3 ms·
> seems like the right combination of a custom Certificate Authority added to the keychain and signing your malicious Xcode with a certificate signed by the CA
by pilif 11y ago
> seems like the right combination of a custom Certificate Authority added to the keychain and signing your malicious Xcode with a certificate signed by the CA would help
nope. Gatekeeper only accepts certificates issued by Apple. The trojan would have to patch gatekeeper itself which will be difficult once people upgrade to 10.11 and keep the System Integrity Protection enabled.
Even with all the bad feelings about Apple taking more and more control away from us, there's also a huge upside to this practice, I have to admit.
I guess as long as stuff is turnoffable in emergencies, I can live with the restrictions.
- e28eta 11y agoI think this Tech Note says otherwise. It talks about Enterprise being able to manage code signing outside of Apple, and I believe it says with admin privileges a user can mark a CA as valid for code signing. I think code signing is voodoo for most developers, and therefore believe you could fool most of them into accepting the change if an appropriately worded dialog preceded it. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/technotes/tn2206/_index.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/technotes/tn2206/_in...
- pilif 11y agoI'm not sure. The way I read this is that enterprises can disable Gatekeeper and then add a CA by which the binaries need to be signed. Gatekeeper seems to really be tied to Apple's CAs. Of course, if you're willing to download XCode from a shady source, you're also willing to disable Gatekeeper when it prevents you from launching your shady copy, so the point is moot I guess. edit: Stackoverflow seems to agree: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11833481/non-apple-issued-code-signing-certificate-can-it-work-with-mac-os-10-8-gatekeep http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11833481/non-apple-issued...