Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

sentinelone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#181

Post by soylentgraham »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #39
prpl wrote: post #34

I’m sure quite a few MBP 2015 users are going to be a little sad the end is near. I loved that machine. I was able to skip the 2017 MBP and go to 2019, but honestly I miss the smaller trackpad.

Still using the 2013 and 2015 MBPs here, had no reason to upgrade. Love them to death, still no hardware issues whatsoever except a new battery. I also prefer the smaller trackpad. Guess its time to gift them to my parents. Luckily, the M1/M2 is finally a worthy upgrade, after years of keyboard issues and unwanted features.

My 2013 mbp is being retired for a mac studio as I accidentally updated ios to a version that needs xcode13, which i cannot install.

It had a good run! (My 2011 imac died last year)

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#182

Post by alexd111 »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #66
kappuchino wrote: post #26

Lets hope the open core project, namely the Open Core Legacy Patcher[1] will revive some older models to run Ventura. Personally, I'm running a 2014/15 Macbook Air 11" for 7 years now[2] and with "Open Core Legacy" on Monterrey with no issues at all. [1] https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/MODELS.ht... [2] Except the mainboard, display and shell everything else thats modular (wifi card, ssd, battery an…

In pretty confident it will, the OCLP project has improved a lot and is now very capable and stable. My MacBook Pro 2012 runs Monterey, and it's really fast and stable. Better than any previous Mac OS in fact. You can look on the Macrumors forum and Reddit to see if they're already getting the betas to work. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-13-ventura-on-uns... https://www.reddit.com/r/venturapatcher/ Edit:…

Interesting that you say that it's faster and more stable. My 2013 Air is on Monterey and it's "good enough" for my needs still, but slipping towards not quite good enough. Very tempted to give OCLP a try if it extends the life of the machine a bit more.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#183

Post by native_samples »

philistine wrote: post #123
eknkc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use years. You are already releasing shit yearly. Name it macOS 22. These places mean nothing to me.

The strength of the California brand across the globe is crazy good. It’s all a bit of marketing.

I think you overestimate the knowledge most people have of California. I've been to Cali a bunch of times and none of the names they picked mean anything to me except Big Sur, but that's pretty obscure. I wouldn't expect anyone around me to know what or where it is unless they happened to be really big into the tech scene.

US tech firms have a long history of using US place names as code names for operating system releases. Windows 95 was Chicago, if I recall correctly.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#184

Post by GekkePrutser »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #176
jessriedel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have been baffled that it was always so difficult for the user to manage what’s auto-launched on start-up. So many apps try to bury into start-up so they can keep collecting data and lightly spamming the user. Can anyone shed light on why it took so long? I had always figured the non-existence of a login items panel was a purposeful choice.

Maybe because it was not a common feature in the market. In Windows for example it's even more of a mess because there's a ton of places for autostarting software to run from. There this excellent tool from sysinternals called autostarts but it's not an OS feature despite sysinternals now being owned by Microsoft. And in Linux? No great way of managing systemd via the GUI either afaik. And Apple has always been one f…

PS: Why the 0 points? :) They even made fun of Vista's popups at that time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY

Apple at that time really didn't care as much about security as they do now, it was before the fappening, before wannacry etc. They were more obscure as an OS so there was not as much malware. Security was not as much on the radar as it is now.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#185

Post by scarface74 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #168
scarface74 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is based on a standard that Apple, Google and Microsoft have all agree to and have agreed to a method to transfer keys between devices.

three US Corporations will be in charge of the implementation of this newly required security ?

Considering that the three control all of the popular operating systems for computers and devices, and most popular browsers who else would it be? It’s an open standards.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#186

Post by [deleted] »

pjmlp wrote: post #173
pxc wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nail on the coffin for kernel extensions The OpenZFS implementation on macOS also requires kernel extensions, and I don't suppose it can easily be ported to FUSE or that that would have desirable performance characteristics. Special kernel extensions are also required to get some basic functionality working on macOS these days, like disabling pointer acceleration.

Too bad for them, Apple has already stated multiple times that the long term roadmap is that all third party stuff will only be available as userspace drivers. The plan being, each kext has one year timeframe to migrate to the new userspace API after its introduction, and the year thereafter the kernel API gets dropped from the new OS release.

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#187

Post by pxc »

pjmlp wrote: post #173
pxc wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nail on the coffin for kernel extensions The OpenZFS implementation on macOS also requires kernel extensions, and I don't suppose it can easily be ported to FUSE or that that would have desirable performance characteristics. Special kernel extensions are also required to get some basic functionality working on macOS these days, like disabling pointer acceleration.

Too bad for them, Apple has already stated multiple times that the long term roadmap is that all third party stuff will only be available as userspace drivers. The plan being, each kext has one year timeframe to migrate to the new userspace API after its introduction, and the year thereafter the kernel API gets dropped from the new OS release.

Maybe my intuition is wrong, and System Extensions support enough functionality that the ZFS port will still work well with the System Extensions interface, and my impression of userspace filesystems as slow is due to quirks of the FUSE implementation on Linux. I hope so.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#188

Post by corrral »

josephcsible wrote: post #150
corrral wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A decade from now Apple probably won’t even ship a local version of Xcode, and the transformation will be complete as all new development happens in Xcode Cloud where no line of code goes unscrutinized by the watchful eye of the mother ship. Any young folks wondering: yes, this exact same thing was being posted ten years ago, all the time. "Apple's gonna totally lock down macOS without any way around it, they hate…

Do you not see that every new macOS release is a few more steps towards that dystopia?

Started kinda late on macOS/OSX (in my career, and in the life of Apple) but have still been using it for 11ish years, and developing, off and on, for iOS.

Nope, I don't.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#189

Post by randyrand »

r00fus wrote: post #170
DavideNL wrote: post #42

> " Passkeys aim to solve the problems with passwords " So are you locked in with Apple if you use this, or can you switch all your existing passwords to another "passkey provider/service" ? > " Wave Goodbye to CAPTCHAS " I assume that's Safari only... so this is bad news for Firefox?

Passkey's (and webauth2's) major value proposition for software/service providers is for people to stop sharing accounts. This will result in more sales/subscriptions, and better tracking of preferences/activity. That it also happens to provide better security is just more cheese on the trap.

If they don’t allow a way to extract the private key from the wallet, do you really own that account?

I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 yard stick unless I have full control of the private key.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#190

Post by randyrand »

zenlf wrote: post #137
solarkraft wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your concern regarding Bitwarden?

Not the original poster, but I think the worry is that how can a password manager survive in a passwordless future. Will major players be too powerful that no competing solutions will realistically exist.

You still need to have a wallet to store all your passkeys.

I’d rather use bitwarden than Apples wallet.

Post reply on HN