Apple releases Security Update 2005-001

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Apple on Tuesday evening released Security Update 2005-001, which delivers a number of security enhancements and is recommended for all Macintosh users.



The software is available through Software Update or from Apple's download site and includes updates to the following components: at commands, ColorSync, libxml2, Mail, PHP, and Safari.



Full details of the release are available from Apple's security web site.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    Any reason for the new numbering system?
  • Reply 2 of 15
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drumsticks

    Any reason for the new numbering system?



    Probably to make the numbering easier to follow (i.e. if you see 2005-004, you know its the 4th update for the year, while 2005-03-30 tells us nothing except its from the 30th).
  • Reply 3 of 15
    ezzieezzie Posts: 27member
    Has it been withdrawn? doesn't appear in Software Update (10.3.7) and can't find on Apple UK's os x downloads page.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 696member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Probably to make the numbering easier to follow (i.e. if you see 2005-004, you know its the 4th update for the year, while 2005-03-30 tells us nothing except its from the 30th).



    The previous numbering scheme told us the update's release date. Year-Month-Day



    For example: http://Security Update 2004-12-02 v....10.2.8 Client) was released on December 2, 2004



    You can confim this by clicking the link to this update's information page and checking the Post Date in the information box at the top right hand side of the page.



    Much more informatitive than the new numbering scheme. IMO.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    ezzieezzie Posts: 27member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ezzie

    Has it been withdrawn? doesn't appear in Software Update (10.3.7) and can't find on Apple UK's os x downloads page.



    Now seems to be available through software update.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    is this update working fine? i don't want to install it if it might screw something up.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mattjohndrow

    is this update working fine? i don't want to install it if it might screw something up.



    Fine so far on an iMac G5(10.3.7). Nothing noticably different.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fahlman

    The previous numbering scheme told us the update's release date. Year-Month-Day



    For example: http://Security Update 2004-12-02 v....10.2.8 Client) was released on December 2, 2004



    You can confim this by clicking the link to this update's information page and checking the Post Date in the information box at the top right hand side of the page.



    Much more informatitive than the new numbering scheme. IMO.




    Dates are unimportant. Who cares that the security update came out 12-02, when you have to go looking to see if there's any from November, October, etc. By numbering, you know "Hey, there were 32 security patches in 2002". And, as you say, its easy to get the post date from the internet.



    It also probably aids in cutting the confusion for which the "v1.0" part at the end, which is one of those "Hey, we screwed up the original update, so on 2004-12-09 we're release Security Update 2004-12-02 v1.1" So, you see, the date isn't necessarily the date of release, its the date of the original patch, not the update (and, yes, they've done this).



    Unless you're not the type to be confused by the statement "You need to download the 2004-12-02 patch that was posted on the 9th."
  • Reply 9 of 15
    Quote:

    It also probably aids in cutting the confusion for which the "v1.0" part at the end, which is one of those "Hey, we screwed up the original update, so on 2004-12-09 we're release Security Update 2004-12-02 v1.1" So, you see, the date isn't necessarily the date of release, its the date of the original patch, not the update (and, yes, they've done this).



    That was probably the reason why they did that. I remember when I had to reinstall 10.2 and 10.3 on my computers, and when I applied the security updates I ended up confused on which to install first (or which one to install at all) when I had multiple versions of the same security update floating around in my downloads folder.



    BTW, I applied the updates to my iBook G3/700 and my DP G4/1.25 Power Mac. No problems to report at all.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    My rev a G5 2x2.0 is working fine with 10.3.7 and the security patch.



    Tomorrow I'll install it on my Ti and our iBook and see how it fares.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Dates are unimportant.



    It was nice to see at a glance when the update was released, though. After the log-in bug, I learned never to install the update on the first day, and it's an equally bad idea to wait weeks. But it may have been weeks since SWUupdate was last run. Now I have to follow the link to Apple's website, then another link to the update description, to see when it was released.



    Quote:

    So, you see, the date isn't necessarily the date of release, its the date of the original patch, not the update (and, yes, they've done this).



    How does this help the conufusion over updated updates? Now we'll see "2004-001 v.1.1" instead of "2004-01-18 v1.1". It's at least as confusing, which is to say "not very". Updates are alphabetical on the SWUpdate list, so they will remain, as before, in order of the original release, and not in order of the latest update to the update.



    I like the dates. It's almost always a bad idea to go from a more-informative naming scheme to a less-informative naming scheme.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    How does this help the conufusion over updated updates? Now we'll see "2004-001 v.1.1" instead of "2004-01-18 v1.1". It's at least as confusing, which is to say "not very".



    Nope. It'll be 2004-002, not 2004-001 1.1. Strict numerical.



    I agree with the date-at-a-glance, but this way it's also a strict ordering. "I have 043, and 047 is out... better upgrade." Doesn't matter *when* it comes out as long as you're made aware of it in a timely manner by Software Update.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    so... what would/will it look like when there is an update for 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4? 2005-001, 2005-002, 2005-003 or will they have the same numbering with specific for each OS version? And what if there are specific Security problems with one version and not the others? Like lets say 2005-007 is something specific for 10.4, what will happen when 2005-008 comes out and has to be applied to all 3 versions?



    bah, whatever, they'll figure it out...
  • Reply 14 of 15
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    It won't matter. They'll just release them in ever increasing order. If your current installation is less than the current release, upgrade. You're overthinking it.



    Look at it this way, it's entirely possible to produce an empty upgrade for some systems ('we found this problem in 10.2.x, but not 10.3.x, so if you're running 10.3.x, there's nothing to do'), but *still* register the upgrade with the Receipts system so that you (and SU) know you're current at a glance.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Before, with the old system, they were only able to have 365 updates a year. With the new numbering system, they'll be capable of releasing 999! That's progress!
Sign In or Register to comment.