In the second half of the 10-x from macOS was the problem. Compared to iOS devices, Mac and was almost helpless before the digital Jack, it had to do something. Solutions were two: to develop another security system, given the complexity and flexibility of a large platform, or use one that already works well in other conditions. In the beginning of the century Mac and was safer than “normal PC”. Computer criminals Mac and wondered slightly, due to the low popularity of the “Apple” of the platform and because of the unusual processors used in them. That’s just Apple not satisfied with the situation, and all by hook or by crook she was sought in a cruel dangerous world.

This continuation of the series about the chips designed by Apple. Previous part here. By 2005, when the company decided to switch to Intel, the first reason is the security of Macs has been weakened. The transition to Intel Mac and was deprived of second causes. Apple understood this, and in the same 2005, notifying the press releases and arranging presentations, started measures to counteract any dangers.

iOS was not the first iOS device was developed a couple of dozen meters from the group the security of Mac OS X, which does not know about it. In 2007 and 2008 Apple worked twice in the “everything for front, everything for victory”, all employees can benefit first “project Purple 2” (iPhone), and then project the “iPhone SDK”, were mobilized to work in these projects.

Most of the group security Mac OS X mobilized during the second Abraham, of whom almost nobody came back. Operating system iPhone, the App Store, the developer portal and all related matters were much more important. In 10 years, iOS was protected from the outside world, macOS, well, figuratively speaking, surrounded a good-looking fence, stretched from the top with barbed wire, and with thousands of holes.

It was so many years, and was in 2016-2017 some particularly sharp urgency to gain control over Mac OS and Mac AMI I don’t know. Something bad in the world really happened, special services of all countries has intensified, this could be one reason. Your own processor “Atelier”, one of the best in the world, could not fail to influence their decision. As a result, in 2016 appeared Apple T1 (aka iBridge1,1), Touch Bar and bridgeOS. And in 2017, implantiruut iMac Pro in T2, the company started a revolution.

The autopsy will show?

The company TechInsights from the canadian province of Ontario, also known as Chipworks has dissected and analyzed both chip relevant to our theme, Apple Apple T1 and T2. TechInsights this for a living, expensive equipment and highly qualified specialists are expensive. Images of the surface of these chips and the results of their analysis in the public domain is a hot commodity.

Although pictures of the Apple slices T2 obtained using electronic microscope is hardly able to answer the question “will survive whether it is an iOS device” in an unusual environment for him. As information about how his CPU cores, and no. What is the technology it produces TSMC, is there a GPU chip (and what?) and many others.

In its customary environment, Apple’s A10 Fusion was on top. For iOS devices which it actuates may be a claim, but specifically to her, as far as I know, they are not. For Apple T2 claim, alas, is. New application, nothing can be done. T2 or framed and is to blame for the outrage perpetrated by someone else?

T2 Apple iMac Pro

The body of the chip size and to the touch, similar to the case Apple’s A10 Fusion. But when they say that it is A10, I know the correct answer. The basis for T2 was A10, but any system-on-chip Apple-designed carefully to fit the requirements of its customers. Because of this SoC is frankly the worst tactical and technical data beat in tests SoC competitors. It’s definitely not the A10, this is T2. Yes, and in several variants.

If it sticks?

No effective security system is not without costs, even when it functions flawlessly. Any small error can easily lead to insoluble problems. There’s nothing more dangerous than security system gone mad.

The complex of measures on ensuring security in the iOS ecosystem was created and developed simultaneously with this ecosystem. Or professionals working with different parts, neither users, nor even third-party programmers do not have to break established habits, to adapt to unnatural (at first) requirements. On the contrary, over time many of its rigors, appeared excessive, was reduced or completely abolished.

Starting from iOS security implemented at the Mac and less than perfect. Without victims, alas, can not do. In the best case for their mutual adjustment will need three years, and most likely even more. I will not kill you those 3+ years Mac and macOS? Let’s wait and see.

I think they will not kill you. There are problems, they are serious, they cause disturbance, and the pain shout louder, they are visible in the network. Seems that disgruntled is still deceptive. Most users have no problems. Apple about the problems in the course, and on their solution works.

But still, what is Apple T2?

To hacking iOS devices, I am rather negatively. If such a device reveals the literate user with some special needs who knows about the side effects and ready to resist them – and the free will. The rest of the billion of cases (according to Apple, the world’s approximately one billion of these devices) is unacceptable risk.

If not “specific people”, we wouldn’t have known about that within this “almost A10”. Or almost nothing. Some details announced by Apple, something you can see scratched the motherboard of your Mac, sacrificing them to satisfy his curiosity. However, it has done it before, and extracted a high price the knowledge of hide did not.

So, the chip is made by TSMC. Apple calls it APL1027, this designation is applied to the case of SoC (not a secret). This designation refers to a whole family of chips. Series SoC from Apple (and almost all the chips in the world) is always specified their exact designation. At the end of 2018 modifications APL1027 was six, most likely they have more.

Except “open” signs, there are “closed”. They found “specific people”. What is known will result in the list where “(?)” indicates lack of information. Each option is denoted APL1027 own 6-digit alphanumeric code (for example, J137AP), each of them is the “model ID” (for example, iBridge2,1) and each of them is used in any particular model Mac.

Even this short and incomplete list allows you to “catch the Apple by the hand”:

— J137AP, the symbol on the case 339S00467, the model ID built-in iOS-implant iBridge2,1, used iMac Pro;
— J680AP, in the case 339S00533, iBridge2,3, MacBookPro15,1. This 15-inch MBP 2018;
— J132AP, housing (?), iBridge2,4, MacBookPro15,2. This 13-inch MBP 2018;
— J174AP, in the case 339S00604, iBridge2,5, MacMini8,1. This Mac mini 2018;
— J780AP, housing (?), iBridge2,7, MacBookPro15,1. This 15-inch MBP 2018, about him and about his brother iBridge2,3 read below;
— J140KP, in the case 339S00535, iBridge2,8, MacBookAir8,1, MacBookAir 2018.

All versions of Apple’s T2 became famous they may bring problems, but most fortunate are those who bought the 15-inch MacBook Pro 2018. Apple, playing on the nerves of the disgruntled buyer (checking integrity guarantee, an acknowledgement of the problem, etc.) changed these to the new MBP – which also started to freeze and reboot without any action by the user. As if an iOS device in a new incarnation took revenge on the hundreds of millions of members of our species playing with them as they played with iPhone or iPad. Starting from some point in 2018, in the new 15-inch MacBook Pro 2018 fewer problems.

The autopsy showed that the place J680AP (iBridge2,3) in the new MBP is J780AP, or iBridge2,7. Found it, and the other victims were pissed off. Cipolat! The quiet had replaced the crystal and did not even report it! Caught The Apple. But we will not succumb to the herd feeling: someday Apple reported that the 15-inch MBP 2018 used J680AP (iBridge2,3)? No. Apple reported that this laptop uses T2. J780AP (iBridge2,7) is a T2? Yes. The court, having studied the question, came to the same conclusion. The claim was rejected.