Text Size

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.

 
Previous Comments

secuirty?

08/18, 09:15am reply

spell check?

swatson

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

Forgot?

08/18, 09:29am reply

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?

cyngus

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 1999

0

More likely mis-built

08/18, 10:22am reply

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.

TheBum

Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2001

0

Widgets

08/18, 01:20pm reply

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

goatman

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2000

0

Re: more likely misbuilt

08/18, 04:26pm reply

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.

testudo

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

Re: more likely misbuilt

08/19, 07:39am reply

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

trikster

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2005

0

Popular News