OS X they use. "Huh? Macs haver versions?" Yeah. My wife and I have met a lot of casual Mac users who don't seem to understand that no, really, MacOS X has versions just like Windows and that using the same OS X that came with your Mac three or four years later is like saying "I don't need that service pack shit" on Windows.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Malc]

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:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[NJRoadfan]

A few people are stuck on 10.6 because they have PowerPC applications that won't ever be updated to x86.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Sockatume]

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.

Arbitrary hardware limitations

[gman003]

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:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[carlhaagen]

Troll detected. But just in case... iOS 4 does actually run on the 3G, and Mavericks runs on as hold hardware as the last normal MB models prior to the Pro notation, which I believe were released in 2007.

This isn't that remarkable for Apple

[drcagn]

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.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[CastrTroy]

You switched to Android because you iPhone couldn't get an update? Hope you picked the right model. Android phones have terrible track records for receiving updates. Many of them never receive an update after leaving the factory floor. People say the Nexus line of phones get better support, but I'm not sure if I believe that. The Nexus One is stuck on Gingerbread (2.3) after only being released in 2010. The Nexus S is only at 4.1, Then Galaxy Nexus is at 4.2 or 4.3 depending on the hardware revision. The only ones you can run the latest OS on are the Nexus 4 and 5, the former of which is only from late 2012. Meanwhile, in with Apple, IOS 7 is supported all the way back to the iPhone 4, which was released in early 2011.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[kthreadd]

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:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

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.

X11

[tepples]

As long as it runs POSIX and an X11 server, it should run desktop applications designed for desktop Linux or FreeBSD with minimal porting work. The POSIX-certified versions of Windows did not include an X11 server and therefore were not very useful as *n?x workstations. Likewise, despite using the Linux kernel, Android uses different apps because its GUI layer runs on something other than an X11 server.

Was the Amiga a PC?

[tepples]

The Mac was a PC exactly to the extent that an ST or Amiga was a PC. Until the Intel transition, the architecture of the Mac wasn't anywhere near that of the IBM-compatible (now Lenovo-compatible) PC. Nor was the architecture of Mac OS or OS X anything like that of MS-DOS or Windows.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Citation needed

[itsdapead]

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

[macshome]

Sophos says that the security updates have stopped for anything older than Mavericks, but the article they link to has updates for 10.7, 10,8, and 10.9 in it that are less than 30 days old.

So I'm not sure how they are reading this that Apple isn't releasing updates.

Re:FPS Russia

[UnknowingFool]

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.