I did not (yet) upgrade my system to the latest macOS update (Tahoe 26.1) because after taking a look at the change log and security notes (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/125634) I am suspecting that installations from the sister site could become heavily affected. Almost the entire article lists measures to tighten apple's security architecture, which could make it very difficult or impossible to install certain software.

Could one of you wonderful people who knows the subject (keywords like codesigning, gatekeeper, symlinks, etc.) take a look at the measures to be implemented?
I would like a recommendation on whether I should steer clear of this update or not.
It would also be good to know whether releases and the steps during installation can be adapted to the stricter conditions if necessary.

P.S. Please no blanket advice like “always avoid updates” – I already know that.
Thanks in advance.

 

They are bugs and vulnerabilities they are fixing with their regular updates. Each one gets its own CVE number as they get reported, tested and fixes added to the OS. Unless you see a specific CVE to look at, it appears entirely normal from them. If you look at the names of those who have submitted like "RedTeam", etc.; you can see they are mostly or completely security researchers.

 

Thanks for the fast reply. I read stuff like "Description: A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. CVE-2025-43390..." and I know that this must directly affect some of the common k'ing methods.
You surely remember the whole story about Pulsar Modular and removing the intel slice etc.
Of course, Apple doesn't mention exactly which restrictions will be taken.
And I start feeling insecure because I know it is good to keep the system up to date, but I hate those nasty surprises when the stuff that just worked suddely refuses to even launch.
I would be very thankful if you (or one of the other knowing ladies & gentlemen) would take a closer look.

 

And how might you possibly know that? All you are looking at are patches for MacOS. They are usually all little stuff that has never even been found in the wild used for a zero day exploit. It's a brand new version of MacOS, and they probably still have less bugs to fix than the monthly Waves updates.

 

Trying not to use generalities here, but with that document (just as microsoft is on the win side) they are purposely being vague AF about every "bug" on that list. Microsoft takes it one step further wherein every patch is described with one or two simplistic catch-all blurbs about "this is a security flaw" or this is a "code fix for x,y,z". A lot of times they will reference a microsoft KB (microsoft knowledge base article) number that in many cases is either moved, or been assigned a different number, etc. If one is actually lucky enough to get to the correct KB article the verbiage used to describe the patch, or whatever it is they are wanting to install on your system, will again be purposely vague and cryptic.

Take for example that first one on your list;
"Admin Framework. The issue was addressed with improved checks." Doesn't tell you squat.

Then there are "reference links" pointed BACK at the same page you initially got the CVE from...THEN it points to an "apple advisory" that lists another "reference article" pointing back to the page you started from...

As the final coup de gras, they expect you to paw thru this list of "Child vulnerabilities".

Child vulnerabilities
(Contains the following vulnerabilities)
CVE-2025-43471 CVE-2025-43322 CVE-2025-43455 CVE-2025-43447 CVE-2025-43462 CVE-2025-43390 CVE-2025-43388 CVE-2025-43466
CVE-2025-43382 CVE-2025-43468 CVE-2025-43379 CVE-2025-43378 CVE-2025-43478 CVE-2025-43407 CVE-2025-43446 CVE-2025-43465
CVE-2025-43423 CVE-2025-43497 CVE-2025-43394 CVE-2025-43448 CVE-2025-43395 CVE-2025-43461 CVE-2025-43426 CVE-2025-43401
CVE-2025-43479 CVE-2025-43436 CVE-2025-43381 CVE-2025-43445 CVE-2025-43481 CVE-2025-43387 CVE-2025-43420 CVE-2025-43464
CVE-2025-43498 CVE-2025-43507 CVE-2025-43348 CVE-2025-43474 CVE-2025-43396 CVE-2025-43444 CVE-2025-43467 CVE-2025-43398
CVE-2025-43413 CVE-2025-43496 CVE-2025-43386 CVE-2025-43385 CVE-2025-43384 CVE-2025-43383 CVE-2025-43377 CVE-2025-43424
CVE-2025-43364 CVE-2025-43506 CVE-2025-43389 CVE-2025-43469 CVE-2025-43411 CVE-2025-43405 CVE-2025-43391 CVE-2025-43393
CVE-2024-43398 CVE-2024-49761 CVE-2025-6442 CVE-2025-43493 CVE-2025-43503 CVE-2025-43502 CVE-2025-43406 CVE-2025-43404
CVE-2025-43500 CVE-2025-43335 CVE-2025-43408 CVE-2025-43476 CVE-2025-30465 CVE-2025-43414 CVE-2025-43473 CVE-2025-43499
CVE-2025-43380 CVE-2025-43477 CVE-2025-43399 CVE-2025-43336 CVE-2025-43397 CVE-2025-43409 CVE-2025-43351 CVE-2025-43463
CVE-2025-32462 CVE-2025-43334 CVE-2025-43412 CVE-2025-53906 CVE-2025-43480 CVE-2025-43458 CVE-2025-43430 CVE-2025-43427
CVE-2025-43443 CVE-2025-43441 CVE-2025-43435 CVE-2025-43425 CVE-2025-43440 CVE-2025-43438 CVE-2025-43457 CVE-2025-43434
CVE-2025-43433 CVE-2025-43431 CVE-2025-43432 CVE-2025-43429 CVE-2025-43421 CVE-2025-43392 CVE-2025-43373 CVE-2025-43402
CVE-2025-43472

By this time, if your head isn't spinning around like the exorcist girls', you're sorry you even tried to figure out what the initial patch was for...

This is the way it is on both platforms. Trying to determine exactly what is being installed with these "updates" is almost impossible - the sheer length of the lists, the misdirection and purposefully cryptic language describing them being major factors in the design. They want the process of figuring out what it is they are installing made as difficult as possible. So when the application of all those updates in one session totally racks out your machine to the point where it's unusable, they can just say "well we told you all what it was we were installing", see?

Your initial assessment that a significant quantity of stuff on that list has the potential to make it harder to run warez, or make personal privacy changes to the appleOS, is most likely correct. After all you are the end user, why should you have any say in what you want to run on your own machine? (purposely sarcastic)

The crux of the biscuit is this; Asking someone else to figure this out is a full time job for that person(s). Most likely if you want real info on that list you can start by googleing the CVE numbers and see where it leads.

 

Last edited: Nov 12, 2025 at 9:46 PM

Well, I'm afraid you are right. So, all we can do abut it is run the update, see if everything still works, if not - downgrade the system with hours and hours waiting for that dang time machine migration process to finally finish. I get that.
Thanks anyway. Of course I can not expect anyone to spend ~2 full days on researching the true meaning of that cve-list.

 

On the win side I never opted in to the autonomous updating thing for as long as I can remember. I have applied piecemeal patches at times where vulnerabilities existed on internet facing machines but that's it.

 

Sentinel can handle it if you don't wanna mess with Terminal
https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel

 

CVE's are vague on purpose. The people reporting them are primarily security researchers, and they follow CEH suggested recommendations of responsible disclosure to vendors. They are not trying to turn their webpages into Milw0rm. They are "vulnerabilities" which have never (or almost never) been published into the wild for people to exploit. Even after they are patched, it is often relatively easy for someone to take a fixed vulnerability and piggyback on that work to a "new" and only slightly different zero day exploit to weaponize.

You might like the additional reading material, but they are doing things the right way. Otherwise they could expect the results of a company that does things almost completely reactively aka microsoft. That's how some previously patched rpc-dcom vulnerability over tcp 135/smb and LSASS evolved into Sasser, Blaster, Conficker and finally Wannacry proving they were already correct about Conficker.

Spoiler

2003–2006: The unraveling of the old Windows network stack
2003 – MS03-026 / RPC DCOM Vulnerability → Blaster Worm

• CVE: MS03-026
  
  
• Affected: Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 (partially also NT)
  
  
• Vector: RPC over TCP (port 135)
  
  
• Impact: Remote code execution, automated spread, system crashes, network floods
  
  
• Significance: First major worm that exploited an exposed Windows service without user action. Highlighted deep flaws in the RPC/DCOM design.

2004 – MS04-011 / LSASS Vulnerability → Sasser Worm

• CVE: MS04-011
  
  
• Affected: Windows XP, Windows 2000
  
  
• Vector: LSASS service (port 445 / SMB)
  
  
• Impact: Automatic spreading, frequent system crashes, reboots, disruption of business networks
  
  
• Significance: Showed that core Windows authentication services could be exploited remotely. Reinforced that the legacy stack was fragile.

2004 – MS04-028 / Win32/Bagle, early network worms

• Vector: Email and network shares
  
  
• Impact: Propagated quickly on unpatched XP/2000 networks
  
  
• Significance: Began the era where worms combined network exploits with social engineering.

2005–2006 – Early Conficker/Downadup precursors

• Vector: Exploited Windows RPC and SMB vulnerabilities
  
  
• Impact: Self-propagating worms targeting unpatched Windows XP/2000 machines
  
  
• Significance: Continued to exploit fundamental design flaws in Windows networking. Highlighted that Microsoft’s patching model couldn’t fully defend the old stack.

 

On the win side with regard to the actual vulnerability patches, those have never posed machine stability problems after applying them. At least I have never experienced issues with those. The problem on the win side is the sheer number of "updates" that occur in a single session. There's usually a hundred or more separate "packages" that get exchanged in a single windows update session. Not familiar with the apple side of things, but in reality it's a safe bet that less than 1% of all those bits are patching real "vulnerabilities". If there was that much malware/trojans/viruses being floated to the internet pool every three-four weeks there wouldn't be much left standing with regard to properly functioning non-infected machines.

A good 99.9% of the stuff being exchanged in a autonomous windows update session are things that are of no consequence operationally. It also consists of scans performed on the local machine to maintain the integrity of the bloatware and to make certain any attempts at "tampering" with system parameters in favor of the users privacy are changed back to OEM default standards. I have seen this in action so I know it to be true. With every win update session there is a very good chance that the junk being installed will cause the system to malfunction in some way or possibly be rendered non-operational. We used to call patch tuesdays windows roulette day because of the likelihood of some "update" completely hosing up perfectly operating machines. But the industry and microsoft will adamantly tell folks that all that junk is needed to remain safe and secure. Which is why opting out of that entire snake circus is, IMO, the only proper course. Hopefully it's not this bad on the apple side, but I know apple users have their own set of problems to deal with.

 

Last edited: Nov 14, 2025 at 12:46 AM

status update to whom it may concern: I updated my system to 26.1 - no issues so far. Had to renew some sytem event access permissions
(I wonder if my old MOTU interface will still be working; could not yet check it - that's another story).
I also did some test reinstalling / patching / codesigning to see if there are restrictions, but I found none. Everything works fine.
So I'd like to solve my own quiz here: it was just good old hypervigilant me, fearing the windmills.
Thanks anyway to everyone of you who bothered to deal with my anxious question.

 

That's a great one. Thanks for the hint.

 

Apple will never "lock macOS down" to where mac-based software tampering will end. When you say to someone deciding on a new machine, "you won't get much for R2R releases" that makes them think things over. When it is "you will pay for every single piece of software you will want to use for audio, gfx, whatever"; people will stop buying their computers. So they are paying lip service to it, with gatekeeper, etc. They can keep systems secure, tell vendors they are doing their best for app security and anti-tampering; and then gatekeeper can be bypassed with a right click or disabled completely in 1 line of text at command line.

I'm not sure about these days since I have a pixel, but they did this exact same thing for years with iphones. A new model would get jailbroken in weeks or days. Like they couldn't somehow shut down the Cydia app repository? And at the same time, they wanted to tell developers with apps on their app store that they are safe from 1 click app cracking tools... instead they just have to play the game.

 

I forget it if was Windows-- it probably was-- but after updating, my computer kept getting stuck in a reboot loop of shutting down, rebooting and shutting down again. It's probably infamous. Anyway, I think I reinstalled the entire OS from scratch.

 

Yes, no doubt you had to reinstall it because attempting to figure out which "update" hosed the system is kept far out of reach and quite impossible. Hopefully you rebuilt it with a third party optimized install image so you could take back control of your own system/privacy and keep the machine running correctly. Unless you're keen on staring at windows core dumps and trying to make sense out of that chaos you pretty much have no choice. Which is why I say to everyone who feels compelled to opt into the corporate model of planned obsolescence, if nothing else you're playing windows roulette with a working system going into that quagmire. Do yourself a favor and at least make a backup image of the entire system before attempting to apply any microsoft updates.

 

It was quite some time ago, maybe with Win7. I forget what I did, but it might have been when I installed Linux and just ran Win7 in Virtualbox.

 

Last edited: Nov 14, 2025 at 9:42 AM