*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> 16.3
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213606

> 15.7.3
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213598

You forgot v12.5.7 for the older iDevices. ;) https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213597
--
"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." --2 Corinthians 5:14-15 :) (L/C)NY 4721 [h2o black ????/(\_/)] & ?????? 3-Body is rad! Another mass shooting again. 2 much 2 do & C! :~(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 2023-01-24, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> 16.3
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213606
>
>> 15.7.3
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213598
>
> You forgot v12.5.7 for the older iDevices. ;) https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213597

That can't be true.
According to Arlen, it's "aginst Apple's own rules"!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

> That can't be true.

Hi Jolly Roger,

It's no longer shocking how ignorant you are of Apple's own written policy.
Fixing one bug out of fifteen known bugs is within Apple's stated policy.

Your brain is that of a retarded five year old, Jolly Roger. Seriously.
You can't understand something even as _simple_ as that, Jolly Roger.

Seriously.
How ignorant are you of Apple's written policy?

Look it up.
Which you won't.

Because you like being ignorant, Jolly Roger.
It's who you are.
--
HINT: For those iKooks who still don't know Apple's policy, I've provided
the source link so many times that to say you're unaware is to prove _why_
the iKooks are always ignorant of all things Apple. They don't read.

1. They don't read anything.
2. Then they deny everything.
3. Then when you provide the link, they don't even read it.
4. That way they can maintain their imaginary belief system about it.

Two weeks later...
5. They deny it again.
6. And demand the link again.
7. When provided, they don't read it.
8. They simply continue to deny all facts about Apple they don't like.

Two weeks later...
9. They deny it yet again, over and over, they deny all facts they hate.
10. They demand the link (which they've been given & they didn't read).

It never ends with these uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks.

Ant wrote:

> You forgot v12.5.7 for the older iDevices. ;) https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213597

Hi Ant,

They only fixed _one_ of the huge number of bugs that are known.

That's in keeping with Apple's written policy on not fixing all known bugs
in any release other than the latest (which, for now, is iOS 16 only).

Also, did you notice it's in Webkit, which _always_ has huge holes in it.
CVE-2022-42856: Clement Lecigne of Google's Threat Analysis Group

And _every_ iOS browser is _forced_ to be built upon that insecure WebKit.

Worse, Apple didn't find it.
Apple never finds them.

Google found it.

Don't you think it's time Apple started to _look_ for these huge holes?
--
HINT: For those iKooks who still don't know Apple's policy, I've provided
the source link so many times that to say you're unaware is to prove _why_
the iKooks are always ignorant of all things Apple. They don't read.

1. They don't read anything.
2. Then they deny everything.
3. Then when you provide the link, they don't even read it.
4. That way they can maintain their imaginary belief system about it.

Two weeks later...
5. They deny it again.
6. And demand the link again.
7. When provided, they don't read it.
8. They simply continue to deny all facts about Apple they don't like.

Two weeks later...
9. They deny it yet again, over and over, they deny all facts they hate.
10. They demand the link (which they've been given & they didn't read).

It never ends with these uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks.

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-24, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> > *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >> 16.3
> >> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213606
> >
> >> 15.7.3
> >> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213598
> >
> > You forgot v12.5.7 for the older iDevices. ;) https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213597

> That can't be true.
> According to Arlen, it's "aginst Apple's own rules"!

We don't need stinking rules. ;)
--
"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." --2 Corinthians 5:14-15 :) (L/C)NY 4721 [h2o black ????/(\_/)] & ?????? 3-Body is rad! Another mass shooting again. 2 much 2 do & C! :~(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 2023-01-23 20:15, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>
>> You forgot v12.5.7 for the older iDevices. ;)
>> https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213597
>
> Hi Ant,
>
> They only fixed _one_ of the huge number of bugs that are known.

"Known", huh?

List ONE.

On 2023-01-24, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> That can't be true.
>
> Hi Jolly Roger,

Fuck off, Arlen.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:14:10 +1100, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2023-01-24, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> That can't be true.
>>
>> Hi Jolly Roger,
>
> Fuck off, Arlen.

off got sick of being fucked and joined the #Me Too movement.

On 24 Jan 2023 at 4:25:59 AM, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> We don't need stinking rules. ;)

He's actually correct. It's Jolly Roger & Alan who are clueless. Not him.

https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases

On 2023-01-24, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2023 at 4:25:59 AM, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> We don't need stinking rules. ;)
>
> He's actually correct.

Not in this case, nope.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 24-01-2023 16:16 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> He's actually correct.
>
> Not in this case, nope.

What did you not believe about that link I gave you to read first?
https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases

And what don't you believe in this next link I'm giving you to learn from?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/

If you need to learn more about Apple's written policy, have you read this?
https://support.apple.com/guide/depoyment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/web

When you read those, what do you think Apple said their release policy is?

In article <tqpc0r$pv4$1@solani.org>, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
wrote:

>
> What did you not believe about that link I gave you to read first?

you don't understand what your links even say.

On 2023-01-24, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 24-01-2023 16:16 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> He's actually correct.
>>
>> Not in this case, nope.
>
> What did you not believe

Ask yourself what *you* don't believe about the FACT that Apple just
released an update for iOS 12, dip shit. You're trolling the Apple news
groups because you are butt hurt that Apple just released an update for
iOS 12 - you can't *stand* this *fact*. You're a loser. : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-24, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tqpc0r$pv4$1@solani.org>, mike <this@address.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> What did you not believe about that link I gave you to read first?
>
> you don't understand what your links even say.

As usual, he doesn't *care* - he's only here to troll - it's literally
his life (he spends hours and hours every day trolling). He's pathetic.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 24-01-2023 20:52 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> What did you not believe about that link I gave you to read first?
>
> you don't understand what your links even say.

I think I did understand exactly what that link says for Apple releases.
But you say you read the same link but came to a different conclusion.

But you didn't bother to say what you think is wrong in that link.
So you have no basis to say that what I said it says is wrong.

To get that basis, tell me what do YOU think this link says?
https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases

I'll type is up below for you so that you don't even have to click it.
What specifically are you saying is wrong that is said in the link below?

Apple Admits It Only Fully Patches Security Flaws In Its Latest OS Releases

We here at HotHardware regularly advise our readers to ensure that their
systems and software are up to date. Updates may include cool new features,
but most updates are security-driven, patching holes, fixing glitches, and
preventing exploits. However, for Apple, apparently not all systems are
created equal, for not all devices will get complete patches for certain
updates.

Apple loves to tout that they are a leader in security for personal
computing devices. The company even claimed that "Macs don't have that
problem," when referring to viruses in the Mac vs. PC ads of 2006 through
2009 starring Justin Long and John Hodgman. This obviously is not true, and
Apple got in legal hot water for the claim.

According to a document published by Apple and found by our colleagues over
at Arstechnica, security researchers' fears have rang true. Old versions of
operating systems of Apple devices do not get complete security patches.
The emphasis in the document is that there is a difference between Upgrade
and Update, at least in the Apple lexicon.

To Apple, an Upgrade would be a single major version number. For example,
going from iOS 15 to iOS 16, or macOS 12 to macOS 13 are upgrades, while
anything with a decimal after it is an update. This is interesting, and
follows suit with a lot of other software number versioning. This also
clarifies something involving updates.

Not all updates line up with each other, if they even happen at all. iOS 16
is the latest version of iOS, but prior to this was iOS 15.4. Let's say
that iOS 16 gets an update to iOS 16.1 and it's mostly security updates to
iOS itself that likely are applicable to iOS 15 versions. In this example,
iOS 15.4 might not get an update to 15.5 until much later, if at all. The
same rules apparently apply to iPadOS, and macOS.

Now, most Macs still have a six to seven year update cycle, and iPhones get
five years of updates. These are actually some of the longest timelines for
this type of service in the industry. However, if users are not getting the
most recent patches and updates for security, this turns into a bit of a
catch 22-if consumers do want the latest security they are going to have to
buy the devices that support the latest operating systems. So that actually
shortens actual long-term security life-cycle for some devices, as if the
device does not support that latest upgrade, it might not get that latest
update.

On 2023-01-24, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 24-01-2023 20:52 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> What did you not believe about that link I gave you to read first?
>>
>> you don't understand what your links even say.
>
> I think I did understand

What this dip shit doesn't understand is that the rest of us see right
through his lame reactionary trolls: Apple releases a security update
for iOS 12 (which was released five years ago), someone in this news
group comments they are pleased about this, and in comes dumpy-pants
trollboi in a lame attempt to rain on the parade, because trolling is
literally his entire life, and he literally has nothing better to do
with the literal hours he spends here trying to disrupt otherwise
productive and pleasant conversations like the little petulant
man-chid he is. He's a sad, little loser.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 25-01-2023 03:09 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> he doesn't *care*

I think I do care to understand what that link says about Apple releases.

But you say I don't care because you read the same link but you came to a
different conclusion than I did about what that link says about releases.

Since you say you care how Apple releases iOS & macOS, what do you think
this link says about why and how Apple clarified its own release policy?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/

I'll type is up below for you so that you don't even have to click it.
What specifically are you saying is wrong that is said in the link below?

Apple clarifies security update policy.
Only the latest OSes are fully patched.
New document confirms what security researchers have observed for years.
ANDREW CUNNINGHAM - 10/27/2022, 9:48 PM

UPGRADE TO GET YOUR UPDATES

Earlier this week, Apple released a document clarifying its terminology and
policies around software upgrades and updates. Most of the information in
the document isn't new, but the company did provide one clarification about
its update policy that it hadn't made explicit before: Despite providing
security updates for multiple versions of macOS and iOS at any given time,
Apple says that only devices running the most recent major operating system
versions should expect to be fully protected.

Apple isn't actually patching all the security holes in older versions.

Throughout the document, Apple uses "upgrade" to refer to major OS releases
that can add big new features and user interface changes and "update" to
refer to smaller but more frequently released patches that mostly fix bugs
and address security problems (though these can occasionally enable minor
feature additions or improvements as well). So updating from iOS 15 to iOS
16 or macOS 12 to macOS 13 is an upgrade. Updating from iOS 16.0 to 16.1 or
macOS 12.5 to 12.6 or 12.6.1 is an update.

"Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current
version of macOS (for example, macOS 13)," the document reads, "not all
known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example,
macOS 12)."

In other words, while Apple will provide security-related updates for older
versions of its operating systems, only the most recent upgrades will
receive updates for every security problem Apple knows about. Apple
currently provides security updates to macOS 11 Big Sur and macOS 12
Monterey alongside the newly released macOS Ventura, and in the past, it
has released security updates for older iOS versions for devices that can't
install the latest upgrades.

Some Macs are getting fewer updates than they used to.
Here's why it's a problem.

This confirms something that independent security researchers have been
aware of for a while but that Apple hasn't publicly articulated before.
Intego Chief Security Analyst Joshua Long has tracked the CVEs patched by
different macOS and iOS updates for years and generally found that bugs
patched in the newest OS versions can go months before being patched in
older (but still ostensibly "supported") versions, when they're patched at
all.

This is relevant for Mac users because Apple drops support for older Mac
and iDevice models in most upgrades, something that has accelerated
somewhat for older Intel Macs in recent years (most Macs still receive six
or seven years of upgrades, plus another two years of updates). This means
that every year, there's a new batch of devices that are still getting some
security updates but not all of them. Software like the OpenCore Legacy
Patcher can be used to get the newest OS versions running on older
hardware, but it's not always a simple process, and it has its own
limitations and caveats.

That said, this probably shouldn't dramatically change your calculus for
when to upgrade or stop using an older Mac. Most people running an
up-to-date Big Sur or Monterey installation with an up-to-date Safari
browser should be safe from most high-priority threats, especially if you
also keep the other apps on your Mac updated. And Apple's documentation
doesn't change anything about how it updates older software; it merely
confirms something that had already been observed.

We've asked Apple to be more upfront about its security communication, and
this is a step forward in that regard. But if you believe you're being
specifically targeted by attackers, you have another reason to make sure
your software (and hardware) are fully updated and upgraded.

On 25-01-2023 03:08 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Ask yourself what *you* don't believe about the FACT that Apple just
> released an update for iOS 12, dip shit.

Do you know the difference between an Apple iOS update versus upgrade?

On 25-01-2023 03:39 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>>> you don't understand what your links even say.
>>
>> I think I did understand
>
> What this dip shit doesn't understand

The links said what Apple means by an iOS or macOS security update.
They also said what Apple means by an iOS or macOS security upgrade.

iOS 15 gets one.
iOS 16 gets the other.

You're complaining I don't understand the difference so what do you think
is the difference between an Apple iOS/macOS update versus an upgrade?

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Ask yourself what *you* don't believe about the FACT that Apple just
> released an update for iOS 12, dip shit. You're trolling the Apple news
> groups because you are butt hurt that Apple just released an update for
> iOS 12 - you can't *stand* this *fact*. You're a loser. : )

Not to mention that Arlen blathers on and on about how “Apple only issues
security updates for the current version” but then when a security update
for 15.7 comes along he - predictably - falls back on “its so bad that
Apple is forced to update 15.7 too”.

When WILL this pathetic troll child grow up and Get A Life? 🙄

Hey Arlen, how are those ultrasonic file transfers working?

Idiot.

On 1/24/2023 3:20 PM, Bob Campbell wrote:

<snip>

> Not to mention that Arlen blathers on and on about how “Apple only issues
> security updates for the current version” but then when a security update
> for 15.7 comes along he - predictably - falls back on “its so bad that
> Apple is forced to update 15.7 too”.
>
> When WILL this pathetic troll child grow up and Get A Life? 🙄
>
> Hey Arlen, how are those ultrasonic file transfers working?
>
> Idiot.

Apple didn't ever say that they would stop support for those old
versions, just that even with the security updates those old versions of
iOS were not as secure as current versions.

When a security flaw is serious enough a manufacturer will do an update.
Microsoft has done this with Windows
<https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-windows-xp-patch-very-bad-sign/>
and Google has done this with Android.

It's a good thing, not a bad thing, when these updates happen.

On 2023-01-24, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's a good thing, not a bad thing, when these updates happen.

Every manufacturer does this when their bugs are this numerous & severe.
https://thehackernews.com/2023/01/apple-issues-updates-for-older-devices.html

It seems every iOS device ever made is easily taken over now, which is
likely the reason why Apple backported some of the most serious of these
widespread active serious exploits of almost all iOS devices out there.

On 2023-01-24, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 25-01-2023 03:09 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> he doesn't *care*
>
> I think I do care

You care to troll which is your only reason for being in the Apple
newsgroups.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-24, mike <this@address.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 25-01-2023 03:08 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Ask yourself what *you* don't believe about the FACT that Apple just
>> released an update for iOS 12, dip shit.
>
> Do you know the difference between an Apple iOS update versus upgrade?

Do you know why that's irrelevant to the *fact* that Apple just released
security updates for older devices?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-24, NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
> On 2023-01-24, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing, not a bad thing, when these updates happen.
>
> Every manufacturer does this when their bugs are this numerous &
> severe.

"NewsKrawler" and his little troll gang *desperately* want the rest of
us to ignore the *fact* that Apple is providing security updates to
older devices, and instead wants everyone to believe the shitty
implication that supposedly no other platform vendors have numerous and
severe security vulnerabilities. : D

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR