macOS High Sierra 10.13.4 Displays Warnings When Opening 32-Bit Apps as Part of Apple's Phase Out Plan

[cuwickliffe]

You can also do this in System Information. It’s better because it lists all the apps on your system—no need to run them.

Good call. I guess I'm going to ask for an update to the System 7 Star Trek game. Pretty sure that'll also be deprecated.

Just to clarify Cougarcat's post, go to Apple menu > About This Mac > System Report. Go to Software >> Applications and scroll all the way to the right to see the "64-bit (Intel)" column.

Not only is Adobe in more trouble now, but it appears the venerable DVD Player might be at risk too.

 

[dogslobber]

Google is your friend:

https://security.stackexchange.com/...-any-security-merits-over-32-bit-applications

That one is pretty lame and hasn't really ever been substantiated with a proof of concept. 4GB of address space is still 4GB of address space.

 

[casperes1996]

It's really just conjecture on your part with no substantiated evidence to support it. In terms of 64-bit hashes, user land apps that are 64-bit have been running on systems since 32-bit Snow Leopard. Another point which I don't think bears scrutiny.

If you take a look at the part you didn't quote, I said "They don't have to be more insecure, but if I were to accuse them of being insecure, here would be some possible reasons", or something along those lines. It wasn't I who declared them insecure

 

[fairuz]

I wonder why Apple has such a fetish for phasing out 32-bit code.

The CPU has NO PROBLEM executing 32-bit code, and there isn't even a performance hit in doing so. There's no real solid reason to discontinue 32-bit support. This is going to keep people who requires certain older apps from upgrading to the latest version of MacOS, and expose them to security vulnerabilities for no good reason at all.

Ask someone else cause I don't know the details, but people have been telling me there are performance hits at both hardware and software levels associated with supporting 32-bit.
[doublepost=1516825953][/doublepost]

About time. 32 bit apps are insecure, and are a relic from a time long-past.

I agree with phasing out 32-bit, but what exactly is insecure about addressing your memory and other things with 32 bits?

 

[jgdeschamps]

Just keep using Snow Leopard complete 32-bit support and Rosetta for PPC apps plus pre iOS infestation.

I don't like staying in the past, but there are many reasons why I still keep my 2008 iMac with a Snow Leopard partition as my family's computer... it's just as fast at reading a spinning hard drive as my 2015 Macbook Air at reading its internal SSD. Stability is there too, and I enjoy Aqua quite a bit. Also, current graphics and vector design apps that I own still run fine under 10.6.8. New versions of Logic, MainStage and Garageband aren't really that different from their Logic Studio 8 and Garageband 6 counterparts, and I own both current and "old." My iPhone 3GS with iOS 6 is the cherry on top of that retro shake.
It's not as crazy as it sounds, and still has that magic many miss from that Jobs era.

 

[thetruth9000]

This would bring ios and mac os closer together

 

[casperes1996]

I agree with phasing out 32-bit, but what exactly is insecure about addressing your memory and other things with 32 bits?

The kernel randomises the memory space for each process, so the processes can't easily snoop on other processes' memory (or if it weren't isolated, even the kernel's memory). The bigger the memory space you can shuffle around in, the higher the security in theory. This theory also then means that a machine with 64GB of RAM is more secure than a machine with 16 in the specific scenario that a process is trying to snoop on the memory of other processes.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

Would phasing out 32-bit apps on macOS facilitate using ARM processors on lower end Macs and possibly merge iOS and macOS?

Or simply be a way to regain some of the specter and meltdown performance hit?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Firstly, they can't use as long encryption hashes, and secondly, since the focus is on 64-bit, the dependencies those 32-bit apps may have aren't necessarily as well tested.

32 bit apps can use 64 bit values just fine - they just use 2 32 bit registers to do so.

The second point has merit. A 32 bit binary is probably older and using older dependencies overall, and older code is less likely to have been patched.

 

[casperes1996]

For one, NX bit is only available in the 64-bit Page Table.

That's a fair argument though.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

The kernel randomises the memory space for each process, so the processes can't easily snoop on other processes' memory (or if it weren't isolated, even the kernel's memory). The bigger the memory space you can shuffle around in, the higher the security in theory. This theory also then means that a machine with 64GB of RAM is more secure than a machine with 16 in the specific scenario that a process is trying to snoop on the memory of other processes.

If only this could explain why more memory, 40GB, for the MAIL program gives me more spinning beach ball.

I think Tim Cook has spinning beach ball confused with more cowbell.

 

[lunarworks]

All my apps are 64-bit, but half my Steam library is going to be useless...

 

[casperes1996]

Would phasing out 32-bit apps on macOS facilitate using ARM processors on lower end Macs and possibly merge iOS and macOS?

There would be no correlation there, no. In fact, the ARM chips that are coming to Windows, will only run 32-bit x86 code, not 64-bit code... Kinda the opposite of what we're seeing here. Of course natively compiled apps will run in 64-bit mode.

32 bit apps can use 64 bit values just fine - they just use 2 32 bit registers to do so.

Yeah that's fair.
[doublepost=1516826642][/doublepost]

If only this could explain why more memory, 40GB, for the MAIL program gives me more spinning beach ball.

Are you saying that you have 40GB of RAM and getting this issue, or are you saying the Mail app is using 40GB of memory including swap?

 

[BornAgainMac]

I’d argue it’s the reverse, but it’s all dependent on the software you use.

You can install an older O/S on a Mac. You can create a VM of your Mac. It isn't so much the software but what you can do about it that really matters.

 

[casperes1996]

You can install an older O/S on a Mac. You can create a VM of your Mac. It isn't so much the software but what you can do about it that really matters.

Separate HDDs with different OS versions is a good one too. I have an external SSDs that I often have beta operating systems on for testing

 

[robsp2000]

Surprised the GPU hasn't given up on life yet.



That still works on Sierra?! Wow.... I really think you ought to make the move to X, Premiere, Avid or DaVinci though. They're all good NLEs. 7 just isn't up to snuff anymore.
People complained a lot in the beginning of X' life, but it's actually a brillant NLE at this point.
Premiere will feel relatively similar to FCP 7 and a lot of people say it's what FCP 7 would be if Apple didn't change direction with X. Avid is Hollywood's classic and it half expects you to come straight from cutting film rolls with scissors. And DaVinci is the newest player in the pro NLE space. Black Magic is the undisputed king of the colourists' workflows, but with the newer versions of Resolve (DaVinci), editors can now move comfortably to the software as well. And it's really fast. Competing with FCPX on speed. (Both use Metal 2). Premiere loses big time on speed. Then again, coming from FCP 7, anything is blazing.
[doublepost=1516824847][/doublepost]

I tried X when it first came out and it wasn't for me. I have yet to find an interface as fast as FCP 7 and earlier, especially working in the sequence window. For me that is the most important part. When I am editing, I just want everything to react to my input as fast as possible like dragging tracks around the timeline, hitting play, scrolling in reverse and forward, etc. I work in After Effects for anything complicated. I absolutely hated Premiere before FCP came out and I still refuse to work in Premiere. I also never liked Avid, I had to work on it at certain times but was never a fan. I just updated X to the latest version so in the meantime I am going to give it another chance. Hopefully Apple can get X to be as good of an editor as they had with 7.

 

[posguy99]

Kind of a bummer. My 2009 macbook pro only has 4gb of ram (2nd slot is broken). So I would effectively be down to 2gb..

How does that follow?

 

[fairuz]

People said the same thing when they went from 16 bit to 32 bit. Honestly, they did. Stubbornness for change is just slowing down progress. Just look at the cluster that is Windows which still rocks Program Files x86 for legacy purposes.

Windows still even supports 16-bit last time I checked, but maybe not anymore. It does suck, but hey, they're catering to people like the DMV who actually benefit from stuff always being supported.
[doublepost=1516827821][/doublepost]

The kernel randomises the memory space for each process, so the processes can't easily snoop on other processes' memory (or if it weren't isolated, even the kernel's memory). The bigger the memory space you can shuffle around in, the higher the security in theory. This theory also then means that a machine with 64GB of RAM is more secure than a machine with 16 in the specific scenario that a process is trying to snoop on the memory of other processes.

I was thinking about ASLR too, but it's really a hacky second line of defense in case there are memory protection vulnerabilities. Normally programs can't read each other's memory anyway, else you get "BAD_ACCESS" or something. So I wouldn't think it's a real security reason to ditch 32-bit memory addressing.

Edit: I think it's also meant to protect against buffer overruns being exploited in someone's code (been a long time since I looked at this stuff), but eh, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Edit 2: Dunno how ASLR deals with 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system. For all I know, maybe it's providing the same protection.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

People said the same thing when they went from 16 bit to 32 bit. Honestly, they did. Stubbornness for change is just slowing down progress. Just look at the cluster that is Windows which still rocks Program Files x86 for legacy purposes.

What "progress" are you talking about? A bunch of 32-bit haters that don't know WTF they're talking about as usual. 32-bit can phase itself out on its own. There is ZERO reason to make older software (especially games) stop working for no good reason. Apple has been making the OS slower and slower and slower (on purpose probably as they have admitted to doing on the iPhone with batteries and the like) and you guys act like ditching 32-bit is going to make one BIT of difference is a fracking JOKE. You don't know WTF you're talking about and those with 32-bit software resent your attitude as you are part of the PROBLEM and not the solution.

Apple have always been happy to drop older standards. 32 bit is only the latest in a long list. They did this in iOS and they’ve already dropped 32 bit support/plug-ins years ago for their Pro Apps (LPX), so this shouldn’t come as much surprise.

It's not much of a "surprise" that Apple is run by a bunch of money grubbing useless turds (the CEO being first among those, IMO as Apple has been transformed from innovation to follow the leader and stock buybacks). What is a bit surprising is how many casual users actively work against their own best interests. But given the past year, I can't say I'm shocked. At least a third of my own country (possibly 48%) are clearly living in a dream world where forwards is backwards and backwards is forwards.

The performance hit comes from the OS having to keep both a 32-bit and 64-bit version of shared libraries in RAM.

Right. Then don't run 32-bit apps if it bothers you so damn much! No one is making you! You can see and stop 32-bit apps in Activity Monitor. Have at it. I'm sure it REALLY takes a HUGE amount of ram in a day and age where 16GB of ram is COMMON.

The argument comes down to, "64-bit is a bigger number so clearly 32-bit has to go!" Great argument guys! "But it's a security risk!" Yeah, sure it is. (in Reverso World)

What a bunch of STUPID WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS. My god, no wonder Windows people make fun of Mac users so much.

 

[casperes1996]

I tried X when it first came out and it wasn't for me. I have yet to find an interface as fast as FCP 7 and earlier, especially working in the sequence window. For me that is the most important part. When I am editing, I just want everything to react to my input as fast as possible like dragging tracks around the timeline, hitting play, scrolling in reverse and forward, etc. I work in After Effects for anything complicated. I absolutely hated Premiere before FCP came out and I still refuse to work in Premiere. I also never liked Avid, I had to work on it at certain times but was never a fan. I just updated X to the latest version so in the meantime I am going to give it another chance. Hopefully Apple can get X to be as good of an editor as they had with 7.

X has gotten immensely better over the years, and reintroduced a lot of, if not all, the features that were missing from 7 -> X. I personally prefer it over any other NLE. You need to get used to the magnetic timeline if you're used to 7 though. Quite different but nice when you get used to it.

X is the fastest NLE on the market (as I said, DaVinci Resolved has started to trade blows, but no other software can match them), and that's both in renders, exports, and as you mention as crucial, the interface and editing feel.

If you have any transitional issues when you try out X to see if you like it better now, feel free to ask. I've been using it for a long time, nd consider myself quite proficient with it. If you have speed issues, also drop me a DM, as there are many, many ways to optimise your setup to run incredibly fast in X. - By default it's setup for super high fidelity in the editing, and you might not need that fidelity when assembling the footage.

 

[robsp2000]

X has gotten immensely better over the years, and reintroduced a lot of, if not all, the features that were missing from 7 -> X. I personally prefer it over any other NLE. You need to get used to the magnetic timeline if you're used to 7 though. Quite different but nice when you get used to it.

X is the fastest NLE on the market (as I said, DaVinci Resolved has started to trade blows, but no other software can match them), and that's both in renders, exports, and as you mention as crucial, the interface and editing feel.

If you have any transitional issues when you try out X to see if you like it better now, feel free to ask. I've been using it for a long time, nd consider myself quite proficient with it. If you have speed issues, also drop me a DM, as there are many, many ways to optimise your setup to run incredibly fast in X. - By default it's setup for super high fidelity in the editing, and you might not need that fidelity when assembling the footage.

Awesome man, thanks

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's default in the CPU pane. And as someone else stated, all executables, not just the running ones, can be seen in System Information and it can be detected that way.

You must have turned it on at some point, because it wasn't on by default for me.

Do you mean in System Report? Could not find it there.

They will tell you before the update that kills support comes out. They did for iOS. They said "In this version we'll show the warnings, in the next major release they die". At WWDC you'll most likely be told.

The current version of iWork is 64-bit. I don't see what Apple can do about old versions of software not being 64-bit. That's what the update is for.
Regarding FileMaker, I see two options - Get FileMaker updated, or don't get macOS updated when the killing blow comes. You can't expect endless support.
And I would like to reiterate that you still have support right now.

I won't be at WWDC... not a developer.

Yes, I know the current version of iWork is 64-bit. Sadly it was badly crippled (at least, Pages was) compared to the earlier version. Apple has never come close to reaching feature parity with the new version in the many years since it's been out, so I think it might be time to give up on the hope that it ever will.

As for FileMaker, this is a single-mission app for me and it's expensive-ware so I don't upgrade unless compelled to do so. Every so often they put that gun to my head, making me choose between freezing my Mac system or paying. Looks like I will be doing it again for FileMaker.

Worth point out here that supposedly Apple is giving us these warnings such that the software developers will be motivated to update their apps. Here's two examples of where Apple products almost certainly won't be updated, so apparently this motivation doesn't apply to them.

 

[casperes1996]

What "progress" are you talking about? A bunch of 32-bit haters that don't know WTF they're talking about as usual. 32-bit can phase itself out on its own. There is ZERO reason to make older software (especially games) stop working for no good reason. Apple has been making the OS slower and slower and slower (on purpose probably as they have admitted to doing on the iPhone with batteries and the like) and you guys act like ditching 32-bit is going to make one BIT of difference is a fracking JOKE. You don't know WTF you're talking about and those with 32-bit software resent your attitude as you are part of the PROBLEM and not the solution.



It's not much of a "surprise" that Apple is run by a bunch of money grubbing useless turds (the CEO being first among those, IMO as Apple has been transformed from innovation to follow the leader and stock buybacks). What is a bit surprising is how many casual users actively work against their own best interests. But given the past year, I can't say I'm shocked. At least a third of my own country (possibly 48%) are clearly living in a dream world where forwards is backwards and backwards is forwards.



Right. Then don't run 32-bit apps if it bothers you so damn much! No one is making you! You can see and stop 32-bit apps in Activity Monitor. Have at it. I'm sure it REALLY takes a HUGE amount of ram in a day and age where 16GB of ram is COMMON.

The argument comes down to, "64-bit is a bigger number so clearly 32-bit has to go!" Great argument guys! "But it's a security risk!" Yeah, sure it is. (in Reverso World)

What a bunch of STUPID WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS. My god, no wonder Windows people make fun of Mac users so much.

Are you having some kind of breakdown? Calm down and keep level-headed, man. People don't listen to arguments when they're being insulted in-between them.

The argument is deeper than you make it out to be. Maintaining 32-bit support requires resources, both for development and testing purposes. Even if you don't have any 32-bit apps running, resources that could've been spent on making a more stable 64-bit system or new features or whatnot, is being spent on patching, maintaining and testing 32-bit libraries on newer systems.
And similar to your argument of "just don't use 32-bit apps if you don't like them" - Just don't update to 10.15 if you need 32-bit support. That'll still give you 4 more years of support, assuming a continuation of support scheme. Or keep both an old system and a new one around on separate hard drives, in a VM, or any number of other solutions. If I may be a bit sarcastic here, you could even keep an older OS on one of your floppy drives

Fact is that Apple just doesn't think it's worth the effort to support 32-bit anymore. It's not that it's a benefit to the system really, although in a few minor ways there are benefits too as explained, but the main point is that the resources spent aren't worth the reward. And the broader industry agrees. Ubuntu is killing 32-bit, Nvidia is killing 32-bit, AMD's CEO Dr. Liza Su has said in an interview that she certainly sees why Nvidia did so, and that 32-bit support is consuming a lot of resources, and as a whole, it just doesn't seem to be worth the resources anymore. So little software actually in use is 32-bit anymore, and those who really need legacy apps will have options once it dies.

 

[SecuritySteve]

Ask someone else cause I don't know the details, but people have been telling me there are performance hits at both hardware and software levels associated with supporting 32-bit.
[doublepost=1516825953][/doublepost]
I agree with phasing out 32-bit, but what exactly is insecure about addressing your memory and other things with 32 bits?

I't not necessarily about referencing memory addresses and such, as much as it is about the architectural differences and the security features that only apply to 64 bit apps.

32 bit apps are given more freedom within the macOS system (and iOS, when they worked) and are thus a more tempting target for attackers, since they can bypass what would traditionally be inaccessible in a 64 bit app.

Example: The null page. In 32 bit applications, you can map the null page (address 0) in memory that for logical reasons, should be left entirely null in the event that something goes wrong with a pointer (ie. null pointer). Imagine that an application contains a null instruction pointer. If it is on a 64 bit app, that page can't be mapped with attack code, but a 32 bit application could. If that instruction pointer was in a security-context-elevated portion of the code (or utilizing a kernel API) it may grant the attacker extra privileges as well.

@MagnusVonMagnum : You're such a troll. I almost bought that you were just misinformed, until I read the bottom line in regards to Windows users. Nice try.

 

[xgman]

Are you having some kind of breakdown? Calm down and keep level-headed, man. People don't listen to arguments when they're being insulted in-between them.

welcome to the internet..