Apple leaves 19% of Mac users vulnerable, no longer offers security updates for Snow Leopard

[Justin Kahn]

While Apple has been under fire as of late with regards to security flaws in both iOS and OS X, the company has generally been well regarded with respect to the safety of its platforms. However, a report from ComputerWorld points out the fact that Apple has only issued the last two major Mac security updates to the latest three versions of OS X, potentially leaving users with older machines vulnerable to malicious activity.

Those two security updates were only available for Lion, Mountain Lion and Mavericks, which likely means that machines running Snow Leopard (or previous versions) will be left in the dust when it comes to future security updates.

Unlike how Microsoft has widely advertised a spring 2014 end game for Windows XP, Apple has kept quiet regarding dropping support for older versions of OS X. According to some, it just isn't part of the company's DNA and very rarely does Apple go out of its way to make users aware of this kind of thing.

While around 19% of Mac users are still running systems with Snow Leopard (slightly more than the newer Lion), as long as your hardware is compatible with Apple's latest OS offering, you should be able to upgrade for free to OS X 10.9 Mavericks and get all the security updates that come with it.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55828-apple-leaves-19-of-mac-users-vulnerable-no-longer-offers-security-updates-for-snow-leopard.html

 

[RH00D]

And Snow Leopard was released merely in 2009. Imagine how much of a **** storm would happen if Microsoft stopped security updates for Windows 7 which was also released in 2009. But its okay for Apple because they're Apple.

 

[captaincranky]

And Snow Leopard was released merely in 2009. Imagine how much of a **** storm would happen if Microsoft stopped security updates for Windows 7 which was also released in 2009. But its okay for Apple because they're Apple.

Right, and M$ is still releasing security updates for XP.

(And yes, I do understand that's going to stop shortly).

So now, the fanbois will have to change their tune from, "It just works", to "it just works, only not really safely".

Really though, how is a hacker going to make any real money, hacking the three remaining copies of "Snow Leopard"?

OK, so maybe that was a bit of a low ball estimate.

 

[Guest]

Apple has kept quiet regarding dropping support for older versions of OS X. According to some, it just isn't part of the company's DNA and very rarely does Apple go out of its way to make users aware of this kind of thing.

Probably because they want to perpetuate the myth that Macs are immune to malware/hacks.

Oh, no more security updates? Hey, no big deal! Macs don't get malware!

 

[Guest]

Well the funny thing is that the most recent security vulnerability wasn't present in Snow Leopard. So Apple really hasn't left 19% vulnerable. They did the right thing and patched the last 3 versions of their OS, and instead of an article about that you prefer to throw some negative twist on it. All this article will do is scare Snow Leopard users into thinking they are vulnerable to the latest SSL bug when, in fact, they are not.

IF the vulnerability did affect Snow Leopard they may have patched it, but we won't ever know that.

 

[Guest]

Another form of "rip-off" ..they do the same with the older version of iPhone

 

[Kibaruk]

Well if they didnt need to update that OS because the flaw didnt apply to it, they had no need to put a patch out there and this might be mere speculation.

 

[davislane1]

And Snow Leopard was released merely in 2009. Imagine how much of a **** storm would happen if Microsoft stopped security updates for Windows 7 which was also released in 2009. But its okay for Apple because they're Apple.

Release date is irrelevant. Windows 7 accounts for almost 50% of the market while OSX Snow Leopard holds less than 2%. Microsoft stopping security updates for W7 would be a big deal, Apple stopping security updates for OSX 10.6 is roughly the equivalent of failing to water a single plant...In a botanical garden.

 

[Camikazi]

And Snow Leopard was released merely in 2009. Imagine how much of a **** storm would happen if Microsoft stopped security updates for Windows 7 which was also released in 2009. But its okay for Apple because they're Apple.

Release date is irrelevant. Windows 7 accounts for almost 50% of the market while OSX Snow Leopard holds less than 2%. Microsoft stopping security updates for W7 would be a big deal, Apple stopping security updates for OSX 10.6 is roughly the equivalent of failing to water a single plant...In a botanical garden.

Try explaining that to someone who was a victim of an exploit. Just because the user base is smaller does not mean the company can be let off from protecting and fixing their own errors.

 

[Darth Shiv]

And Snow Leopard was released merely in 2009. Imagine how much of a **** storm would happen if Microsoft stopped security updates for Windows 7 which was also released in 2009. But its okay for Apple because they're Apple.

Release date is irrelevant. Windows 7 accounts for almost 50% of the market while OSX Snow Leopard holds less than 2%. Microsoft stopping security updates for W7 would be a big deal, Apple stopping security updates for OSX 10.6 is roughly the equivalent of failing to water a single plant...In a botanical garden.

It is 19% of all MacOSX users. *That* is a damning statistic for Apple and it's perceived security. If *more* than 1 in 5 Mac users (remember there is market share for MacOSX users *before* snow leopard as well), that is abysmal security support.

It doesn't matter what Win7's market share is compared to Apple. Most people on Windows don't care about a Mac security issue and vice versa (apart from bragging rights maybe?). This is Apple supporting security on their own platform for their *own* user base.

 

[captaincranky]

Try explaining that to someone who was a victim of an exploit. Just because the user base is smaller does not mean the company can be let off from protecting and fixing their own errors.

Dude, I honestly think he was being sarcastic.

 

[davislane1]

Try explaining that to someone who was a victim of an exploit. Just because the user base is smaller does not mean the company can be let off from protecting and fixing their own errors.

Dude, I honestly think he was being sarcastic.

I was being serious, but the nuances of the botanical garden analogy seem to have escaped a few members. Perhaps I should have used something involving animals?

You see, if you fail to water a single plant in a botanical garden, it's not significant as far as the whole garden is concerned. There are simply too many other plants to occupy visitors. However, it is an egregious error where the specific display is concerned. Nobody wants to walk up to the Exotic Amazonian Bush exhibit and find one of the five bushes is withering away.

OP seemed to be suggesting that Apple was getting a pass on this decision because "they're Apple". In my opinion, that's not correct. Apple will only appear to get a pass because only a small fraction of the overall market will be outraged. In reality, however, they've made a decision that will likely cost them a portion of their customer base while exposing them to a significant level of PR risk.

P.S. If anyone was wondering: Yes, that was a double entendre.

 

[captaincranky]

I was being serious, but the nuances of the botanical garden analogy seem to have escaped a few members. Perhaps I should have used something involving animals?

Now that I've actually read it, it doesn't, (escape me). With that said I thought post #1 was sarcasm, (to a degree), and I made the wrong reference, to the wrong post.. "My bad", as the children say.

OP seemed to be suggesting that Apple was getting a pass on this decision because "they're Apple". In my opinion, that's not correct. Apple will only appear to get a pass because only a small fraction of the overall market will be outraged. In reality, however, they've made a decision that will likely cost them a portion of their customer base while exposing them to a significant level of PR risk.

Well, you probably should factor in your equation the fact that, many of their customers won't have enough sense to realize they're getting the shaft, instead of the watering wand.

That last sentence was a very, very, very, remote analog on the old one liner, "is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me"?

 

[SNGX1275]

I haven't seen any indication that SL security updates won't happen from now on. SL wasn't affected by this vulnerability. Its like if some flaw was found in 8/7/Vista but not XP, and then it gets reported that XP wasn't being updated anymore!.

I also think a comparison to XP and how long its support covers is only relevant if you look at pure release dates. How many computers that came out in 2001 are running XP SP3 and are online now?

Also, OS X 10.4? was the first OS X for Intel Macs, so that inherently limits it to 2007 as the furthest back. You also have to consider the environment Macs vs Windows machines are used in. Microsoft won that battle, really from the beginning, so there are businesses that can't upgrade because of financial limitations or software issues. OS X doesn't have that because they aren't nearly as widely used in a corporate environment, when they are, they are used I expect (and perhaps I'm wrong) because of their hardware, thus they are more frequently replaced.

If that 19% is true, it is only a real issue if Apple actually totally abandoned security updates. At this time, it doesn't appear that has happened. Only that they didn't release an update for an OS that didn't need the update. That is not newsworthy.

I could be totally wrong here, but I'm basing my comments off the lack of reporting of this on Mac centered sites.

 

[notasimplename]

Let's not judge this as a user letdown by Apple. On a quick search, one of the most competitive OS on the market (windows xp) is announced to halt the updates on july 2015. ( source: http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/201...ows-xp-security-products-july-14-2015/#!xMQP5 ).
By that time, is likely that 29% of users that now use windows xp ( source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2093741/windows-xp-gained-market-share-in-january-or-did-it.html ) to drop somewhere around maybe 15-20%, but I'm guessing it will be around the same percentage as Apple's. It goes to a number that isn't profitable anymore. Which I don't think anybody blames. It's business afterall.
So actually Apple finally did a good thing and announced that they no longer offer security updates for Snow Leopard.

 

[rub900]

Apple does not give a damn about users who don't give them money. Apple wants cash after that screw you. Apple fanboys go ahead and pay too much to your Apple god.

 

[captaincranky]

Let's not judge this as a user letdown by Apple. On a quick search, one of the most competitive OS on the market (windows xp) is announced to halt the updates on july 2015. ( source: http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/201...ows-xp-security-products-july-14-2015/#!xMQP5 ).
By that time, is likely that 29% of users that now use windows xp ( source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2093741/windows-xp-gained-market-share-in-january-or-did-it.html ) to drop somewhere around maybe 15-20%, but I'm guessing it will be around the same percentage as Apple's. It goes to a number that isn't profitable anymore. Which I don't think anybody blames. It's business afterall.
So actually Apple finally did a good thing and announced that they no longer offer security updates for Snow Leopard.

Wow, you should make a pilgrimage to Steve Job's grave site, and kiss the tombstone.

You put so much spin on this, I'm surprised you didn't have to crazy glue your a** to your chair, just to keep lined up with the keyboard.

Besides, Windows XP was released in 2001.That's 15 years of support.

If you can't figure that out on your own, pull out your toyPhone and let "Siri", do the math for you.