macOS 14 Sonoma on Unsupported Macs Thread

[mwidjaya]

EDIT: We've had a "nice" conversation here. My security concerns about OCLP are no less than they were before this "nice" conversation. It is unsafe for secure activities that require protection of your identity, private credentials and secure data .

I see what you are doing. The Johnny come lately ****-stirrer.

 

[coasterOneEightThree]

An old-ish Apple keyboard will also do the trick. The ones that has a built in USB hub. You can tell if it has USB female connectors if it is a Hub. That is what I use for exactly this.

Of course. But between this Apple keyboard and the MacBook Pro has to be a USB2 or USB3 hub.

Read more here ...

 

[deeveedee]

I see what you are doing. The Johnny come lately ****-stirrer.

If you go back far enough into some of my really old posts, you'll be even more offended. I wasn't as nice in my younger days.

EDIT: I'm disappointed that the "mother is a whore" exchange was deleted. I think that was one of my best come-backs of all time.

EDIT2: @mwidjaya Now I see what YOU'RE doing! Very clever. You're just trying to make sure no one misses my security warning. Well done, sir! Well done.

 

[0134168]

Thanks, done

Imagine how much money they have saved to thousands of users through this late years... Huge!

 

[0134168]

@TheDebunker If you are still listening, thank you for listening. In addition to the security warnings in the OCLP GUI and when macOS launches with OCLP post-install patches, could you please allow the user to selectively disable post-install root patches? I would feel much safer with my OCLP-patched Sonoma if I could disable Wi-Fi post-install patches and use Sonoma with wired-Ethernet only. My security concerns with OCLP didn't start until I began investigating the root patches for Wi-Fi (I'm not as much concerned about the root patches for graphics). This ability to disable Wi-Fi patches should not interfere with another's desire to keep the Wi-Fi patches enabled. Thank you!

@rehkram My "general" security concerns all started (albeit a little late) when I started analyzing Wi-Fi patches FOR SONOMA.

In fact, that´s not a bad idea at all. In my case, for another reason. I never update my system. I make a clean install and use Migration Assistant from a backup. But that´s imposible with root patches. So, after the clean install i have to uninstall the root patches, and after the migration enable again. And I can say, system is perfectly bootable without root patches.

 

[deeveedee]

In fact, that´s not a bad idea at all. In my case, for another reason. I never update my system. I make a clean install and use Migration Assistant from a backup. But that´s imposible with root patches. So, after the clean install i have to uninstall the root patches, and after the migration enable again.

Thank you. I have one person who is persistently private messaging me telling me to stop asking for OCLP feature enhancements that are specific to Sonoma Wi-Fi because they are off-topic in the Sonoma thread. I almost started believing him. For the person PM'ing me about my OCLP-Sonoma feature request, please stop.

 

[0134168]

An old-ish Apple keyboard will also do the trick. The ones that has a built in USB hub. You can tell if it has USB female connectors if it is a Hub. That is what I use for exactly this.

Same here. Use almost exclusive for boot since so many years. I don´t send a picture cause it´s embarrassing. Not cleaned in a decade.

 

[eSaF-Eddie]

Not to prolong the conversation but I came here at the recommendation on another site. Reading through all the posts both negative and positive, I conclude there are a lot who would rather bury their heads in the sand regardless.

Computer security is no joke and should not be treated as such because it is a large part of our daily life both leisurely and business.

Those of you who was tinkering with the Hackintosh scene long ago should remember the iCloud security saga and before that the iMessage Cloning episode that got Hacks and quite a few real Macs kicked off the Apple Servers.

Now, what do you think after Apple has implemented several Security measures to ensure a relatively safe OS only to have a bunch of machines devoid of if not all but most of the measures they put in place login into and all over their Servers?

How long before they wise up and see that these machine can cause a huge Security risk for them? In time to come I can see great ramifications on that score.

@deeveedee raised a valid Security point and should not be the subject of ridicule just because we are not as knowledgeable as he is in his field. I for one understood his concerns and certainly he me gave food for thought.
With that being said, let us all be safe.

 

[deeveedee]

@eSaF-Eddie You just blew any chance you had at winning the MacRumors popularity contest.

 

[MacNB2]

BTW - I believe that Open Core is safe.

If you think OpenCore is safe, then you need to check its architecture first.
OpenCore achieves its objectives by hacking ... urr sorry..patching the kernel...or jailbreaking.
Lilu.kext is the patcher that hacks the kernel in memory.
If that can hack the kernel.....then where's your security ?
Also, OpenCore injects kexts in the Kernel cache...that in effect exposes a risk of rogue actors' kext being injected.
So your hackintosh's are safe ? ...no need to answer back here.

OCLP is a "configurator" for OpenCore firstly and then a patcher for things that are impossible for OpenCore to patch "on the fly" because of the new security model Apple has created.

So if you have security concerns with OCLP, then that's not what you should be worried about but OpenCore itself as well.

Anyway, I think your discussion here in this thread is going off topic and you should really start a separate thread as it is an important topic that does need to be discussed by those who are concerned...just not here IMHO.

 

[deeveedee]

OpenCore achieves its objectives ... jailbreaking.

No. It doesn't. Good to see you again.

@rehkram Remember in the other thread when I drew an analogy to the scene in Star Trek 2009 where Scotty first beams aboard the Enterprise with Kirk and Scotty says "I like this ship!" This thread is a much better analogy.

EDIT: @MacNB2 I was so flustered by attacks that I didn't read your post well enough. I agree that the OCLP-Security topic is important enough to have its own thread. I'm sorry for my trite response.

EDIT2: @MacNB2 Again, I'm sorry about my original response. I thought you were someone else.

 

[0134168]

If you think OpenCore is safe, then you need to check its architecture first.
OpenCore achieves its objectives by hacking ... urr sorry..patching the kernel...or jailbreaking.
Lily.kext is the patcher that hacks the kernel in memory.
If that can hack the kernel.....then where's your security ?
Also, OpenCore injects kexts in the Kernel cache...that in effect exposes a risk of rogue actors' kext being injected.
So your hackintosh's are safe ? ...no need to answer back here.

OCLP is a "configurator" for OpenCore firstly and then a patcher for things that are impossible for OpenCore to patch "on the fly" because of the new security model Apple has created.

So if you have security concerns with OCLP, then that's not what you should be worried about but OpenCore itself as well.

Anyway, I think your discussion here in this thread is going off topic and you should really start a separate thread as it is an important topic that does need to be discussed by those who are concerned...just not here IMHO.

Not at all.

 

[0134168]

Well, reading the las posts, I have to reconfigure what I thought about this stuff. I really thought most people, not everyone, of course, knew th inners of OCLP. Of course, i´m a huge fan of OCLP.

 

[HenryCPieterse]

Sonoma installed without issues. Macbook Pro 13" mid-2012. (MacbookPro9,2) It took forever to write to image to bootable USB, but installation went smoothly. Only issue I've encountered is that location services is not working. I used OpenCore Legacy Patcher 1.0.0.0 and pre-downloaded an install package for Sonoma 14.0

 

[perez987]

Does someone have a link for donating to the project ? I'm going to give something, but not sure where to give.

OpenCore Legacy Patcher - Open Collective

Open source project dedicated to getting older Macs running newer versions of macOS.

opencollective.com

 

[MacinMan]

Imagine how much money they have saved to thousands of users through this late years... Huge!

Well, as much as I appreciate OpenCore Legacy Patcher. I'm also a fan of open source operating systems. So, I would also support them if they decided to do an open source OS based on macOS. That way it would be something new and fresh, and they could write their own drivers for the best hardware support., and the source code would be available for the community to see and contribute to.

 

[K two]

How about getting REAL?! Has anyone on this forum or any other reported and CONFIRMED a verifiable security breach using OCLP OR OpenCore in ANY form or function???? If so, please post some evidence. Otherwise, we can all get back on-topic? 🧐

 

[reneroeten]

hello guys, does anyone know a solution to get a BCM 4350C2 bluetooth working ? can't switch it on. in Ventura no problems at all any advice would be great !

 

[deeveedee]

How about getting REAL?! Has anyone on this forum or any other reported and CONFIRMED a verifiable security breach using OCLP OR OpenCore in ANY form or function???? If so, please post some evidence. Otherwise, we can all get back on-topic? 🧐

Good idea. Let's have a show of hands. If no one raises their hand, OCLP and all future versions of OCLP are safe and secure.

EDIT: While we're at it, let's save some time. Please also raise your hand if you've had your identity stolen or have had to pay ransomware. If no hands, we can dismiss them, too.

EDIT2: @K two One of the crazy, ignorant arguments against my OCLP security claims was that the total number of users is so small, that no one would waste the time attacking us. Those who made the argument were completely forgetting that OCLP's target market is all Intel Macs - not just us. If we're making the argument that the number of users is too small to worry about, how can we make the argument that the number of users is large enough to draw any statistically accurate conclusions like the answer to your question?

 

[Heindijs]

Latest nightly fixes a whole bunch of stuff, including also fixing the last remaining issue I had on my 2012 Mini, certain apps like Fontbook not displaying text!

 

[deeveedee]

hello guys, does anyone know a solution to get a BCM 4350C2 bluetooth working ? can't switch it on. in Venture no problems at all any advice would be great !

I have no problems with bluetooth in OCLP-patched Sonoma. Are you using the same OC EFI for Ventura (working BT) and Sonoma (non-working BT). If your OC EFI is not the same for Ventura and Sonoma, are you able to test Ventura with the new EFI?

If you still need help, please post the OC config.plist that you are using with Sonoma.

 

[TOM1211]

Good idea. Let's have a show of hands. If no one raises their hand, OCLP and all future versions of OCLP are safe and secure.

EDIT: While we're at it, let's save some time. Please also raise your hand if you've had your identity stolen or have had to pay ransomware. If no hands, we can dismiss them, too.

Thought you said you made your point and where moving on…..

 

[cybazaar]

Installed OCLP 1.0.0 and MacOS 14 Sonoma on my MacBook Pro 15" Late 2013 (MacbookPro 11,2) using a USB installer. All is well after some gotchas to get the OS to start. It finally boots and everything seems to work. However, I still get a "macOS Installer" option at boot even though the USB stick is not plugged in. I can't find an installer on the disk either, so no idea what could be causing that additional boot option to be present.

 

[reneroeten]

I have no problems with bluetooth in OCLP-patched Sonoma. Are you using the same OC EFI for Ventura (working BT) and Sonoma (non-working BT). If your OC EFI is not the same for Ventura and Sonoma, are you able to test Ventura with the new EFI?

If you still need help, please post the OC config.plist that you are using with Sonoma.

well no I can't test it because I did a upgrade from Ventura to Sonoma (ota) how do I check the OC EFI ?

 

[dfkinca]

I have a MacBookPro9,1, for which I did the WiFi/BT card upgrade (to BCM43602) more particularly described at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-here-for-unibody-mbps-and-a1342-mb.2171056/ .

. . .

How can I build OCLP to account for fact that my modded MacBookPro9,1 has an upgraded WiFi/BT card upgrade (to BCM43602) that is "natively supported by Sonoma (Sonoma still has the Broadcom Wi-Fi framework for your device)", and thus does not require the wireless network functionality root patching?

I would like to avoid wireless network functionality root patching for my modded MacBookPro9,1.

Thanks in advance for any info.

@TheDebunker If you are still listening, thank you for listening. In addition to the security warnings in the OCLP GUI and when macOS launches with OCLP post-install patches, could you please allow the user to selectively disable post-install root patches? I would feel much safer with my OCLP-patched Sonoma if I could disable Wi-Fi post-install patches and use Sonoma with wired-Ethernet only. . . . Thank you!

In fact, that´s not a bad idea at all. In my case, for another reason. I never update my system. I make a clean install and use Migration Assistant from a backup. But that´s imposible with root patches. So, after the clean install i have to uninstall the root patches, and after the migration enable again. And I can say, system is perfectly bootable without root patches.

+1 for deeveedee's suggestion (and trifero's endorsement of that suggestion).

Having an option in OCLP that "allow the user to selectively disable post-install root patches " would allow me to operate my MacBookPro9,1 (with upgraded WiFi/BT card (to BCM43602)) without wireless network functionality root patching.

Thanks in advance.