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.
secuirty?
08/18, 09:15am reply
spell check?
swatson
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2000
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
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
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
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
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