macOS Sonoma Wireless Issues Discussion.

[elvisv]

1 hour ago, deeveedee said:

 

Glad that helped.  Not sure you'll need this, but BluetoolFixup.kext version 2.6.8 is being used on real Macs to fix issues with Bluetooth.  It may help you, too.

Great to know, just included it and booted successfully. Until now everything stable. Many thanks again!! You made my week.

[deeveedee]

1 hour ago, elvisv said:

Great to know, just included it and booted successfully. Until now everything stable. Many thanks again!! You made my week.

 

There's an expression that doesn't come completely to my feeble mind, but it's something about "Even a blind squirrel..."   I'll have to google it.

 

You are very welcome.

[cankiulascmnfye]

3 hours ago, deeveedee said:

 

Glad that helped.  Not sure you'll need this, but BluetoolFixup.kext version 2.6.8 is being used on real Macs to fix issues with Bluetooth.  It may help you, too.

 

It's weird that the Kernel patches affect BT on Wintel systems this way. I own an iMac11,3  now and BT works fine with the Kernel Patches being active.

[Stefanalmare]

6 hours ago, elvisv said:

Hi friends,

I'm running Sonoma with OC 0.9.5 and root patched with OCLP 1.0.1 on a Thinkpad t440p using a BCM94360CS2 for wifi and bluetooth. Wifi works perfectly after patching with OCLP 1.0.1 and with the appropriate kexts and boot-args. The problem is with Bluetooth. It shows up but I'm not able to find any devices and AirDop isn't working at all. Does anyone know what could be the problem? Was working perfectly on Ventura before upgrading. I have tried a clean Sonoma install and same problem occured. Thanks in advice!!

 

Config is attached

1 - Bluetooth keeps searching forever and doesn't find any device

 

2 - Bluetooth is recognized as so

 

 

3 - Hackintool -> System -> Peripherals

 

config.plist 107.27 kB · 5 downloads

 

If you use any BCM94360.... card, the associated bluetooth doesn't need any kext to work (ex. BluetoolFixup.kext or Bluetooth-Spoof.kext).

[Stefanalmare]

1 hour ago, cankiulascmnfye said:

 

It's weird that the Kernel patches affect BT on Wintel systems this way. I own an iMac11,3  now and BT works fine with the Kernel Patches being active.

 

vmm patches kill bluetooth in all my hackintoshes. I have a few legacy Macs (MBP, iMac, MP - 10 total) and last OCLP have removed vmm patches also. I don't recall now if still exist one who use anymore.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Stefanalmare

[deeveedee]

There is now an OCLP Security Thread.

[cankiulascmnfye]

Enable RSR updates? That's what RSRHelper is for… to block them. Because, iirc they require AVX2 which is only available on Haswell and newer.

 

This might be contain the "security" related things you are looking for: https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/blob/main/resources/analytics_handler.py

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by cankiulascmnfye

[cankiulascmnfye]

1 hour ago, Stefanalmare said:

 

vmm patches kill bluetooth in all my hackintoshes. I have a few legacy Macs (MBP, iMac, MP - 10 total) and last OCLP have removed vmm patches also. I don't recall now if still exist one who use anymore.

 

And this is the reason why:

 

Quote

Bluetooth is running inside a Virtual Machine, so skipping chip initialization

Resolved with 218507b, bluetoothd now checks for VMM

https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/1076

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by cankiulascmnfye

[deeveedee]

Yes. Enable RSR Updates. I don't want to do this again.  Could someone else explain?  Thx.

 

EDIT: Ok - that was a big ask with an unreasonable expectation.  It may come as a surprise to some of you, but my 'Enable RSR Updates' request was never intended to actually do that (Enable RSRs on unsupported Macs).  It is to create awareness among the unsuspecting users that this is an OCLP security vulnerability.  My issues with OCLP are all about Dev transparency and product transparency.

 

There ... I told my secret.  I admit to being overly subtle in my communications (often, I am the only one laughing at my jokes) (which does take 'inside joke' to the extreme).

Edited October 8, 2023 by deeveedee

[deeveedee]

Admins - please tolerate and allow this post in multiple threads. It may hurt feelings and ruffle feathers - I'm beyond that and can't help that.

I am pleased with the Dev responses in the OCLP Security Thread. One of my reasons for assisting with the creation of the OCLP Thread was to have a public repository of OCLP security issues until messaging and warnings are implemented. Unfortunately, the Dev responses suggest more potential security vulnerabilities in OCLP than I had anticipated.

 

I will not be using OCLP to apply post-install patches on any 'production' systems where my private credentials, secure data and digital identity need to be protected and could be at risk.

 

There are many who are angry with me because I had the audacity to challenge the Devs and their generosity. That makes no sense. This is not personal, not a popularity contest, not a game of playing nice. This is serious and those who are treating the issue as a hobby and a game should only be using OCLP in a no-risk, hobby environment to play games.

 

I accept responsibility for helping to promote the use of OCLP. I am now trying to make all aware of the dangers.  Computer/data security happens to be my area of expertise and I recognize that there will be challenges and claims of overdoing it by those who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

BTW: This is so serious that I am suspicious of anyone who tries to clutter the OCLP thread with tangential garbage or makes attempts to damage my credibility or that of the OCLP security thread. There are people who want security vulnerabilities to remain unknown, unaddressed and fully exploitable. They will go to great lengths to win trust and popularity while hacking your data and stealing your identity. Ask Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff how their customers loved them (until they didn't).

 

In this case, we must look a gift horse in the mouth. How quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the Trojan Horse and plenty of more current examples that should make us at least cautious.

[surenmunoo]

1 hour ago, deeveedee said:

Admins - please tolerate and allow this post in multiple threads. It may hurt feelings and ruffle feathers - I'm beyond that and can't help that.

 

I am pleased with the Dev responses in the OCLP Security Thread. One of my reasons for assisting with the creation of the OCLP Thread was to have a public repository of OCLP security issues until messaging and warnings are implemented. Unfortunately, the Dev responses suggest more potential security vulnerabilities in OCLP than I had anticipated.

 

I will not be using OCLP to apply post-install patches on any 'production' systems where my private credentials, secure data and digital identity need to be protected and could be at risk.

 

There are many who are angry with me because I had the audacity to challenge the Devs and their generosity. That makes no sense. This is not personal, not a popularity contest, not a game of playing nice. This is serious and those who are treating the issue as a hobby and a game should only be using OCLP in a no-risk, hobby environment to play games.

 

I accept responsibility for helping to promote the use of OCLP. I am now trying to make all aware of the dangers.  Computer/data security happens to be my area of expertise and I recognize that there will be challenges and claims of overdoing it by those who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

BTW: This is so serious that I am suspicious of anyone who tries to clutter the OCLP thread with tangential garbage or makes attempts to damage my credibility or that of the OCLP security thread. There are people who want security vulnerabilities to remain unknown, unaddressed and fully exploitable. They will go to great lengths to win trust and popularity while hacking your data and stealing your identity. Ask Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff how their customers loved them (until they didn't).

 

In this case, we must look a gift horse in the mouth. How quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the Trojan Horse and plenty of more current examples that should make us at least cautious.

I think most would know that using OCLP would put their systems at risk because it means disabling some of Apples security features but in saying this, I appreciate your post about it and the fact that you are highlighting it. I must admit that I have had some weird behaviour on my Sonoma hack recently with pages in Safari opening on their own while the PC is just sitting with no one using it. I at first thought it was a faulty keyboard or something silly but I looked at safari history and noticed web pages that I would never open and also got an email from someone claiming to have access to my web cam and asking me to pay $2500 for them to not leak my information. I reset my complete Hack, installed Ventura and Win 11 again and use my Mac Studio for Sonoma. Hack is strictly for Ventura and Winn 11 now. Whether or not this is related but I thought to mention as it seemed strange to me and I always believed that a Mac was nearly impossible to hack. 

[deeveedee]

@surenmunoo While one testimony doesn't provide a statistical sample sufficient for drawing conclusions, it reminds us that our data, identity and secure credentials need to be protected.

 

There is nothing that can guarantee computer/data security, but there are behaviors and practices that make us more vulnerable to hacks.  And behaviors/practices that make us more secure.

 

It is good to be careful and cautious - ask someone who has had their identity stolen, their bank account drained or their e-mail hacked.

 

I only want to communicate in the strongest way possible that OCLP (and any software that is not security-certified by reputable labs) is not free of risks - even if we love the Devs and their generosity. They are only human.  I'd love to have a beer with them, but I don't need to be afraid to ask the tough questions.

Edited October 9, 2023 by deeveedee

[deeveedee]

Has anyone found a proven USB Wi-Fi solution that works in Sonoma without any post-install patching (a USB Wi-Fi that doesn't need OCLP or modified kexts)?  Thank you.

 

EDIT: Bluetooth is optional - I'm only looking for USB Wi-Fi for Sonoma at this time, not Bluetooth.

 

EDIT2: My ask for "USB Wi-Fi" is overly constraining.  I'm looking for any Sonoma-compatible Wi-Fi solution that replaces the "factory installed" Wi-Fi and does not require post-install patches / modified kexts.  For example, a Wi-Fi device that connects to the PC's Ethernet port would be acceptable as well.  I am aware that I could repurpose an Access Point or Wi-Fi Bridge to be a Wi-Fi client, but portability is desirable, too.

Edited October 10, 2023 by deeveedee

[Matgen84]

1 hour ago, deeveedee said:

Has anyone found a proven USB Wi-Fi solution that works in Sonoma without any post-install patching (a USB Wi-Fi that doesn't need OCLP or modified kexts)?  Thank you.

 

EDIT: Bluetooth is optional - I'm only looking for USB Wi-Fi for Sonoma at this time, not Bluetooth.

 

EDIT2: My ask for "USB Wi-Fi" is overly constraining.  I'm looking for any Sonoma-compatible Wi-Fi solution that replaces the "factory installed" Wi-Fi and does not require post-install patches / modified kexts.  For example, a Wi-Fi device that connects to the PC's Ethernet port would be acceptable as well.  I am aware that I could repurpose an Access Point or Wi-Fi Bridge to be a Wi-Fi client, but portability is desirable, too.

 

@deeveedee There are also Intel Wifi card (working with Airportitlwm Preview 05 for Sonoma). OpenIntelWireless on Github. Ask to @chris1111 for USB Wifi  key.

[deeveedee]

@Matgen84 I haven't played much with the Intel Wi-Fi which is why it wasn't on my radar.  Excellent suggestion.

[deeveedee]

To expand our audience, I have started another Sonoma Wi-Fi discussion at MacRumors here.

[HyperX7]

1 hour ago, deeveedee said:

@Matgen84 I haven't played much with the Intel Wi-Fi which is why it wasn't on my radar.  Excellent suggestion.

@deeveedee Hi. I am glad to follow this forum and you. I agree with you too and went back to the Asus N10 USB Wifi dongle that I used in my first Hackintosh experiences. I currently use Sonoma with Asus N10. Thank you again.

 

What I did to get rid of Root Patch;

I didn't revert from the OCLP patcher alone. I canceled the uploaded kexts, made Secure boot default, removed Bootargs. I made the value of csr-active-Config 0 and restarted the system.

 

Below is the screenshot I took when I ran the OCLP app when my system reopened.

 

 

 

 

In this case, is it a risk for me not to do the Revert Root Patch?  İn this case my Root Patch is already canceled? 

 

[deeveedee]

@HyperX7 Just to confirm, you are saying that Asus N10 USB Wifi dongle is proven and tested as a working Wi-Fi solution in macOS Sonoma WITHOUT OCLP post-install patches?

Edited October 10, 2023 by deeveedee

[HyperX7]

28 minutes ago, deeveedee said:

@HyperX7 Just to confirm, you are saying that Asus N10 USB Wifi dongle is proven and tested as a working Wi-Fi solution in macOS Sonoma WITHOUT OCLP post-install patches?

Yes of course. However, I use @chris1111's "Notarized Wireless USB Big Sur Adapter" app and kexts and SIP is disabled.

 

https://github.com/chris1111/Wireless-USB-Big-Sur-Adapter/discussions/159

https://github.com/chris1111/Wireless-USB-OC-Big-Sur-Adapter

 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by HyperX7

[surenmunoo]

33 minutes ago, deeveedee said:

@HyperX7 Just to confirm, you are saying that Asus N10 USB Wifi dongle is proven and tested as a working Wi-Fi solution in macOS Sonoma WITHOUT OCLP post-install patches?

The wifi dongles will work but you won't get Airdrop etc with it. 

[HyperX7]

5 minutes ago, surenmunoo said:

The wifi dongles will work but you won't get Airdrop etc with it. 

 

Yes, I am aware of this, but it should be my security priority in my system that I use all the time, so I had to waive some features.

[Cyberdevs]

@HyperX7 and @deeveedee

Replacing one Patcher's kext with another ones defeats the security purpose of the whole argument. Don't you think?

No matter if you use OCLP's kexts or itwlm or anyone else's for that matter doesn't mean that there will be no vulnerability to be exploited. 

And yes I know with OCLP you need to disable SIP (partially or completely) and bypass AMFI (partially or completely) but we always need to know that we are running an operating system that was not intended for our hardware so if god forbid anything bad happens we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[deeveedee]

@Cyberdevs If I find a Sonoma-compatible Wi-Fi solution that doesn't require me to break the macOS seal in order to root-patch macOS, that's an improvement in my book. While an OC-injected kext carries its own risks, it is easier to review/test to ensure that potential exploits are contained within any flaws (or intentional vulnerabilities) that may exist in the kext.

 

OCLP requires the macOS seal to be broken for root patching with a Wi-Fi framework extracted from an older macOS...  more here.

 

With my HackBookPro6,2, I am currently using this Ethernet-Over-Power solution here.  I have reviewed MausiEthernet.kext (which enables my Ethernet port in macOS) and have accepted the risks associated with this single kext (far less risky than the rooted macOS with a broken APFS seal).

 

EDIT: I am investigating Wi-Fi solutions that connect to the Ethernet port.  If I only need IntelMausiEthernet.kext to enable Wi-Fi on my laptop, that (in my opinion) is much safer with fewer potential vulnerabilities than OCLP root patches or itwlm. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by deeveedee

[Cyberdevs]

@deeveedee

Yep, I agree, if any adapter works without breaking the APFS seal is going to better than having the exposed OS.

[deeveedee]

16 hours ago, Cyberdevs said:

@deeveedee

Yep, I agree, if any adapter works without breaking the APFS seal is going to better than having the exposed OS.

I am currently testing a D-Link Wi-Fi adapter that connects to my laptop's Ethernet port.  It is powered via a USB cable to my laptop.  While not as seamless as built-in Wi-Fi, it is very portable, very easy to use and requires only IntelMausiEthernet.kext.  After I find a wireless solution that meets my requirements, I will post an update.

 

EDIT: Setup of the D-Link Ethernet-connected Wi-Fi is very simple:

• connect D-Link Wi-Fi adapter to Ethernet port via CAT-5
• connect D-Link power port to USB port using provided power cable included with the D-Link adapter
• configure laptop Ethernet port static IP within D-Link adapter's LAN subnet
• browse to D-Link adapter's browser-based config and scan for available Wi-Fi SSIDs
• choose a Wi-Fi SSID, select security (e.g., WPA2) and enter pass phrase

 

With this solution, I have Wi-Fi in Sonoma using only IntelMausiEthernet.kext

 

EDIT2: This particular D-Link model that I am testing (very old, but still works) is 2.4GHz only.  It has a built-in wizard (accessible via web browser) that makes scanning and selecting a Wi-Fi hotspot very easy.  This solution works very well.

 

EDIT3: As indicated by Slice, this Wi-Fi solution does not provide native support for AirDrop, AirPlay and other features that require natively working Wi-Fi. It provides a Mac with a Wi-Fi wireless data connection.

Edited October 11, 2023 by deeveedee