MacInTouch Amazon link...
Channels
Apple, Troubleshooting, Questions
I'm curious why your reported firmware is different than mine. – Mac Pro 5,1 with all High Sierra updates have been applied.
There doesn't seem to be a way to force an update to the Boot ROM, and I thought an update was supposed to occur during the system upgrade, so I'm not sure what's going on.
As John W alluded to, and as we've discussed in the classic Mac Pro topic, for Mac Pro 2009-2012, firmware (BootROM) updates are not automatically applied by system updates. You must run a full macOS installer, and it will then prompt you to manually update the BootROM before proceeding with the macOS install. This Macrumors thread has much more information about the various BootROM versions included with each macOS installer.

But the short of it is that everyone should probably update to the last BootROM version available, 144.0.0.0, which is included with "Install macOS 10.14.5 (and 10.14.6) Mojave", regardless of what macOS version you intend to run. As John W said, you don't actually have to install Mojave. After the BootROM update, it will reboot and prompt you to begin the install Mojave process, at which point you can quit. You can continue to run any OS supported by your hardware, even after the BootROM update (that means as far back as Leopard, in most cases).

Note: if you haven't updated your BootROM before, and have something less than MP51.0089.B00, then you must run the Install macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra full installer first to update to BootROM MP51.0089.B00, and then you can run the Mojave full installer to get to 144.0.0.0.
 


Wow, I had to do some research to get any idea of what the ... Apple is doing here.
This "Security Update 2019-001" is apparently new and exclusive to macOS 10.14 Mojave.
Here are two different "Security Update 2019-001" packages that Apple distributed all the way back in January that appear to be completely unrelated to this new one.
As someone who had been documenting (or trying to document) Apple updates for other people for decades, I really do not appreciate such confusing Apple naming for critical security patches.
This naming convention is not new, and goes back to at least Lion, I think. It's not sufficient to just say "Security Update 201x-00n"; you have to say "Security Update 201x-00n Operating System", because they are different packages for different OS's, may have different contents, and may be released at different times.

This is not the first time you've noted the disparity. ;)
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
It's not sufficient to just say "Security Update 201x-00n"; you have to say "Security Update 201x-00n Operating System", because they are different packages for different OS's, may have different contents, and may be released at different times.
You know that, and I know that, and I'd guess that some fraction of the MacInTouch community knows that. but I'd guess that 99% of Apple customers have no clue about the intricacies of this "convention" and can only be confused by it (along with all the other confusion Apple is sowing nowadays).

It's not like it's hard to make this more comprehensible. How about simply switching components, so it reads:

macOS Sierra 10.12 Security Update 2019-001
macOS High Sierra 10.13 Security Update 2019-001
macOS Mojave 10.14 Security Update 2019-001
 


... I wonder if there is a difference between the different cores (mine is quad-core) getting—or not getting—firmware updates.
There may be, but I can't verify this on my Mac Pros (reason below).

The single-CPU 2010 Mac Pros with the stock 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz have 4-core Xeons, which are in the older Nehalem family. Nehalem does not support the AES instructions used by APFS. This may be a factor in determining what firmware will be installed when running High Sierra or Mojave.

The remaining 2010 stock Xeon processors are the Westmere family, which supports the AES instructions. These include the single-CPU 3.33GHz and all three dual-CPUs (2.4, 2.66, and 2.93GHz).

Hopefully another MacInTouch reader with a 2010 Mac Pro with a single 2.8GHz or 3.2GHz CPU can reply and let us know their firmware version.

I can't verify, because both my single-CPU and dual-CPU Mac Pros had processor upgrades before installing Mojave. Both have firmware version 144.0.0.0.0. Both my Mac Pros started as 2009 4,1 and were flashed to 5,1. Before installing Mojave, I upgraded to 3.46GHz 6-core Xeons, which have the AES instructions. And of course, I added GPUs that support Metal.

A good source to explore stock Mac Pro configuration details is EveryMac.com.
 


The single-CPU 2010 Mac Pros with the stock 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz have 4-core Xeons, which are in the older Nehalem family. Nehalem does not support the AES instructions used by APFS. This may be a factor in determining what firmware will be installed when running High Sierra or Mojave.
The remaining 2010 stock Xeon processors are the Westmere family, which supports the AES instructions. These include the single-CPU 3.33GHz and all three dual-CPUs (2.4, 2.66, and 2.93GHz).
Westmere is not required for Mojave nor APFS. AES acceleration is only required for FileVault, which is not supported on classic Mac Pros.

The reason why David is on older firmware is because he has not run a full Mojave installer. If he did, it would offer him the newer firmware.

Anyone with a 2009-2012 Mac Pro who still has a Nehalem processor, though, should seriously consider a Westmere upgrade, as we've discussed before. Xeon X5680's are going for as low as $35 on eBay now.
 


You know that, and I know that, and I'd guess that some fraction of the MacInTouch community knows that. but I'd guess that 99% of Apple customers have no clue about the intricacies of this "convention" and can only be confused by it (along with all the other confusion Apple is sowing nowadays).
I'd guess that 99% of Apple customers have auto-update turned on and neither know nor care about any of this.
 


Regarding the HomePod update to 13.2, I was away from home when it was first released, or I might have been caught up with whatever "bricking" happened. In the evening I attempted to update my two HomePods. They went into a loop of downloading/updating.

I saw online that others were having problems. I unplugged power from them and deleted them from the Home app. I re-added them – they were still at 12.4, and functional. The following day, Apple released 13.2.1, which updated correctly.

I haven't yet had time to test the new functions.
 


This might sound like a stupid question, but it needs to be asked. Are you sure the two apps were purchased with the same App Store account? Because apps can be downloaded to iOS devices using different App Store accounts, and then when you go to download an update, you have to provide the login credentials for the correct account associated with that specific app. That would explain the behavior you're seeing. For example, in what you described above, you click to update the first app, and it happens to have been purchased with the same Apple ID as the iCloud account you're expecting on the device, and so you provide that password and it works. Then you go to update the 2nd app, and it was downloaded with a different account, but you didn't notice, so you provide the password for the first account, and it fails. That would also explain why you're being prompted twice in a row for credentials. Normally, if both apps were on the same account, logging in for the first app update would mean you wouldn't get prompted again when you try to download the 2nd app.
Todd, your answer seemed like it should have been the answer, but it was not. So I uninstalled the app (the Shutterfly iPhone version) then searched for it at the store, found it, then, when I tried to install it, the store advised that the new version wouldn't run on iOS 9.3.5 and would I like to install the last version that did. I approved this, and it installed. Trouble is that it just crashes 2 seconds after it's launched. So, no more Shutterfly on that iPad, unless I want to do it through a web browser.

Oh well, at least the app runs fine on my Android devices.
 


I have an iPod Touch Gen 6, which I updated to iOS 12.4.3 last night. It was kind of odd, in that I had WiFi up and running on the iPod to download the update, but after it was downloaded, it failed to install, apparently due to it having turned WiFi before the next phase of the install could take place.

So I turned WiFi back on and hit the equivalent of the finish-up the install button, and the install succeeded, but once again WiFi was turned off for me.

I don't recall any previous iOS install ever behaving like that. (And the battery was freshly charged.)
 


I just tried to open a Pages file sent from a relatively new iPad to an older MacBook Pro (OS X 10.11.6) and was presented with a message that I needed the new version of Pages to open it... which I can't install on this OS X version.

As much as I hate to admit it, Apple's business model of forcing hardware upgrades is troubling. It's driving shareholder value, though, which is what it's all about, eh?
 


Are you sure the two apps were purchased with the same App Store account? Because apps can be downloaded to iOS devices using different App Store accounts, and then when you go to download an update, you have to provide the login credentials for the correct account associated with that specific app.
This affected me for quite a long time, back when iTunes could manage apps. I would frequently switch my iTunes login between accounts (mine and my wife's) in order to download every app we purchased, in order to have them stored locally. I would frequently add apps from iTunes, installing the version stored locally, so my phone ended up with a random mix of apps purchased from both of our accounts, causing the occasional need to enter both passwords when performing updates (both from the phone and from iTunes).

The real aggravating part is that it does this for free apps, not just for paid apps.

Of course, this no longer an issue, because I can no longer manage apps from iTunes, so everything on the phone is now installed from the phone, and I don't switch its accounts.
 


Note: if you haven't updated your BootROM before, and have something less than MP51.0089.B00, then you must run the Install macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra full installer first to update to BootROM MP51.0089.B00, and then you can run the Mojave full installer to get to 144.0.0.0.
I'm already on BootROM version 138.0.0.0, so, as far as I can tell, I should be able to go right to 144.0.0.0. The only problem is I can't find a Mojave installer that has a new certificate and will run. Anybody know where Apple is hiding it? Assuming, of course, that Apple has one with an updated certificate!
 


I'm already on BootROM version 138.0.0.0, so, as far as I can tell, I should be able to go right to 144.0.0.0. The only problem is I can't find a Mojave installer that has a new certificate and will run. Anybody know where Apple is hiding it? Assuming, of course, that Apple has one with an updated certificate!
Never mind! I forgot that I could set the date back to before the certificate expired and it would work... which it did! Now at 144.0.0.0.
 


I've reached the end of my patience with Apple. My wife's iPad, running iOS 9.3.5 (as far as Apple will take it) has App Store issues that are nuts. I'm told there are two updates to apps she has installed. I try to install them, and I'm asked for her iCloud password; okay, here you go. Nope, that's not accepted. Did I mistype? I try again; nope, no good.

I switch to Settings and tap on her iCloud account. It asks me for her password, which I provide. That's accepted (and it's the same password I provided in the App Store). So I switch back to the App Store, tap on one of the updates, and I'm asked for her password. I provide it, and, this time, it accepts it. So I then click on the other update and I'm asked again for her password, which I provide. Nope, that's not accepted. I am not mistyping.
I have had that problem before, but usually it was because I used a different iCloud account. The solution would be to delete the app, since you don't know what possible different iCloud account it could be under. Reinstall it under the correct iCloud account, and that should solve it. You can't really delete an iCloud account, but it is sure easy to create another account and use it and then have the problem. Apple should have a way for you to see all iCloud accounts associated with an individual.
 


But the short of it is that everyone should probably update to the last BootROM version available, 144.0.0.0, which is included with "Install macOS 10.14.5 (and 10.14.6) Mojave", regardless of what macOS version you intend to run.
I think a clarification is in order. 144.0.0.0 may be the latest version available for some older Macs, such as Mac Pro 2009-2012, but not for all Macs. For instance, System Report says my iMac 18,3 (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) is at 175.0.0.0.0. Howard Oakley's list, which is updated frequently, tells me I'm a little behind, probably because I haven't bitten the Catalina bullet yet:
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Here's some very important information from Howard Oakley about the critical issue of coordinating Apple software and firmware updates:
Eclectic Light Co. said:
A plain guide to Mac firmware and its problems
There are three software systems at the heart of every Mac: its firmware (‘EFI firmware’), the system kernel, and a few hundred kernel extensions. Together, they get your Mac running at startup, and provide all its basic services, from driving graphics cards, to the file system used for storage, and providing the ‘sandbox’ used by App Store apps.

These have to be closely matched. Try running a newer kernel and extensions on old firmware, and you can encounter problems, including kernel panics, in which everything has packed up and gone home, and your Mac needs to restart and try again. The kernel and extensions are supplied and installed in macOS updates, but updating firmware is more tricky, and these days is only performed as an operation within a macOS update.

Firmware is also more complex on Macs with T1 or T2 chips: they have their own firmware, which is downloaded securely during the update, and installed then. Some Macs have had more serious problems with T1/T2 firmware, and Apple provides a special mechanism for restoring their firmware in the event of problems. However, this is a serious undertaking, and if it goes wrong the T2 chip can brick that Mac.
 


FYI...
Here's more about the problem:
BBC News said:
iPhone 5 users risk losing internet access
Apple iPhone 5 users have been warned to update their software before the weekend or face losing access to the internet.

The technology giant said users who did not download iOS 10.3.4 by 3 November would be locked out of features that rely on the correct time and date.

This includes the App Store, email, web browsing and storage service iCloud.

While it is not the latest version of the operating system, it is the most up-to-date available for the model.

Users of older iPhones have also been advised to update their software in order to maintain accurate GPS location services.
I just tried to update my iPhone 5c (ME496LL/A; A1532 GSM/North America) from iOS 10.3.3 to 10.3.4 - both wirelessly and connected to two different computers, one running Mavericks 10.9 and another running Sierra 10.12, I'm told the phone's iOS is up to date. Are those Mac OSes too old? Any suggestions?
 


I just tried to update my iPhone 5c (ME496LL/A; A1532 GSM/North America) from iOS 10.3.3 to 10.3.4 - both wirelessly and connected to two different computers, one running Mavericks 10.9 and another running Sierra 10.12, I'm told the phone's iOS is up to date. Are those Mac OSes too old? Any suggestions?
Fred, it appears that the iOS 10.3.4 is not meant for your iPhone 5c, only the iPhone 5. The listing for this update states it is for: iPhone 5, iPad (4th generation) Wi-Fi + Cellular. Note the lack of any "and later" designation.

Checking Everymac.com, it states the latest version of iOS supported by your phone is 10.3.3.

Apple iPhone 5c (GSM/North America/A1532) 8, 16, 32 GB Specs
 


Fred, it appears that the iOS 10.3.4 is not meant for your iPhone 5c, only the iPhone 5. The listing for this update states it is for: iPhone 5, iPad (4th generation) Wi-Fi + Cellular. Note the lack of any "and later" designation.
Checking Everymac.com, it states the latest version of iOS supported by your phone is 10.3.3.
Apple iPhone 5c (GSM/North America/A1532) 8, 16, 32 GB Specs
Thanks so much, TKS Ose! I had assumed the "iPhone 5" qualification meant iPhone 5 all varieties. Guess not. But that makes me wonder, why not the 5c? Might there be negative implications in leaving the 5c out?
 


Thanks so much, TKS Ose! I had assumed the "iPhone 5" qualification meant iPhone 5 all varieties. Guess not. But that makes me wonder, why not the 5c? Might there be negative implications in leaving the 5c out?
Hard to say, Fred. Apple's documentation on this update is lacking, even more so than typically. We have to go out to third-party sources for more information.


If you have not see the warning message noted in the above article, I would not worry at this time.
 


As John W alluded to, and as we've discussed in the classic Mac Pro topic, for Mac Pro 2009-2012, firmware (BootROM) updates are not automatically applied by system updates. You must run a full macOS installer, and it will then prompt you to manually update the BootROM before proceeding with the macOS install. This Macrumors thread has much more information about the various BootROM versions included with each macOS installer.
But the short of it is that everyone should probably update to the last BootROM version available, 144.0.0.0, which is included with "Install macOS 10.14.5 (and 10.14.6) Mojave", regardless of what macOS version you intend to run. As John W said, you don't actually have to install Mojave. After the BootROM update, it will reboot and prompt you to begin the install Mojave process, at which point you can quit. You can continue to run any OS supported by your hardware, even after the BootROM update (that means as far back as Leopard, in most cases).
I set aside some time today to do the firmware upgrade in the Mojave 10.14.6 full install. Being the cautious type, I removed all internal drives (except, of course, the High Sierra boot drive) before running the installer. No problems; it went quickly.

BootROM on this Mac Pro 5,1 is now 144.0.0.0.0.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of why and when the firmware gets updated.

And I can still boot into Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and Sierra.
 


I downloaded the re-signed installer for El Capitan, which downloads InstallMacOSX.dmg. This contains InstallMacOSX.pkg, which, when run, should create Install OS X El Capitan.app.

The problem is that it won't run; it fails the version check with "This version of OS X 10.11 cannot be installed on this computer". But I'm not trying to install OS X. I'm trying to create the OS X Installer, so I can use it elsewhere.

Pacifist doesn't help. It can extract the app from the package, but it is only 8.9 MB. It's missing the 6.21GB InstallESD.dmg, which the InstallMacOSX.pkg uses a script to install.

Do you think it would work to extract the app and the InstallESD.dmg with Pacifist and assemble it myself? Or, if the packages inside InstallESD.dmg are what is being re-signed, just extract that and use it to replace the same file in the previously downloaded Install OS X El Capitan.app? (The files in the previously downloaded install app are slightly newer than the "new" installer, mostly about by about 4 days.)

Why didn't Apple just update it in the App Store? You can still download it if you have the right link, which I do.
 


Thanks so much, TKS Ose! I had assumed the "iPhone 5" qualification meant iPhone 5 all varieties. Guess not. But that makes me wonder, why not the 5c? Might there be negative implications in leaving the 5c out?
The iPhone 5c and 5s were released one year after the iPhone 5. Presumably, they have the fixes for the GPS rollover issue, embedded in their GPS hardware already, whereas the iPhone 5 must be addressed via a software patch.

So, why didn't anyone at Apple recognize the need for the software fixes for the older GPS hardware at any point between Sept. 2013 (the release date of the iPhone 5s/5c when the issue was apparently known) and July 2019 (the release of iOS 9.3.6/10.3.4), and roll it into one of the earlier iOS updates when those hardware were in mainstream support? Just another indication of the breakdown in process controls at Apple.

Incidentally, I've read reports that GPS modules are no longer working for older iOS hardware for which Apple did not release an iOS update. That includes the iPhone 1, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3G S, iPhone 4, and iPad 1 with cellular.
 


Thanks so much, TKS Ose! I had assumed the "iPhone 5" qualification meant iPhone 5 all varieties. Guess not. But that makes me wonder, why not the 5c? Might there be negative implications in leaving the 5c out?
From Apple:
Update your iPhone or iPad software if you're experiencing issues with location, date, and time
As of November 3, 2019, some iPhone and iPad models introduced in 2012 and earlier require an iOS update to resume accurate GPS location...This issue does not affect iPod touch or any iPad models that have Wi-Fi only. It also doesn't affect iOS devices newer than those listed above.
The iPhone 5c was introduced in 2013.
 


I downloaded the re-signed installer for El Capitan, which downloads InstallMacOSX.dmg. This contains InstallMacOSX.pkg, which, when run, should create Install OS X El Capitan.app.
The problem is that it won't run; it fails the version check with "This version of OS X 10.11 cannot be installed on this computer". But I'm not trying to install OS X. I'm trying to create the OS X Installer, so I can use it elsewhere.
But Apple may have put checks into the package to only allow it to run on a system that install El Capitan, assuming that you are going to install it immediately, and not for later use. You didn't specify what kind of computer and OS you're running on, but I'm assuming you're either doing this on a newer computer which can't run El Capitan and/or on an OS newer than El Capitan (it says at the bottom of the download page "OS X El Capitan won't install on top of a later version of macOS")?
Do you think it would work to extract the app and the InstallESD.dmg with Pacifist and assemble it myself?
I don't think so, because you're not able to sign the resultant assembled install app.
Or, if the packages inside InstallESD.dmg are what is being re-signed, just extract that and use it to replace the same file in the previously downloaded Install OS X El Capitan.app? (The files in the previously downloaded install app are slightly newer than the "new" installer, mostly about by about 4 days.)
I don't think this would work either, because the new InstallESD.dmg would not match the checksums/signature that the old Install app is expecting. This is what prevents, for example, a malicious actor from distributing his own Install macOS.app that has modified InstallESD.dmg contents which include embedded malware.

What I think you need to do is run a virtual machine older than El Capitan, and try downloading the installer from there.
 


I downloaded the re-signed installer for El Capitan, which downloads InstallMacOSX.dmg. This contains InstallMacOSX.pkg, which, when run, should create Install OS X El Capitan.app.
The problem is that it won't run; it fails the version check with "This version of OS X 10.11 cannot be installed on this computer". But I'm not trying to install OS X. I'm trying to create the OS X Installer, so I can use it elsewhere.

Pacifist doesn't help. It can extract the app from the package, but it is only 8.9 MB. It's missing the 6.21GB InstallESD.dmg, which the InstallMacOSX.pkg uses a script to install.

Do you think it would work to extract the app and the InstallESD.dmg with Pacifist and assemble it myself? Or, if the packages inside InstallESD.dmg are what is being re-signed, just extract that and use it to replace the same file in the previously downloaded Install OS X El Capitan.app? (The files in the previously downloaded install app are slightly newer than the "new" installer, mostly about by about 4 days.)

Why didn't Apple just update it in the App Store? You can still download it if you have the right link, which I do.
The solution was to create the installer app using a Snow Leopard VM.
 


Are the installers for Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks not affected by the certificate expiration? Pacifist says that the installation packages have no signature. That could explain why Apple didn't bother to provide new download links for those OS X versions.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
More Mac firmware follies from Howard Oakley, who has been putting a huge amount of effort into researching, documenting, and helping us manage the mess:
Eclectic Light Co. said:
SilentKnight and silnite now look at firmware more thoroughly
The release of macOS 10.15 Catalina brought with it an update to EFI firmware for all Macs. Whereas in previous years Apple has brought Macs running other supported versions of macOS up to the same versions, this year it hasn’t. The result is that the same model running fully updated Mojave or High Sierra and another running Catalina should – in most cases – have different firmware versions. This is most confusing, particularly when some models like the iMac17,1 seem to have difficulty updating their firmware properly for Catalina.

The end result is that many Mac users now find themselves unsure whether their firmware is really up to date, and some are getting reports from macOS’s own firmware checks (eficheck) that there are problems....
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
There are apparently a lot of undocumented changes performed behind the scenes by Apple's latest macOS 10.14 "security" update....
Eclectic Light Co. said:
What changed in Mojave 10.14.6 Security Update 2019-001?
... The accompanying security release notes refer to fixes in AppleGraphicsControl, Audio, CUPS, File Quarantine, File System Events, Graphics, IOGraphics, two kernel bugs, libxml2, libxslt, manpages, PluginKit, and UIFoundation.

Looking through the bundled apps, I was surprised to discover that Photos has been updated, its build number incremented to 3461.7.150, with accompanying new builds of its supporting frameworks and iCloud support.

Going a bit deeper, the following items in /System/Library have also changed significantly in this Security Update:
  • several Assistant plugins
  • Siri app, its version rising to 146.15.4
  • Cloud Photos, with only a minor update
  • AMD Radeon driver KEXTs, which here have minor increments rather than the more substantial version changes in macOS 10.15.1, but there’s no sign of any support for Radeon 6000 series graphics cards in Mojave
  • Intel graphics driver KEXTs also have minor increments
  • APFS rises from version and build number 945.275.7 to 945.275.8
  • minor increments in many public and private frameworks
  • Python framework rises from 2.7.10 to 2.7.16
  • ‘Speech’ (Siri) preference pane is updated to version 146.15.4.
The overall build number for this new version of macOS Mojave is now 18G1012.

Included with this update, but not mentioned anywhere, are firmware updates for all models with T2 chips, which in this case brings their firmware version numbers into alignment with those of T2 Macs which have been upgraded to 10.15.1. However, models which lack the T2 chip don’t have any firmware updates on this occasion, which leaves them 1-3 versions behind the same model which has been upgraded to Catalina.
 


I downloaded the re-signed installer for El Capitan, which downloads InstallMacOSX.dmg. This contains InstallMacOSX.pkg, which, when run, should create Install OS X El Capitan.app. The problem is that it won't run; it fails the version check with "This version of OS X 10.11 cannot be installed on this computer". But I'm not trying to install OS X. I'm trying to create the OS X Installer, so I can use it elsewhere.
I'd mentioned above that multiple attempts to download the new Mojave installer weren't working for me. I found two ways to get the installer to launch:

(1) Rebooting. Apparently the certificate check will continue to fail even after downloading the correct installer if it failed since the last reboot.​
(2) By removing InstallInfo.plist from the package – a more drastic solution (which I found before learning about rebooting), but may work if rebooting doesn't work.​
 


I'd mentioned above that multiple attempts to download the new Mojave installer weren't working for me. I found two ways to get the installer to launch:
(1) Rebooting. Apparently the certificate check will continue to fail even after downloading the correct installer if it failed since the last reboot.​
(2) By removing InstallInfo.plist from the package – a more drastic solution (which I found before learning about rebooting), but may work if rebooting doesn't work.​
I don't know if this is important, but I noticed that when you quit a macOS installer, it still leaves InstallESD mounted. This is in the later installers that invisibly mount it.

Perhaps you had the problematic InstallESD (invisibly) mounted, and when you downloaded the re-signed version, the new InstallESD didn't mount. Or they both were mounted, and it was confused.
 


Are the installers for Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks not affected by the certificate expiration? Pacifist says that the installation packages have no signature. That could explain why Apple didn't bother to provide new download links for those OS X versions.
They are affected. Apple isn't providing links because they don't want customers running old software.

As I understand it, updates for these versions may be available to developers, but I don't have access or know anyone who can confirm that.
 


KJM

I just tried to open a Pages file sent from a relatively new iPad to an older MacBook Pro (OS X 10.11.6) and was presented with a message that I needed the new version of Pages to open it... which I can't install on this OS X version.
If you are looking for a workaround: Export the document on the iOS device e.g. in Word format. You should be able to open that Word document in the old Pages version on your Mac.
 


They are affected. Apple isn't providing links because they don't want customers running old software. As I understand it, updates for these versions may be available to developers, but I don't have access or know anyone who can confirm that.
I remember having to change the date (to before Feb. 2016) the last time I installed Mavericks, which was perhaps 2 years ago.
 


There are apparently a lot of undocumented changes performed behind the scenes by Apple's latest macOS 10.14 "security" update....
There's something undocumented in the High Sierra "security" update too. After installing it on a macOS 10.13 Mac running macOS Server, the built-in PHP can no longer send emails via the local host mail server. The normal email server works perfectly but PHP cannot send an email. There's no errors in any of the logs and PHP reports success (or lack of an error) in passing the email to the server. Everything else still works perfectly (thankfully). So, something changed with the security update. But what?
  • There's nothing in Apple's security update information about any changes to mail server or PHP. (I have discovered by myself that PHP has been updated, but there's nothing in their changelog in regard to the "mail()" command.)
  • There are no errors in any of the logs.
  • It's macOS 10.13 and macOS Server 5.7, so I doubt Apple will care or fix anything (they are both now end-of-line and will be dead this time next year).
  • It's damn annoying and I guess, short of some in-depth testing/debugging, I'm SOL (see above) - one more nail in the coffin of macOS Server.
 


I remember having to change the date (to before Feb. 2016) the last time I installed Mavericks, which was perhaps 2 years ago.
Disconnecting from the internet also works, as last night I did a an erase and dual install of Snow Leopard and Lion on a white 2007 iMac using this method. I have also used the date roll-back method with success.
 


They are affected. Apple isn't providing links because they don't want customers running old software. As I understand it, updates for these versions may be available to developers, but I don't have access or know anyone who can confirm that.
Apple doesn't provide accessible links for Lion or Mountain Lion, as they were "paid" products. If you want to re-download them, you do it via the App Store > Purchases > login with the Apple ID you originally used to buy either/both of those products. If you were one of those people who thought you were clever buying Lion on a USB stick instead of the App Store, I guess you're screwed.
 


The solution was to create the installer app using a Snow Leopard VM.
Michael, please elaborate on your process. I find the new InstallMacOSx.dmg posted for El Capitan behaves the same when accessed while running Mojave on a 2018 Mac Mini or running Mountain Lion on a 2008 Mac Pro. Both mount a volume containing the InstallMacOSX.pkg (6.21 GB), and double-clicking that launches Installer, which informs that it can't install on the Mojave system but will happily upgrade the Mountain Lion system. At what point were you presented with OS X El Capitan.app or able to create it? If it is a matter of creating, please run through the steps. Thanks in advance.
 


... At what point were you presented with OS X El Capitan.app or able to create it? If it is a matter of creating, please run through the steps. Thanks in advance.
Answering my own question: revisiting the dialogs shown in the Installer and clicking through to the Installation Type step, it says it will take 7 MB of space, not the expected 6+ GB. This was a hint that the Install OS X El Capitan application would be written to the Applications folder, rather than immediately proceeding to a restart/install sequence.

Sure enough, an Install OS X El Capitan app was produced and, weighing in at 6.22 GB, is a tad more than the stated 7 MB. ;-)

Apple has a support page, dated Oct 24 2019, which covers the process fairly well:

 


Are the installers for Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks not affected by the certificate expiration? Pacifist says that the installation packages have no signature.
They are affected.
I'm not getting it.
Code:
pkgutil --check-signature
on every package in the 2016 Install OS X Mavericks says
Status: no signature.
And, I can launch the installer in Snow Leopard without an error. So why are we thinking it has a certification expiration issue?
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts