Cohen makes an excellent point when he notes that if certain fixes aren't made available for certain OS versions, that doesn't automatically mean these unsupported versions remain vulnerable for the flaws fixed elsewhere, because the flaw may not even apply to them. In this context I'd like to point out that Apple's updaters tend to address
many more issues than the one on the 'marquee'. But if that marquee issue doesn't apply to Snowy, as Cohen rightly states, that doesn't automatically mean any of the others won't either, as he also and now somewhat disingenuously implies. Note that his argument doesn't address possible other, unmentioned flaws either. And the critical issue always is (or should be) the existence of unpatched vulnerabilities that in this case do exist.
This point is also made by several security companies, like
Sophos. Adam Engst brings it up in his article
Apple Support for Snow Leopard Wanes, and specifies (boldface) '
Realistically, if you don’t run Apache or PHP under Snow Leopard, and you maintain safe browsing habits (stick to mainstream sites, don’t download unknown content, and be generally cautious), I think the likelihood of trouble is low.'
But to return to my original post, that was phrased as a question. In that and subsequent posts I didn't so much state that Apple had indeed abandoned Snowy, but suggested that we're inching closer to that. I still think that's the best way to interpret the current situation.
