toggle

AAPL Stock: 502.21 ( + 4.54 )

Apple updates security patch to fix 64-bit glitch

updated 06:35 am EDT, Thu August 18, 2005

Apple fixes 64-bit glitch


Apple late Wednesday night fixed a glitch in its recent security update that editions of Tiger (via the web and Software Update), replaces Security Update 2005-007 v1.0 for Tiger systems Mac OS X v10.4.2. Apple recommends that users who have already installed v1.0 on Tiger systems to install v1.1. Version 1.1 of the update "provides a combined 32- and 64-bit version of LibSystem to replace the 32-bit version that was delivered in v1.0. No other changes have been made in version 1.1," according to Apple's documentation.


by MacNN Staff

print
email
(6)

TAGS :

 software

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. swatson

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2000

    0
    08/18, 09:15am | report spam | Reply |

    secuirty?

    spell check?

  1. cyngus

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 1999

    0
    08/18, 09:29am | report spam | Reply |

    Forgot?

    provides a combined 32- and 64-bit version of LibSystem to replace the 32-bit version that was delivered in v1.0.

    So, if I read this correctly, Apple just FORGOT the 64-bit version of libsystem? Are you joking?

  1. TheBum

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: Sep 2001

    0
    08/18, 10:22am | report spam | Reply |

    More likely mis-built

    Rather than Apple "forgetting" to include the 64-bit version, I find it more likely that they accidentally "flipped the wrong switch" when they built the library so that the 64-bit code was excluded.

  1. goatman

    Junior Member

    Joined: May 2000

    0
    08/18, 01:20pm | report spam | Reply |

    Widgets

    My widgets are all now broken. Wondering if it could be the newer new update. Anyoneelse got this?

  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0
    08/18, 04:26pm | report spam | Reply |

    Re: more likely misbuilt

    Rather than Apple "forgetting" to include the 64-bit version, I find it more likely that they accidentally "flipped the wrong switch" when they built the library so that the 64-bit code was excluded.

    But with such a massive project, wouldn't the build scripts all be, well, scripted, such that it wouldn't require someone to remember to turn on or off some feature (like a big ol' -O or something). But then why would someone be hacking their way through the build scripts, esp. touching the parts that probably wouldn't have changed for a security patch?

    Update scripts, on the other hand, have to be updated/tweaked/created for each build (as what needs to be installed changes). It seems to me like a more likely scenario to actually forget to include something.

    But I'm basing this on personal experience where I never touch my compile scripts unless I have to, but I'm always forgetting a file when building the update package.

  1. trikster

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2005

    0
    08/19, 07:39am | report spam | Reply |

    Re: more likely misbuilt

    Better still, shouldn't Apple have tested the patch on 64 bit apps before shipping it?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

10 Most Read

Recent Reviews

Powerbag Business Class Bag

Many companies currently offer battery packs and various accessories to keep smartphones and other gadgets charged when away from an o ...

Logitech Cube

The world of mice could often be described charitably as stagnant: it's an endless sea of ergonomic shapes that assume you're sitting ...

NewerTech and Targus USB Hubs For Gifts

A useful holiday present to resolve an ongoing frustration is a multi-port hub. Whether as a stocking stuffer, Chanukah present, or an ...

toggle

Most Commented

10 Most Discussed

 

Popular News