I wonder how well Apple has deployed these tools internally for security research.
Since mid-April Chrome showed 302 vulnerabilities patched, 225 of them found by Google. Same period last year was 19 vulnerabilities. They've also become more transparent recently, disclosing vulnerabilities found internally, not just externally (which Apple still doesn't appear to do). From the outside, it's hard to tell if Apple has deployed this tooling as much as Google.
What's your thinking on this? From my perspective Apple Security go pretty hard. They have a strong track record of being able to ship architectural mitigations like PACs / BlastDoor / Exclaves first. I guess because Apple control the stack from silicon to userspace.
> The affected releases include iOS 18.7.9 and iPadOS 18.7.9, macOS Sequoia 15.7.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8.7, and macOS Tahoe 26.5.
Where does this quote come from? I can't see it in https://support.apple.com/en-us/127115, the article link at time of writing. It mentions CVE-2026-28952, but we're forced to guess why. I'd take the reference to mean that this issue is fixed, but I'm just some internet rando, so what the hell do I know?
If I do a google search for "CVE-2026-28952", it points me to various pages. Here's one, for example: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28952 - which is a bit more explicit, though of course this is not from the horse's mouth:
> This issue is fixed in iOS 18.7.9 and iPadOS 18.7.9, macOS Sequoia 15.7.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8.7, macOS Tahoe 26.5
Claude and Anthropic is mentioned, but not Mythos, I'm guessing this would mean then this was found outside of the whole Mythos thing, or would there be any reason for them not to mention it, if it was involved?
CVE-2026-28952 is about an integer overflow due to lack of input validation. I wonder what makes such vulnerability difficult to discover by traditional SAST tools?
For many years my go-to plan has been to stay one point release behind apple's releases, especially the .0 releases -- but, times change. Last night I pushed the button for 26.5, thinking about the Glasswing/Mythos reporting. Seems like staying on bleeding edge is going to be the name of the game.
I wonder if this will change general dynamics -- feels like LTS releases could become even more important, at the same time having reduced maintenance costs since you can have some agentic help on backporting.
Staying one point release behind is weird isn’t it? I get staying a major release behind, Apple’s x.0 releases are often pretty rough so it might be worth staying on x-1 for a while. But point releases mostly just fix the stuff they broke in the major release.. Would you really upgrade from 18.5 or whatever to 26.0 when Apple releases 26.1?
Point releases for macOS can be pretty large over the past several years - what often makes sense is waiting a few weeks to upgrade in case there's a .1 patch.
e.g. macOS 15.0, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, 15.6 and 15.7 all had .1 patches within a few weeks of release.
Where all of this is going? Will there be a dedicated servers running coding agents that iterate throught codebases for each company to find vulnerabilities 24/7?
Yeah I’m honestly not sure why macOS updates seem to be so huge. Often gigabytes. Do they actually have thousands of changes, so they basically ship out new versions of almost all system libraries? Or is it that they don’t have good diffing in place? Or is it a BSD thing where you basically ship everyone at once since it’s all sort of “one version” of the base system?
Oh hey, this is our work! We helped Anthropic analyze and report this bug.
For the record, this bug has nothing to do with our recent MIE attack [1] [2], which exploited two different kernel bugs. Our bugs are not fixed yet.
[1] https://blog.calif.io/p/first-public-kernel-memory-corruptio...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48139219
I wonder how well Apple has deployed these tools internally for security research.
Since mid-April Chrome showed 302 vulnerabilities patched, 225 of them found by Google. Same period last year was 19 vulnerabilities. They've also become more transparent recently, disclosing vulnerabilities found internally, not just externally (which Apple still doesn't appear to do). From the outside, it's hard to tell if Apple has deployed this tooling as much as Google.
I'd guess they haven't even begun to really utilize them. They've never been a terribly security conscious company, despite the marketing.
What's your thinking on this? From my perspective Apple Security go pretty hard. They have a strong track record of being able to ship architectural mitigations like PACs / BlastDoor / Exclaves first. I guess because Apple control the stack from silicon to userspace.
More than 26.5:
> The affected releases include iOS 18.7.9 and iPadOS 18.7.9, macOS Sequoia 15.7.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8.7, and macOS Tahoe 26.5.
I’ve already seen a lot of people self-congratulating for not updating to Tahoe but this isn’t exclusive to Tahoe.
> The affected releases include iOS 18.7.9 and iPadOS 18.7.9, macOS Sequoia 15.7.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8.7, and macOS Tahoe 26.5.
Where does this quote come from? I can't see it in https://support.apple.com/en-us/127115, the article link at time of writing. It mentions CVE-2026-28952, but we're forced to guess why. I'd take the reference to mean that this issue is fixed, but I'm just some internet rando, so what the hell do I know?
If I do a google search for "CVE-2026-28952", it points me to various pages. Here's one, for example: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28952 - which is a bit more explicit, though of course this is not from the horse's mouth:
> This issue is fixed in iOS 18.7.9 and iPadOS 18.7.9, macOS Sequoia 15.7.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8.7, macOS Tahoe 26.5
Ah thanks! I was only looking at Tahoe since my mac had an update and I usually look at the security release notes.
Kernel Available for: macOS Tahoe
Impact: An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination
Description: An integer overflow was addressed with improved input validation.
CVE-2026-28952: Calif.io in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research
CVEs:
* https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28952
* https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28942
This isn't a 26.5 bug, this is a bug fixed in 26.5.
Ah my bad for the wrong wording.
Claude and Anthropic is mentioned, but not Mythos, I'm guessing this would mean then this was found outside of the whole Mythos thing, or would there be any reason for them not to mention it, if it was involved?
It was Mythos
>Our engineers, working together with Mythos Preview, built a working exploit in five days.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48139219
CVE-2026-28952 is about an integer overflow due to lack of input validation. I wonder what makes such vulnerability difficult to discover by traditional SAST tools?
Fuzzing, dynamic analysis or DAST might have found it too.
Assuming Apple has deployed all of these and have invested in the labor/training on how to properly use them.
For many years my go-to plan has been to stay one point release behind apple's releases, especially the .0 releases -- but, times change. Last night I pushed the button for 26.5, thinking about the Glasswing/Mythos reporting. Seems like staying on bleeding edge is going to be the name of the game.
I wonder if this will change general dynamics -- feels like LTS releases could become even more important, at the same time having reduced maintenance costs since you can have some agentic help on backporting.
Staying one point release behind is weird isn’t it? I get staying a major release behind, Apple’s x.0 releases are often pretty rough so it might be worth staying on x-1 for a while. But point releases mostly just fix the stuff they broke in the major release.. Would you really upgrade from 18.5 or whatever to 26.0 when Apple releases 26.1?
Point releases for macOS can be pretty large over the past several years - what often makes sense is waiting a few weeks to upgrade in case there's a .1 patch.
e.g. macOS 15.0, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, 15.6 and 15.7 all had .1 patches within a few weeks of release.
Security updates still go out for older major releases back 2 versions. You didn’t need to jump to 26 if you weren’t on it.
Same! I almost never updated, now I feel like i need to update. Kinda feels like FOMO but for security updates
Where all of this is going? Will there be a dedicated servers running coding agents that iterate throught codebases for each company to find vulnerabilities 24/7?
More like: There will be a budget for tokens to be spent on security audits.
1000 different companies will be pitching your CTO their proprietary vulnerability scanning harness as the most cost effective.
So what already happens, but worse?
Yes
Sidenote but: it's crazy how big this update is. 13 GB is crazy
Update from 26.3 to 26.4 for the Studio Display XDR was 2.4GB. And that's for a variant of iOS designed for screens.
Yeah I’m honestly not sure why macOS updates seem to be so huge. Often gigabytes. Do they actually have thousands of changes, so they basically ship out new versions of almost all system libraries? Or is it that they don’t have good diffing in place? Or is it a BSD thing where you basically ship everyone at once since it’s all sort of “one version” of the base system?
One more reason to avoid upgrading to Tahoe.
This was fixed in 26.5 as well as 15.7.7 etc.
https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-28952
> One more reason to avoid upgrading to Tahoe.
Sequoia also has security bugs :) https://support.apple.com/en-us/127116