Latest Mac OS X Security Update breaks 64-bit application support

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
The most recent Mac OS X security update from Apple Computer includes a glitch that prevents users from running 64-bit applications on the company's new Tiger operating system, AppleInsider has confirmed.



After being applied to versions of Mac OS X Tiger, Apple's recently released Security Update 005-007 has been reported to break 64-bit application support. The update offered nearly three dozen fixes for several security exploits, including Apple's Safari web browser, Bluetooth, networking tools, Mac OS X Server components such as Apache 2 and MySQL, and many more.



Wolfram Research, makers of the popular Mathematica software, began informing its customers of the issue in an email on Tuesday. The company said the security update disables its flagship Mathematica software: "Due to an error on the part of Apple, this update prevents any 64-bit-native application from running. In particular, this means that Mathematica 5.2 will not run on any G5 system if it has installed this Security Update."



Apple's Tiger operating system, released earlier this year, was the first version of the Mac operating system to support 64-bit computing, which enables 64-bit applications to address massive amounts of memory, while retaining compatibility with existing 32-bit applications.



Although they're currently limited to background and terminal-based utilities, Apple says 64-bit applications can address up to four billion times as much memory as 32-bit applications; however, in practical terms, memory is often limited by both hardware configuration and support.



Wolfram said it discovered the issue with 64-bit applications after Mathematica users were unable to perform simple math operations following the application of the Apple security update. The company said it had confirmed the issue internally as well as with Apple, which was unable to offer a workaround for the problem.



According to Wolfram, Apple is currently investigating the problem and plans to offer a revised update to correct the issue in the near future.



"If you have been affected, then Mathematica 5.2 will generate a MathLink error when you try to do any computation with it. (If you run MathKernel directly from the command line, it will crash at startup.) Apple has informed us that there is no workaround for this problem," Wolfram said in the email to customers.



"Apple is investigating the problem at high priority, and intends to distribute a new Security Update in the very near future. This update will correct the problem and allow Mathematica to run successfully."



Wolfram told customers that Apple had assured it the company had stopped automatic distribution of Security Update 2005-007 by Tuesday evening, but as of Wednesday morning the software remained available via Apple's web site and Mac OS X Software Update mechanism.



Update: Apple on Wednesday evening corrected the aforementioned glitch with the release of Security Update 2005-007 v1.1, which replaces Security Update 2005-007 v1.0 for Tiger systems Mac OS X v10.4.2. Apple advocates that users who have already installed v1.0 on Tiger systems should install v1.1.



"Security Update 2005-007 v1.1 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", the company said.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    Oooooops!



    Now it's time to see how long it takes Apple to fix this problem. You can also be sure that Wolfram will be included in all future beta testing for OS X products.
  • Reply 2 of 26
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    You'd think it would have been caught by SOME tester even without Wolfram on board.
  • Reply 3 of 26
    Thats sucks for Apple!!!



    And me!! now I cant use my 8gbs of ram
  • Reply 4 of 26
    ringoringo Posts: 328member
    Quote:

    Apple's Tiger operating system, released earlier this year, was the first version of the Mac operating system to support 64-bit computing, which enables 64-bit applications to address massive amounts of memory, while retaining compatibility with existing 32-bit applications.



    Um, or 10.2.7. To be fair, the per-process limit was still 4GB until 10.3.
  • Reply 5 of 26
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ringo

    Um, or 10.2.7. To be fair, the per-process limit was still 4GB until 10.3.



    Actually, 10.2.7 and 10.3 only had the 64-bit ability to deal with large amounts of RAM. Tiger included actual 64-bit abilities, like using 64-bit registers, additions, etc, etc, etc. Although its all at the BSD layer, not in the Cocoa/Carbon layer.



    And I would think for calculations and all, 64-bit math would be more important than 64-bit memory addressing. But what do I know, I still think no one needs more than 24 bits at a time (System 7 was the downfall of "Real" computing with their lame-ass 32-bitness they threw in there, more for marketing then any real usefulness! Hell, 24-bits let programmers write really cool programs and do cool stuff like store info in those other 8-bits. But, no, Apple had to take it all away!)
  • Reply 6 of 26
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    This is where I issue my regular complaint that Apple doesn't do enough testing. It's truely hard to believe that Apple does not have a G5 machine on their premises. It's also just as hard to believe that they don't have any 64 bit apps around that they can try.



    What I don't understand is why they can't send these updates out to their developers and give them a few days to test it first.



    The one thing that Apple has an advantage over MS in is that these exploits have not occured. Therefore they can afford a few days of developer testing before they release it. I haven't updated any of my machines with this yet because I'm still waiting for more feedback. Some nasty problems have occured from Apple's security updates recently.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    Apple needs to take the same attitude with their os and apps that they do with their new hardware.



    "It will be done when its done and out when its out,and boom dropped it on ya all unexpected like" that way they dont realease half baked betas...



    Which is what The first Issuing of Tiger was IMHO...

    They have the ability to outdo micro$$$$ at any game,they dont need to race against time...



    AND,They need to nail down Tiger!!!! and keep pounding down microsoft with the real work and creative Ethics they are known for...



    CHA CHING THAT WILL BE O.2 CENTS MR CATMAN...
  • Reply 8 of 26
    ic1maleic1male Posts: 121member
    Pathetic!



    No wonder they can't get a foothold in the enterprise market with bungles like this.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    ehuntehunt Posts: 4member
    Hi-larious...I have stopped installing security updates for a while now, can't remember which one it was but it was a pre-tiger one which caused me to wipe my PB completely clean! Usually wait a good two weeks to read the bug reports!
  • Reply 10 of 26
    Son of a b***h!



    I have a dual 2 GHz G5 and had no problems with the Security Update. Why am I mad? I have a 64-bit machine and evidently, I am not using those extra 32 bits, otherwise I'd have a problem. It's like driving a Porsche through rush hour traffic. A Hyundai will do for that case.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macFanDave

    Son of a b***h!



    I have a dual 2 GHz G5 and had no problems with the Security Update. Why am I mad? I have a 64-bit machine and evidently, I am not using those extra 32 bits, otherwise I'd have a problem. It's like driving a Porsche through rush hour traffic. A Hyundai will do for that case.




    Yeah. Turn off half your cylinders.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macFanDave

    It's like driving a Porsche through rush hour traffic. A Hyundai will do for that case.



    Hey, don't knock Hyundais. They're good cars...now. I drive a Sonata and LOVE it!
  • Reply 13 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Hey, don't knock Hyundais. They're good cars...now. I drive a Sonata and LOVE it!



    I heard that a long time ago that Lexuses (Lexi) were a copy of Mercedes and then they became a really nice car... maybe the same thing will happen with Hyundai... but dont worry... I dont think Daewoos will do the same thing... lol.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    boogabooga Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macFanDave

    Son of a b***h!



    I have a dual 2 GHz G5 and had no problems with the Security Update. Why am I mad? I have a 64-bit machine and evidently, I am not using those extra 32 bits, otherwise I'd have a problem. It's like driving a Porsche through rush hour traffic. A Hyundai will do for that case.




    Not quite. Running a 64-bit machine in 32-bit mode is like unhooking a trailer that would be carrying around mostly scrap metal. I'm not sure why people think that copying around twice as much data, most of it which is 0's, would make things faster.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    boogabooga Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nagromme

    You'd think it would have been caught by SOME tester even without Wolfram on board.



    It's pretty obvious from the 64-bit limitations (ie. You can't have a UI on a 64-bit binary) that 64-bits was 95% marketing gimmick and 5% useful. Apple and most of its customers would have been way better off spending the silicon on an extra functional unit or quadruple the cache or something, and leave it at the old limit.



    And as you say, Apple can't have tested a single 64-bit app on this release or they'd have found the problem, which shows its priority in Cupertino.
  • Reply 16 of 26
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Booga

    It's pretty obvious from the 64-bit limitations (ie. You can't have a UI on a 64-bit binary) that 64-bits was 95% marketing gimmick and 5% useful.



    Yes, but won't the history books always say that Apple released the FIRST 64-bit personal computer?
  • Reply 17 of 26
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Booga

    It's pretty obvious from the 64-bit limitations (ie. You can't have a UI on a 64-bit binary) that 64-bits was 95% marketing gimmick and 5% useful. Apple and most of its customers would have been way better off spending the silicon on an extra functional unit or quadruple the cache or something, and leave it at the old limit.



    And as you say, Apple can't have tested a single 64-bit app on this release or they'd have found the problem, which shows its priority in Cupertino.




    64 bits is VERY useful - for those who need it. In a couple of years, a large percentage of programs will be 64 bits. You don't really need a 64 bit UI.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    I feel bad for the users who actually use 64 bit functionality. This is a major faux pas on Apple's part as testing a single 64 bit app would have revealed the problem. Guess Mathematica is gonna be added to the standard test suite from now on.
  • Reply 19 of 26
    khkookhkoo Posts: 32member
    there is more problem form many people.

    after security update, my "mail" application is not working at all and many other people had kernel panic.

    probably there is more problem.

    what is going on??
  • Reply 20 of 26
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I feel bad for the users who actually use 64 bit functionality. This is a major faux pas on Apple's part as testing a single 64 bit app would have revealed the problem. Guess Mathematica is gonna be added to the standard test suite from now on.



    problemas fixed now.



    i think the download was supposed to have 32-bit and 64-bit versions by the sound of it but maybe at the final stage someone screwed up and left out the 64-bit part.



    i think they've always tested on 32/64bitness. someone just jacked up the bundling for the software update methinks...
Sign In or Register to comment.